On page 404 of the Afrikaans minutes an amendment appears which I would like to move. I think it will be as well to read out the amendment so that the House can understand it. It reads as follows—

1. (c) that all the supplementary lists of voters framed after the biennial registration of voters in 1941, shall be incorporated in and combined with the supplementary list of voters to be framed as soon as possible after the last day of May, 1943; and all the provisions of the Principal Act relating to the correction and revision of supplementary lists of voters shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of such a combined supplementary list of voters.

The reason for this amendment ought to be clear. As I stated in the course of the debate on the second reading, this bill deprives the voters of South Africa of a right. The Minister proposes eliminating the biennial registration, not to let it take place. If the biennial registration had taken place, we could have objected to all the names on the voters’ roll. The whole corps of voters would have been reviewed on the occasion of the biennial registration. Now it does not happen. Now we must fall back on the biennial registration of 1941, and the voters’ roll is therefore obsolete. After that we had four interim registrations, and this one to which the bill relates would have been the fifth. Now we ask, as we are being deprived of the right to revise the voters’ roll at a biennial registration, that we be allowed to raise objections, those objections allowed by the law, in regard to the fifth and in regard to preceding interim registrations. I want to make an appeal to the Minister thus to accept this amendment. He has to admit that he is taking away an enormous right by the deletion of the biennial registration. The objection may perhaps be raised that time will elapse as a result. That argument cannot apply. Supposing that double or a few times as many objections as usual are brought before the court of revision, it will mean that the court of revision instead of sitting for one day, will perhaps have to sit for three or four days. It cannot cause a great delay. This interim registration of May can come into operation before the middle of July. A few days will not make a difference, if as is generally accented, the General Election will take place towards the middle of August. If the Minister accepts the amendment, he partially restores a right which he takes away with this bill, and I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment to restore a part of that right.

I should like to strongly support the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) with this amendment he has moved. The attitude of the Afrikaner nation as a whole is that we do not want to over-load our voters’ rolls with unqualified voters. Now the Minister can come and say that there were four interim registrations, and why did we not on those occasions object to names on the roll. But I want to bring to the notice of the Minister that it is a right which has always been given to us in the past, and we knew that every two years we had the right to object to all the names on the voters’ roll, we are of opinion that there is reason to do it. The whole voters’ roll came under revision. All parties knew that the General Election would not come before a general registration had been held again, and as a result they did not pay attention to the voters’ rolls at the interim registrations to find out who were really qualified to be on the list and who not. Considerable costs are also involved in the procedure of objecting against persons who are on the roll, and therefore, because there would be a later opportunity to object against unqualified persons, the necessary attention was not given to the matter at the interim registration. I can give the Minister the assurance that in the past things have happened at the registration which must make the Minister think twice before taking away from the public this means of objecting against persons who are registered. I do not have all the facts here with me this morning, but I know for instance that in one town 120 people were placed on the roll against whom objections were lodged, and it was found that no fewer than 117 out of the 120 were unqualified. If we have such things it proves to everyone what is going on, and I hope the Minister will realise that the law of the land is there, and that we must see to it that those people who are unqualified do not come on to the voters’ roll contrary to the law. It is the right which we have already had for all these years, and we are now busy creating a position with this law that quite a number of voters are going to remain on the roll although they are unqualified and should not be there. I want to remind the Minister that it is perhaps not going to be in his own interest. It will, perhaps, be in his interest to clear the voters’ roll of unqualified voters. I can give the Minister the assurance that, particularly in this part of the country, we have an eye to the large number of coloureds who are on the roll and who do not possess the qualification to be on the roll. The Minister can no longer take the view that he can depend 100 per cent. on their votes. A large number of Communist candidates will come forward, and it will be in the interest of the Minister’s own party to see that the lists are purged, and that only persons are on the roll who really have the qualification to be on the roll. I want particularly to make an appeal to Cape members. We heard here yesterday that in Natal they have not got this difficulty. Although the coloureds can get on the roll there, they have so manipulated it that it never happens. The Free State and Transvaal also have not this difficulty, but we here in the Cape have an enormous difficulty, because a large number of coloured voters get on the roll here. If those persons can become registered in accordance with the law of the country, we shall offer no objection if they really are qualified to come on to the roll. But what we feel is, that in the present circumstances, large numbers actually get on the roll although they ought not to become registered. There are constituencies in which 5,000 coloured people are registered, and it is extremely difficult for the party organisers or for the persons appointed to purge the rolls, to trace those people and to find out who is who. This means time, difficulties and money. This is perhaps the reason why the matter was not so sharply gone into at the last bye-election. I want to make an appeal to the Minister in the interest of the country to accept this amendment, so that the right we had in the past is not altogether taken away from us, and so that we can go through the whole voters’ roll to determine who is qualified to be on the roll and who not. It can only be to the advantage of the whole country. We all know that if a large number of unqualified persons are on a voters’ roll they can be the decisive factor at an election. We know how often it has happened in the past that a candidate was returned by a majority of one vote. If they were qualified voters who voted for him, it makes no difference. But when such a candidate is elected by persons who ought not to have the franchise then it matters greatly. I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance that he will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg.

This amendment cannot be accepted. The position under the existing law is that the Voters’ list is revised at the Supplementary Revision Court and a list of all objections is lodged with the Officer in Charge of the Revision Court. In regard to the new supplementary period provided for by Clause 2, the supplementary period of registration will end on the 31st May, 1943, and the period begins on the 1st February, 1943. The period which will then come under review at the Revision Court will be the period from 1st February 1943 to 31st May, 1943. The 1941 list was the biennial list and the four supplementary lists have, as hon. members know, already been revised.

One by one.

Yes, one by one. As each supplementary list has been published a Revision Court has sat and dealt with objections to that particular list. In other words, the position insofar as these supplementary lists are concerned is that it is a case of “res judicata”—the matter has been settled. One cannot reopen the matter. Potential objectors have had their rights. They cannot now come along and ask for the matter to be reopened.

Circumstances may have altered. These people may not have the qualifications now.

In some cases it would necessarily mean that persons would have to be removed from the list under most inequitable conditions. To submit these lists to a Court of Revision would in some cases mean the disenfranchisement of many persons who since the date of registration have taken up residence in another constituency.

If you had the biennial registration one could object.

Then persons who have moved in the interim would be called upon to register in the new constituency where they now are.

The law obliges them to do it biennially.

At a biennial but not a supplementary registration. The circumstances are different. Admittedly the postponement of the biennial registration is an event which is only justified by extraordinary circumstances. We have extraordinary circumstances in the country at present. Necessarily flowing from that postponement, certain inconveniences result, but we must expect these. It is part and parcel of the necessity for postponement, but the mere fact that certain difficulties do arrive will not, in my opinion, justify our legislating today in such a manner as virtually to disenfranchise many thousands of persons. Many thousands of persons have moved from the constituencies in which they were resident. They have not re-registered in the new constituencies in which they are. Now to provide that these past supplementary lists are to be subject to revision would mean that they would be excluded from the roll. Hon. members know that in terms of the law an applicant must have resided in a constituency three months prior to registration.

That is for supplementary, not for biennial.

That is so, but, in the case of persons who have moved, they would not be able to satisfy that qualification. There is no provision in the Electoral Act which insists on residence in a division on polling day before anyone can be allowed to vote. The only question is whether a person is registered in the division in which his vote is counted. To tamper with that at this stage would be inequitable.

I regret that the hon. Minister cannot accept the amendment. With the view to the abnormal circumstances in which we live, we can understand the proposal to postpone the biennial registration. But we must do all we can to keep the rolls pure, so that voters cannot vote in a constituency where they are not resident or are not qualified. For this reason the amendment has been moved. The intention is that only people who are qualified to vote in a fixed constituency, will be able to be on the roll. Otherwise you find afterwards by the elimination of the biennial registration a group of voters who are not qualified to vote in the constituency where they are voting. I therefore deplore the fact that the Minister cannot accept the amendment. There can be thousands of people who have lost their qualifications in the meantime, and who will still vote at coming elections, without being qualified to vote. I still believe that the Minister does not want persons to remain on the voters’ roll who do not possess the qualifications enabling them to vote. Why then does he not accept the amendment? Then only persons who are qualified will come on the roll, or will it be possible to punish persons who have lost their qualifications to vote.

I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister not theoretical arguments, but what happens in practice. This will be a better guide to the Minister than theoretical arguments. During the last interim registration, for instance, 500 coloured people were placed on the voters’ roll in my constituency and in the period between publication of the names and the date on which objections had to be lodged, the 500 names were scrutinised to see if they were really qualified. We then found that a large number were not qualified, but apart from that we also had a practical example in the Hottentots-Holland by-election in regard to coloured soldiers. Applications were received from people who cannot sign their names, viz. coloured people. They apply to vote by post and then they place a cross after their name on the application form. But a coloured man must be able to write his name to be on the voters’ roll. Objection was lodged but the Magistrate said that once a person was on the voters’ roll it made no difference whether he could write his name or not. Then he is entitled to vote. Therefore we plead for the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, (Mr. Erasmus) to be able at interim registrations to object against persons who ought not to be on the voters’ roll. The law provides that the Magistrate may fine you if you lodge a childish objection, but I have now mentioned practical examples of what happens.

I think I already have 30 years’ experience of the compilation of the rolls, and I want to ask the Minister whether he realises what he is busy doing. Personally, I am in favour of it that every man shall be registered to be able to vote as long as he is qualified to vote. But I just want to mention one case at Robertson. In one instance, 300 names were deleted against which objections had been lodged at the compilation of the new roll. In the remainder of the Union where you need only be a major to be able to vote as a European, you have not got so much difficulty, but here in the Cape where a portion of the corps of voters must have certain qualifications to be able to vote, it is a matter of great importance. The people have not always got the qualifications and if the right is therefore taken from us to object to those who are not entitled to come on the roll, the Minister is committing a serious injustice, a crime, because he allows people to remain on the rolls longer than they are entitled to be on them. I see no necessity for a change in the constitution. We are in the war alright, but we are not engaged in fighting here. The Minister cannot say that the biennial registration cannot be carried through.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause and the amendment. The principle of the Bill has already been agreed to.

I see no reason for it. And should there be a reason for eliminating the biennial registration, the rights which expired with the biennial registration, must be restored as far as possible. The Minister, however, imagines that he is going to gain something with this measure. It is a clever way of gaining political advantage, nothing else. We have always had the right at the biennial registration to object to people who are on the roll and are not entitled to be there. Now the Minister intentionally wants to leave the people on the roll contrary to the law, and it is an injustice. People who are not entitled to vote ought not to be on the voters’ roll. There must be an opportunity to raise objections and to keep the rolls pure. As I have said, in one instance at Robertson, out of 390 applicants, we got 300 deleted, because the 300 were not entitled to vote. I am in favour of anyone who is entitled to vote, having the opportunity, but on the other hand the rolls ought to be purged of those who ought not to be there. The Minister does not regard the matter seriously. He is of opinion that it will be to his advantage. I wonder, however, what the country will say of it. It is a pity that the Minister goes so far as to do this for the sake of party-advantage.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—28:

Bekker, G.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E,

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—57:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A, E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Here we now have a peculiar Clause which provides that should South Africa still be involved in the war in 1945, or even by that time is involved in another war, the Governor General can also suspend biennial registration of 1945. The Government is apparently very pessimistic now. We heard that the war would be over in 1943. The Minister of Finance spoke of 1942, the Prime Minister of 1944, now the Minister of the Interior comes and says that the war will not yet be over in 1945. In addition he is also so pessimistic as to expect that we will perhaps get involved in another war, perhaps against Russia. In view of the speedy victory that the Government first expected, I did not think that they would make provision for war conditions until 1947. That is the effect of the Clause, that we will still have a voters’ roll in 1947 which was compiled in 1941. According the will of the Government, it can be decided still to retain the obsolete rolls. People can have left a constituency years ago, but as long as they were registered in 1941, in Winburg for instance, they will still be able to vote at Winburg five of six years later, even if they left for Malmesbury in 1942. We cannot agree to that. The amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) on the previous Clause has now been rejected, and there is not the least opportunity to cleanse the lists. But the Minister must positively withdraw this article.

This is a somewhat unusual Clause.

You are telling us.

It was drafted for the purpose of taking precautions in regard to the future. It was felt that, by having this premissive Clause, if circumstances justified postponement in the future it would not be necessary to go back to Parliament to seek that sanction.

You are anticipating things.

The reference to other wars in which the Union may be engaged is not quite as unusual as the hon. member seems to imagine. The hon. member knows that since the 4th September, 1939, the Union has become involved with new enemies.

It has been nothing else but engaging itself in wars.

I agree that the list of potential belligerents is now growing rather thin, but I am inclined to believe that there is a good deal of force in my hon. friend’s argument that we should not be too pessimistic. And now that I see that the Opposition is in agreement with the Government that the war is hastening to a successful conclusion. I feel that no harm will be done by dropping the Clause, and I shall therefore agree to this Clause being dropped.

Although the Minister now abandons the clause, I would like to point out that as a result of the amendment of the Electoral Act, which has already been agreed to, in connection with soldiers’ votes, it is laid down that soldiers must be registered in the constituency where they resided at the time they joined the army. What happens now is that soldiers with their families, move to Pretoria and elsewhere. Thousands of soldiers from other parts of the country and also their wives are today in Pretoria and other places, and many of them are registered in Pretoria. What is the Minister going to do in regard to them?

The law lays down that they must be registered in their old constituency.

It does not help that the law lays it down. There are hundreds of soldiers’ wives who are now registered up there in Pretoria instead of at the place where they come from. The constituency is now being over-loaded, and by the removal of the biennial registration we cannot from the side of the Party object to names on the rolls.

I shall have an investigation made.

I would like to follow up what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has said. Soldiers and their wives who have moved to Pretoria or Bloemfontein, or wherever it may be, ought to be registered at the places where they joined up, but according to our information, a considerable number of these people have got on to the rolls at the places to which they move. There have been four or five interim registrations, and if they have got on to the rolls, we cannot object. We appeal to the Minister to take this matter seriously. Will the Minister give instructions that the persons who ought not to be there, be removed from the rolls.

The law must be carried out.

But, if in spite of the law, people have already got on to the rolls at the interim registrations, what solution is there? This morning we made a very reasonable proposal which would have given us the opportunity of objecting. The Minister has rejected it. What is he going to do now? Will he give instructions to the officials to remove the names which ought not to be there?

I will consult the officials.

Will the Minister perhaps clear up this point. Is it not a fact that when soldiers’ names are placed on the voters’ roll they are automatically registered on the roll of the constituency where they come from?

Yes, according to their address where they come from.

That is what the law says, but it is not carried out.

I am under the impression that when a soldier who comes from the Moorreesburg constituency he is automatically, on joining the army, registered for the Moorreesburg constituency. There are special forms for soldiers.

That point cannot be discussed under this clause.

It is the whole point about which we spoke.

I allowed a question to be put and a reply to be given, but this point cannot be discussed under this clause.

The position is quite clear. In terms of the 1940 Act applicants for registration have to give their home address. If a soldier fills in a registration form, he gives his full name, his rank and number, and he gives his home address, where he lived at the time he enlisted. Now in terms of the law he must then be registered in the constituency in which he was residing when he enlisted. That is the law. If, of course, applicants have not given the requisite information—it may be that certain applicants do not give the requisite information when registering as civilians, and at a subsequent stage they have enlisted in the forces—in some of these cases it may not be possible for the Electoral Officer to make the necessary adjustment.

But they are attached to the voters’ list of the place they came from.

But all the Electoral Officers have strict instructions to carry out the law. It is possible that cases such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. H. Strydom) and the hon. member for Mooreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) do occur. The same would apply, of course, to their wives and major children who may have moved from their homes, but I can assure the hon. members that the Electoral Officers have strict instructions on this point in order to ensure that the law is properly carried out and that there should be no loading of constituencies.

If they already appear on the list, will you be able to remove them?

I am afraid I cannot take the matter any further. I have given this explanation in view of the point put to me by the hon. member for Waterberg.

Clause 3 put and negatived.

On Clause 4,

As a result of the decision of the Committee to omit Clause 3, it is necessary to make a consequential amendment in Clause 4, and it is necessary to omit the following words in lines 30 and 31: “And to any supplementary list which may be framed in terms of Section 3.” I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I just want to put a question to the Minister. We will now find ourselves in the difficulty that many of the people who came on to the voters’ roll in 1941 have moved away to other places. Will the Minister now see to it that persons registered at the biennial registration are registered at the right place and that their names are automatically removed in the constituency which they have left.

It happens under the law.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I want to move the following amendment.

This proposal means that when a person applies for a voting paper to vote by post, he will not necessarily have to make use of the prescribed printed form. With the shortage of paper it can often happen that the magistrate has not got enough forms, and that new forms cannot be obtained in time. I want to propose that all the requirements of the law be observed, the signature, etc., but that a person can use any piece of paper, not necessarily the prescribed form.

I am prepared to accept the amendment. It will simplify the procedure.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

Here again it is necessary to have a consequential amendment in view of the dropping of Clause 3. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

On Clause 5,

Amendments to be considered on 31st March.

Having regard to the course which the debate took yesterday, I think it is right that I should speak. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) as to whether I would make a statement as to the principles of my Party with regard to the question of Indian penetration, I do not think that it is necessary for me to make a statement upon that subject because the principles of the Dominion Party have been printed and published, and have been public knowledge for years past, indeed from the time when the Dominion Party and the United Party came into being. It is the printed and public policy of the Dominion Party to offer opposition to further penetration of Asiatics amongst the European and native population. That is clear, categorical and quite definite. Now with regard to the application of this, with regard to the introduction of practical measures, when a dangerous position develops there, I say that we have to keep cool heads and stout hearts, bearing in mind the objects and the policy which we adhere to as being right. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say very much in disposing of an allegation that was made here yesterday that there is anything connected with disruption of the Empire or anything akin to that in this problem. I know that passions run high; I know that there are a great many private interests involved, but it would be just as well to ask one to say that the Empire and all its interests were involved in giving way on one point in one country as the giving way on a similar point in another country. Neither proposition is true. The reverse is the case, and it is indeed a very valuable asset to have the different nations of the Empire owing common allegiance to a sovereign, thereby facilitating the solution of the problem and making us remember that we are members one of another, and that there has to be an application of what each requires in his own territory and country. There is no question of the breaking up of the British Empire or a threat to the British Empire. Indeed, it is because we are members one of each other that we have hopes of a very good solution to this problem. It is not necessary for me to make a declaration further as to what the Government proposes to do. My colleague, the hon. Minister of the Interior, is in charge of this matter. Let me say quite definitely that he speaks in this matter not only for himself but he speaks for the whole of the Government of which I am a member, and that this matter has not been neglected; it has been considered and it has been considered very carefully. And we now have the report—I understand that the report is now actually in hand and may be published almost immediately—a report dealing with the facts, and I say when that report is available the Government will consider it and take what action they think is necessary upon it. I know that passions run high; I know that violent language is often used, not only in one direction but in another; that I deprecate, and I am confident that every member in this House will realise that the use of violent language has never been that which I advocate, when moderate and reasonable language will express definitely the views that one holds. I agree that this problem is a very pressing one. I agree that we have not got to be diverted from the proper and true solution, whatever that may be. We must not be diverted by any extraneous argument. I have never believed in being driven off my own line by any threat. I have never found that that course of conduct, when followed by anyone else, has led them into anything but disaster, and I am confident that by following this up we shall do what is right in the end. Now there is another matter to which I am going to refer, and that is a statement which occurred in the speech made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), and it was made at a time when I was out of the House, but was repeated afterwards in a subsequent speech. I take the strongest exception to this, and I propose to read from a shorthand note what the passage is to which I take exception. It is to this effect: “When the war did break out the Dominion Party agreed to support the Prime Minister’s Government but they only agreed upon conditions. One of the chief conditions was that they would have a standstill agreement which they felt would continue them as members of Parliament.” That statement is absolutely false in every particular, and there were opportunities for knowing its falsity. I am astonished that any member should have made that statement without having taken the trouble to see whether it is true. Let me state what the facts were. When the Cabinet divided on the subject of war, when the late Gen. Hertzog tabled his neutrality motion and the debate took place in this House with the result that everybody knows, I was not here; I was away fighting an election in the Pietermaritzburg district. As a matter of fact I was billed to address a meeting at Albert Falls on the very morning after this has been published in the newspapers. So far from making any conditions as to the circumstances under which I or the Dominion Party would support the Government which would come into being, I made a public speech on that morning and called specially the reporters of the different newspapers to be present at it and to report what I said, and I then and there pledged, without qualification, without reserve, without any communication with the Prime Minister or anyone else, my support and the support of the Dominion Party to this party which was going to come into being. I did not make conditions that if the Dominion Party did not get so and so, I would not support the Government. I say that that statement is absolutely false without a tittle of justification, and the hon. member ought to know it. Now, sir, is there any justification in the statement that I bargained for a standstill agreement? It is not true. It is quite correct that the Prime Minister and I naturally discussed matters immediately before the Cabinet was formed, and I agreed to go into it, but the proposal was made to me? it was not my proposal. It was only after I had made the speech to which I referred, that the Prime Minister over the telephone invited me to join the Cabinet, and the proposal for a standstill agreement was not based on any proposal which eminated from me. I agreed to it, and let me say this, as we are dealing with it, that I think that to have had different portions of a coalition government fighting each other would have been a disastrous position; it would have given occasion to the Opposition—I was going to say blaspheme—to rejoice and it would have been grist to their mill.

As you are rejoicing today.

I did not catch what the hon. member said or I would have been pleased to have dealt with it. [Extension of time granted.] I have said that that statement was absolutely false and without a tittle of justification. There is another statement to which I want to refer and it is this: The hon. member said that when there was a chance of the Empire being broken up, the Dominion Party officially were prepared to hold in the balance their political future against the future of the Empire. It is rather a curious statement, but I take it to mean that the Dominion Party were prepared to put the interests of the Party before the interests of the war, and to put those interests in preference to any Empire interests which might be involved. There has not been one tittle of evidence brought forward by the hon. member for Umbilo in justification of this, and let me say categorically it is absolutely false from start to finish. I wish I could end here, but unfortunately I cannot, because one naturally enquires as to what the motive must have been for making statements which were false, are false, and would have been proved to be so, if an enquiry had been made, which was at the disposal of the hon. member. I have been engaged most of my life in the law courts, where one of the problems which is constantly before us is finding the motives which actuate people in all those varieties of actions which come before a court of law for decision, and in every case the finding of a motive is found to be difficult. In most cases it is found to be obscure, but I can only say that in this case, examining this case, I don’t think the simplest jury would have the slightest difficulty in piecing the evidence together and drawing their conclusions. These allegations are made, when? In 1939? No. Just after the events to which they refer? No. They are made in 1943. At what time in 1943?

Just before an election.

At a time when a General Election is about to be launched.

Just before the Government goes out.

And I can only say that no one in this House or out of it can doubt that these statements were made recklessly, in reckless disregard of whether they were true or false, because the means of getting at the truth were in the grip of the hon. member for Umbilo, and I can only say that they were for his own purposes, and for the purpose of blackening an enemy at any risk and any cost. The hon. member for Umbilo is without the slightest tittle of excuse.

The Election struggle in Natal between the Dominion Party and the Labour Party is going to be very interesting. But I am afraid that the Minister of Mines has taken up more time from the Minister of the Interior than the Minister expected. It is a pity that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) is not here to react to the speech of the Minister of Mines, but I presume that he will do it on another occasion, and if the debate on this Vote is still in progress, the Minister of Labour will probably also say a few words. I cannot, however, let the Vote pass without returning again to the question of allowing the entry of newspapers into internment camps. I seriously want to protest against the policy the Government is following in regard to this matter. To me it seems as if it is a bit of scandal that the Government only allows newspapers which support it in internment camps. Apart from the fact that other newspapers published in our country have as much right as Government papers, and apart from the fact that the people in internment camps ought also to have the right to see what appears in the Opposition newspapers, it almost seems that what the Minister is doing is sharp practice. We have always still endeavoured to keep politics clean as far as possible in South Africa.

Hear, Hear!

Some people have not contributed much to it, but in general we have done our best. Now the Government comes along and financially assists the papers which support it by allowing them to come into the camps. This borders on sharp practice. No, this is something that can be described in still stronger language, and I want to ask the Government as a whole to pay attention to the scandal. The Government has a small majority in this House, and now it makes use of its power to grant admittance to newspapers supporting it to the internment camps, but newspapers supporting the Opposition are not allowed. The newspapers of the Opposition are published in our country, but the Minister abuses his powers by allowing only Government newspapers. Why must the Nationalist newspapers be excluded?

Anti-war newspapers.

Exactly. Of course Communistic newspapers can be allowed, because the Communists are their allies. But Nationalist newspapers may not be read by the people in the camps. They must be forced to read the “Cape Times” or “Die Suiderstem”.

I see you also read the “Cape Times” regularly?

We read both sides and therefore we know much more about the political situation than the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) who commits a blunder every time he rises. British fairplay is often spoken of in South Africa. What does the Minister call this procedure?

Be reasonable, play jukskei.

Jukskei is a game that can be played by two sides. I hope the Minister will play it. Here Government money is being used and the powers of the Government used to advance a commercial undertaking. It borders on foul play. It is no longer clean jukskei. The hon. member for Kensington is of opinion that anti-war newspapers must not be allowed. Have we already got so far in South Africa that you are afraid that the people in the camps should hear the other side of the case?

What does Germany do?

What have I now to do with that? I do not ask that Russian or German papers must be allowed. I simply ask that in South Africa. South African newspapers should be allowed and not only Government newspapers.

I would like to support the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and to inform the Minister a little about jukskei. I hope the Minister will join the Fernwood Jukskei Club. Then he will find out that it is an unusual game. One does not throw only from one side, but from two sides.

If you play dirty, you are “bust”.

Yes, and if only one side throws, then he will not last long, before he is “bust”. You must play until you have exactly 21 points, otherwise you are “bust”. Now I want to tell the Minister that it is not jukskei when he refuses to allow Opposition newspapers in the camp. I do not know where the Minister gets the moral right to do so. I assume that he wants to have a certain amount of control over the camps, but is he afraid of the people in the camps hearing both sides? Is he afraid that they should learn the truth? The Minister must either not allow any newspaper, or he must play jukskei and allow the newspapers from both sides, newspapers that are published in the country and that are read by the public. And if the Minister does not want to allow the newspapers of the Opposition, will he then allow the people in the camp to get the facts from both sides, by allowing Hansard in the camp? Will he allow Hansard to be sent there? I just want to point out that if they in the camp read Hansard, then they will also be able to read the excellent speeches of the Minister. They will then be able to read how well things are with them in the camps—something which perhaps they otherwise would not realise. They can find out how nice it is in the camps, as the Minister says. Some people would very much like to come out, because they think things are bad with them, but if they read Hansard and the Minister’s speeches, then they will see how well things are with them and how fat they are getting, then the Minister will apparently have less trouble. They will even, if they read Hansard, have the privilege of knowing what their comrades write to their wives, it will create a spirit of cameraderie. Just think, the one internee will then be able to read what the other internee has written to his wife. I want to ask the Minister to be reasonable and not to allow only the newspapers of the Government side. The late Senator Langenhoven has said: “Everything which is true does not appear in the newspapers, and everything that appears in the newspapers is not always true.” Now the Minister wants to allow the newspapers from one side only. If he does not want to depart from this, then give them Hansard to read, then they can learn the facts from both sides, and they have the time to read it. I think it is a reasonable request which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has made to the Minister.

To me the matter of Indian penetration in Durban. Pietermaritzburg, and many other towns is no matter whatever, in any degree or kind, of Party but entirely one of principle, and the principle is a matter of justice and not of race. There is no doubt in my mind at all, Sir, that this penetration is actual, increasing, and systematic, and moreover that public anxiety and indignation is very widespread. This matter, I suggest, does merit the most careful attention of the Minister, because it is manifestly wrong that any group of people, whether indians or otherwise, should use their wealth to cause direct loss and harm to other people; and that is in fact, I submit, precisely what is happening in Durban and many other places. I am particularly alarmed on behalf of the soldiers concerned. There are many hundreds who have paid all their savings on a property and are now absent, defending their country in this battle-field and the other, and I say my Party and I are seriously alarmed on their behalf and think that it is most unfair that any group of people should harm them in their absence in any way. Depreciation of the value of the homes in which they have left their wives and children is proceeding, and must stop. We do hope that the Minister will give, as we are satisfied he has given and is still giving, the most careful attention to this matter, and solely on the principle of justice, without reference to race in any way at all, we feel that action can and ought to be taken. At the same time, we are all bound to take notice of the Minister’s point that there are two sides to the question, national and international. It is very important that we should consider the possible reactions, indeed the probable reactions, of over-drastic steps to rectify what most of us consider to be a wrong, at this particular moment, in the middle course of a war for existence. I question whether the Dominion Party would have been quite so emphatic, thus possibly encouraging my hon. friend to speak unadvisably with his lips — I question whether they would have been quite so emphatic if the erring group of citizens in question had been citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. I hope I do the hon. members no wrong. We have to realise the fact that India is a portion of the Empire, and a peculiarly difficult portion at that, and I would remind the Committee that strong representations on this matter have already been sent to the Government of India from the Natal Indian Congress and the Natal Indian Association. I commend the leader of the Dominion Party on a very temperate speech. I am inclined to agree that he had a grievance; but for my own part I believe that the opinion of my Party is that there should be justice for all, that there is this grave danger and fact of Indian penetration, and that we must solve the problem at the earliest possible moment. Whether this is the moment that we can deal with it most safely, justly, and completely is the main point which, I take it, the Government has in view,

The Amendment proposed by Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. 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 Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

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.

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.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon. V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

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 Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphries.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 27.—“Interior”, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 28.—“Public Service Commission”, £29,000,

There is one matter which I want to raise in connection with this Vote and that is the Civil Service examination which is held every year under the auspices of the Public Service Commission. To my surprise I found out recently that the requirements as regards nationality are put in such a way by the Public Service Commission for this Civil Service examination that the candidate must certify that he is a British subject, nothing more and nothing less. I have put a question to the Minister about this and his reply was that it is done according to Act No. 27 of 1923. That is the old Civil Service and Pensions Act. I now want to give the Minister an opportunity to give us a better explanation. He must not come and shield behind the old Act of 1923. One would say that since that time no Status Act has been passed, that since 1923 we have made no progress, and that we have not become a sovereign independent country. The Minister forgets that we have become an entity; that we are an independent country with our own nationhood. Now he comes in the year 1943 and shields behind an old Act of the year 1923, and the young Afrikaner who wants to enter for the Civil Service examination finds that it is one of the requisites that he must be a British subject. I hope that the Minister will take into consideration the development there has been since that year.

The hon. member is now advocating legislation and he may not do so in Committee of Supply.

It is not necessary to pass legislation to make a change. The Public Service Commission can simply alter the form, and there is nothing in the Act to prevent the Public Service Commission from issuing a form on which the candidate must declare that he is a Union National. Since 1923 legislation has been passed in which the alternative is given for a British subject, i.e. that the term “Union National” can also be used. I am therefore not advocating new legislation, but only an alteration in the form. This form, as it is issued now, does not take into account the development there has been in South Africa. But the Minister shields behind the Act of 1923 and he comes here with a monstrosity and he compels a young Afrikaner to say that he is a British subject before he can write the examination. If he wants to write the examination, then he must indicate that he has the nationality of another State. In America or in France, if a person wants to go in for an examination, then he is not expected to declare that he is a British subject. If this happened in the United States, then they would simply laugh about it. Here in South Africa, however, the Minister tries something of this kind. The Public Service Commission and the Minister of the Interior must get away from the Crown Colony complex. We are now in the year 1943 and not in the year 1923.

The same circumstances existed in 1930.

The Minister has no doubt heard of the passing of the Statute of Westminster.

That was in 1926.

It was followed by our Status Act in 1934, if the Minister’s memory is not playing him false. The conference was in 1926, thereafter came the Status of Westminster, and then the Status Act. The Minister must not try to shelter behind dry wood. The fact is that South Africa has become sovereign independent and now the young Afrikaner is expected to declare that he is a British subject, that he is a subject of another State, if here in South Africa he wants to write an examination for our Civil Service. This cannot happen in any self-respecting country in the world, and I do not know why it should happen in South Africa. No legislation is necessary to make this alteration. If the Minister brings the matter to the attention of the Public Service Commission, the forms can be corrected. There is nothing to prevent him from doing so. Why the Minister wants to shield behind the Act is this: If he retains the words “British Subject” then it means that a young Englishman who comes here from Timbuctoo can immediately enter for the examination, or otherwise he must wait for two years. That is the reason why the Minister does not want to make the alteration. The whole position is that the Minister is shielding behind the Act, because he does not intend to ask the Public Service Commission to make the change. He wants to keep the position so that a young Englishman who comes to our country, because he is a British subject, can enter for the Civil Service examination tomorrow and can compete with the sons and daughters of South Africa. This is a monstrosity in itself. I say again that there is no legislation necessary, and the Minister need only request the Public Service Commission to insert “Union National” instead of “British Subject”. Then the British subject who arrives here today will be excluded tomorrow. He will first have to wait two years.

You are now advocating legislation.

No, I am not doing that. After the passing of the Status Act no legislation is required in this respect. It is simply a form which is drawn up by the Public Service Commission. In that form they make the condition that the candidate must be a British subject. I do not want to advocate legislation, because I may not do so here, and therefore I will ask the Minister a question. If the Minister thinks that legislation is necessary, does he intend to introduce that legislation, or is he going to let the position remain as it is? That is the least that he owes this House, that he should tell us immediately whether he intends to amend the Act and to bring it into line with the Status Act and the position of our country.

I would like to know from the Minister of the Interior whether he will make a statement to the House about the position of the Public Service Commission. What I want to know from him is: What are the functions of the Public Service Commission; and in the second place, what are the powers of the Public Service Commission? We have often had it here, when the votes of Ministers are dealt with, and certain matters are raised, then they reply to us that this or that is laid down by the Public Service Commission and we simply cannot alter it, because it is laid down by the Public Service Commission. It appears to me that here we have reached the climax of bureaucracy. All kinds of grievances can be caused in the country; the civil servants can be dissatisfied and make people dissatisfied by the application of the regulations of the Public Service Commission, and the Government simply comes and says that it is the Public Service Commission. If there is one matter that deserves the attention of the Government, then it is the powers of the Public Service Commission as they are applied to the Civil Service in South Africa. We have often raised questions here in connection with the salaries that are paid and year after year we must hear that it is the responsibility of the Public Service Commission. People who are treated quite inconsistently as regards salaries and wages, and since 1933 we have had to hear every year that it is the Public Service Commission that is responsible. The Public Service Commission has become a bureaucracy; with the powers that it has it has almost become a perfect bureaucracy. I say that even the Cabinet is induced and I would be very glad if the Minister would explain to this House what the powers of the Public Service Commission are and whether it is within the power of the Cabinet to say that the rules and regulations of the Public Service Commission can be thrown out and changed. The time has come when we should let our voices be heard. I must tell you immediately that it is not clear to me how a large section of the Civil Service can keep out of trouble with the salaries and wages they draw—it is beyond my comprehension. It is no use our making pleas here for increases in salaries to the Ministers of the Departments concerned. Their reply is simply that the Public Service Commission has laid it down. That is the reply which members of the Cabinet give us, and I want to ask whether the time has not come when we should make a change, because we must give account to the public and the public objects to this sort of thing. The Public Service Commission do just what they please. They are a bureaucracy in the perfect sense of the word, and we can press for a change in the conditions, but we get no further. Therefore I hope that the Minister will say clearly what their functions are and what their powers are, and whether the Government in the future simply intends to abide by the regulations and instructions of the Public Service Commission. There is rightly a feeling of injustice in the Civil Service among a large section of the officials in connection with salaries and wages, and I want to ask here today that the Government should restrict the powers of the Public Service Commission. If it is possible—and if I can have my way, then I will do so—the Public Service Commission must be removed altogether, because I am afraid, and I think that I will be supported by the greater majority of the members when I say that the powers of the Public Service Commission are too far-reaching. I cannot say that they abuse their powers, but their powers have gone so far that they have gone beyond what we here as a democratic Government think the position of the Public Service Commission should be. We cannot while we call ourselves a democratic people and a democratic Government have such an institution which can apply its rules and regulations and not be responsible to the House of Assembly, that it can do things which the House of Assembly and the Cabinet cannot alter. The position is becoming still worse. I have read in one of the newspapers that the Public Service Commission can tell a Cabinet Minister that Mr. A. or Mr. B. must hold a certain position, and the Minister has not the right to appoint his own people. No, that is too far-reaching. It is not democratic and it is absolutely unhealthy. In conclusion I say again that the Public Service Commission has reached the climax of bureaucracy in South Africa and the time has come when the Government which is responsible to the people should have the right to appoint whom it pleases and that everything should not be subject to the regulations of the Public Service Commission.

I want to say a word to the Minister about cost of living allowances. I raised this matter under the Treasury Vote in the belief that I could do so under that Vote. The hon. Minister of Finance said, however, that it was a matter for the Minister of the Interior since it depended on the decision by the Public Service Commission; so I wish to raise the matter with the Minister himself now, although the Minister of Finance did kindly state that he would convey to the hon. the Minister of the Interior the points I raised in this regard. I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister to revise the cost of living allowance scheme as it stands at present, with a view to taking out the colour bar that at present operates in it.

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

My request to the Minister is for the removal of the colour discrimination in the cost of living allowance as it now operates. As I pointed out before, the colour discrimination operates only in respect of the most lowly paid group of Government employees, that is those who earn £100 a year or less. In this group the Europeans receive the full percentage increase in the cost of living. The non-Europeans, however who are divided into two groups, get only a proportion of the percentage rise in the cost of living. They are divided into the group which earns up to £60 per year, in which case they receive three-eighths of the percentage rise in the cost of living, and the group which earns between £60 and £100 which gets three-quarters of the percentage rise in the cost of living. These proportions of the percentage rise in the cost of living do in a considerable number of cases amount to less than the workers would receive if they were given the percentage rise on their actual earnings. For instance, at present when the cost of living allowance paid to those earning £100 is £18, the non-European earning up to £60 gets £6 15s. Whereas if they were paid a percentage rise on their actual earnings they would be receiving £9. I have always felt that the instinct which induced the Public Service Commission to give the full percentage rise increase to those who were earning as little as £100 was very sound. I have also always felt that the instinct which made them discriminate between one racial group and another was thoroughly unsound. That anyone earning less than £100 per year and having to keep a family is going to be seriously affected by any rise, by an increase, in the cost of food and clothing, is self-evident, and I have therefore always felt that the full difference should be made up to these people. I made representations accordingly to the Secretary of the Treasury and I was supported in these representations by the Secretary for Native Affairs. The result of my representations was the receipt of a document by me from the Public Service Cost of Living Committee setting out the principles on which the Commission had operated in framing the scheme as it is now in force. The principles, so far as I can discover them—and I call them that for want of a better name—the principles on which the Committee operated were that those non-Europeans who were living on incomes of £100 per year and more, might be assumed to be living on a more or less European level. They might be deemed to be observing more or less the same standard of living as Europeans earning the same pay, which was the justification for not incorporating the coloured discrimination in the cost of living scheme for those earning more than £100. For those earning less than £100, the Committee decided to differentiate between those earning up to £60 and those earning between £60 and £100 apparently simply because the bulk of the Government’s employees did not earn more than £60. The Committee found that the £60 limit covers the bulk of the Government’s employees; indeed they went on to say that although they took this figure as the limit of the first group, very few members of the group earned more than £50. They make the further surprising statement—not so surprising—that on the whole they did not know how to deal with the non-European position because they did not know how the non-Europeans live. That is very clear from this document. The people who drafted this document obviously had not the remotest idea of how the poor live, let alone the non-European poor. They had to admit that the non-Europeans were affected by the increased cost of commodities. That was the concession. They therefore felt that something should be done, but they didn’t know what to do, so they decided on this, in my opinion, somewhat arbitrary method of treating those earning up to £100 and more as Europeans and those earning under £100 in a different way. It is quite clear that those who drafted this plan are not familiar with conditions of non-European life. Obviously they do not realise that in the group earning less than £100 per year is to be found the large majority of native teachers who, if any group in the country tries to maintain a civilised standard of living, is that group. Yet here they are in this position that they are differentiated against as a group not maintaining a civilised standard of life. The Committee goes further and admit that if they give to these lower income groups even the full percentage rise in the cost of living based on their earnings, many of them would get more than they are getting under this scheme which simply gives them a proportion of what the Europeans get, but they do not consider that a serious hardship. They seem to think that an increase of £1 per year in the cost of living allowance is not at all important to the man earning less than £50 per year. I hope they may never have a closer experience of what it means to have to look after a family on these low rates of income. [Time limit.]

I want to say a few words about the cost of living allowances and I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Finance as well as the hon. Minister of Labour are in their places. I have on a previous occasion drawn the attention of the Minister of Finance to the cost of living allowances. I think that by this time we know how those cost of living allowances are arrived at. They draw up a sort of budget for a family based on the cost of living in 1938, and then they take the cost of living in the nine most important cities in the countries at the present time, and then they decide what the allowances must be. The hon. the Minister of Finance has been good enough to give me a pamphlet which shows how the cost of living allowances are fixed. All I can say, now that I have read the pamphlet, is that it is an extremely difficult question for the Public Service Commission to fix the cost of living allowances. We understand now that the cost of living has risen by 22 per cent., according to their calculation. I do not believe that anyone in this House will agree that the cost of living has risen by only 22 per cent. If you ask a man today whether he can do as much with five pounds as he could previously do with four pounds, he will immediately say that it is a matter of impossibility. The cost of living has risen tremendously more than that. I say that it is difficult for the Public Service Commission to determine it. I see here for example that they classify a home budget on the following basis: Food, 35 per cent., fuel, light and taxation, 30 per cent., and other miscellaneous items 35 per cent. It is fixed in this way. I do not want to go into it this afternoon. All I can say is this, that it appears to me to be out of the question that the cost of living has risen by only 22 per cent. I cannot understand how the Public Service Commission has come to this conclusion. The reason why I have risen this afternoon is this, that I do not believe that it has risen by so little. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior whether the cost of living allowances cannot be fixed on a more satisfactory basis. I notice that the full allowance is paid in the case of a married family where the salary of the man is £200 a year. An unmarried person gets half of this. In the first place I cannot understand why an unmarried man must get only half of the cost of living allowance. His cost of living has risen comparatively just as much. It is not his fault that the Government has gone into the war. Where the allowance in the case of a married person on £200 a year is paid out fully, there it appears to be fair. But I want to draw a special point to the attention of the Minister.

I am listening.

I did not say that you were not listening. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience.

I am listening. I am consulting my colleague about this matter.

What I want to ask is this. There are many people today with large families and who receive a meagre wage. I have on a previous occasion referred here to a civil servant with a wife and six children who receives a pension of £6 or £8 a month. I know of people in the municipal services who receive 6s. a day. There are many people who get about £8 a month. Many of these people have six children. Supposing that a labourer has six children and that his income is £8 a month, and supposing that he pays a very low house rent, viz. £2 a month.

What labourers are they?

It does not matter where the man works. Take those who draw a pension. Or take the unfit who are employed by municipalities.

That has nothing to do with the Civil Service.

The Vote concerns the Civil Service only.

It is the Public Service Commission that fixes the cost of living allowance for any civil servant, for any worker.

Of the Civil Service.

There are people in the Department of Irrigation who receive 4s. a day. There are people on the Railways who receive 4s. a day.

This Vote has nothing to do with the Railways.

But I was giving this example to the Minister: There are people who earn £8 a month and there are many who receive less. If you take that man’s house rent at £2 a month, then it means that he and his family i.e. eight persons, must live on £6 a month. In other words, one person must be fed and clothed on 6d. a day.

What Civil Servants are they?

The hon. Minister knows just as well as I do that there are many workers who earn only £8 a month. It appears to me that he now wants to look upon this matter lightly and that he wants to make a joke of it. I want to tell him that he need not make a joke of it. If the Minister wants to make a joke of the miserable position in which the people are, then it certainly is not to his honour.

But what workers do you mean?

It does not matter. Take the Police; take the Railway official. There are many of them who receive a pension of £6 or £8 a month. There are the irrigation workers who work for 4s. a day. There are people who work in the Department of Public Works for 4s. a day. Then there are the erosion workers. Why does the Minister now want to make fun of it? I said that if you have a family of six children and you earn £8 a month and you must pay £2 a month house rent, then it means that you must feed and clothe your children on 6d. a day. The Government promises the people all day that they are fighting for a new world, that they are fighting for better conditions. But can you feed and clothe a person on 6d. a day? Therefore I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible for the Public Service Commission to fix the cost of living allowances for example up to a salary of £200 a year on such a basis that it will be calculated per child. Can it not be so fixed that where a man earns less than £200, he will be paid so much in respect of each child that is dependent on him. Now I want to say this to the Minister who treats this question so lightly. He laughs at people who are having such a difficult time.

The Minister did not laugh about that.

You are quite wrong; you are talking nonsense now.

I want to tell the Minister that people of his own party come and plead with me to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister. They have asked me whether the allowance cannot be granted per child. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very interested and I think the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) was in the functions and powers of the Public Service Commission. I am very well aware that under Article 142 of the South Africa Act, such a Commission has to be appointed, but my feelings personally are, and I think those of my party coincide, that those powers are unduly large, and might with advantage to the State be diminished. In the official Year Book some idea of their powers is given on page 66. (1) To make recommendations as to appointments and promotions; (2) To keep a record of persons employed in the administrative, clerical and professional divisions, and in prescribed posts in the general division; (3) to make recommendations as to the grading and classification or regrading and conversion of posts in the administrative, clerical, professional and general divisions.

Order. Is the hon. member discussing the provisions of the Public Service Commission Act?

Well, sir, I was illustrating their very wide powers. I hope I am in order in doing that. I wanted to prove that they had very wide powers, and my kindred point is that those powers are too wide.

If the hon. member wishes that altered it means legislation, and that cannot be discussed in Committee.

I see, sir. Will you allow me to make this observation, that possibly without legislation and with a little bit of merciful concession on their part, the heads of departments might be given a little more power in their own households, as it were. It does seem to me that the man who knows most about the management, for example, of such a department as the Posts and Telegraphs is the Minister himself, and I well remember on many occasions drawing attention to the very poorly-paid postmen, the 1933 postmen in particular I mentioned as in need of redress, and being retorted by the Minister that he had no power to make any such amendation because he was not allowed to do so by the Public Service Commission. My submission is that if there is no other means of protest, they should be more considerate in this respect, and allow the Minister to spin his own top to some extent. I think, sir, in this body we have three uncrowned kings of South Africa who have an enormous power. I do not know whether they should have been given it, but they were and they used it, I would not say without discretion but without the discretion of the heads of departments having sufficient consideration. That is how it appears to us, and we see danger in that respect and the beginning of totalitarianism. Whatever grumbles we have with regard to any department, we feel that we should be able to go to the Minister, and having satisfied him we should have made definite progress towards our ends.

Mr. Chairman, I have not much to add to what I have already said, but I do want to impress upon the Minister the point I have mentioned, that is that the present scheme under which cost of living allowances are paid to non-Europeans and natives become progressively more unbalanced as the cost of living rises. I feel that this is ample reason for asking for a revision of the scheme, particularly in the case of native employees. At the time when the scheme was drawn up, the rise in the cost of living was some 8 per cent. and the amount by which the non-European in the lowest income group suffered from the differentiation against him was comparatively small though not unimportant to him. Today when the cost of living has risen some 20 per cent. his loss is considerably greater. I have another criticism against the scheme as it stands and that is the principle of making a rise on the allowance payable wait upon an average 20 per cent. rise over three months. There may be some justification for applying that principle to the upper levels of the Civil Service on the principle that they should contribute something to the cost and pressure of war; but there can be no justification for applying it to the lowest levels for whom any rise in the cost of living must involve a serious impairment of efficiency. I feel therefore that that aspect of the scheme should also be revised. I would suggest as the basis of revision that the principle be maintained of paying to people who earn up to £100 a year the whole rise in the cost of living but that it be applied regardless of colour. The only other reasonable proposition is that, where the principle of proportionate rates is applied to non-Europeans, the proportion be the basic minimum to be paid to anyone and that those who could benefit by payment of the percentage rise on their earnings should do so. It is, I think, common cause in this House that the bulk of the Government’s unskilled employees live well below a civilsed standard of living as a result of the wages paid to them. Here is a small chance of offering to adjust the balance somewhat and the Government ought to take it. The ramifications of this matter make it very important. This scheme affects the whole army as well as the Civil Service, and it is at the present time placing native soldiers in an extremely disadvantageous situation as against other ranks of the army. At the present time, the native soldiers are paid the lamentably low family allowance of £2 5s. a month, and these unfortunate people are getting 4d. a day cost of living allowances as against the 9d. a day paid to the coloured soldiers who are being paid at rates which do bear some resemblance to their cost of living. I hope sincerely that the Minister will take this matter seriously and change the policy in this regard, whatever the opinions of the Public Service Commission may be in the matter.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the following case in respect of the allowance for cost of living. I have already spoken to the Minister of Finance about the matter, but I think that it falls under this vote. It is in connection with the people in the Free State who are in the service of the National Roads Board. People who receive 12s. 6d. and less a day receive an allowance of £2 5s. a month if they are married. The unmarried receive an allowance of 15s. a month. But the people who receive 13s. per day and more are on another scale. There the married man gets an allowance of £3 15s. a month, and the unmarried man an allowance of £1 a month. The point is this, and I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to this, that the cost of living increases equally for all. Bread, meat and all the necessities of life have not increased less for one section than for another. Those who receive the higher wage are in still a more favourable position, and we find that if they receive 12s. 6d. and less, then the allowance for cost of living is £2 5s. in the case of married men and 15s. in the case of unmarried men, but those who receive 13s. and more receive an allowance of £3 15s. a month. There is a considerable difference. The people who receive less are already in a more unfavourable position, and the cost of living has surely risen to the same extent for them. There is a considerable difference and I would be glad if the Minister would explain his attitude in connection with this matter.

You say that it is 12s. 6d. a week?

No, it must be per day. I have mentioned the figures to the Minister and I say that the difference is considerable. There is a difference of £1 10s. in the case of married men. The people who are already receiving a higher wage receive so much more in allowance. It appears to me that the allowance should be uniform, because the cost of living has risen uniformly for all, and I would be glad if the Minister would explain his attitude.

The position in regard to the cost of living figures is that these figures are worked out by the experts of the Census Department, who know their job and who act along scientific lines. It is not the function of the Minister or his department to interfere with the way in which these figures are worked out. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has suggested that the basis of computation is incorrect. Well, the basis adopted by the Census Department has the approval of the Statistical Council, and I think that experience has shown that it has proved to be a wise basis in practice. So far as the cost of living allowance to the railway service and the public service is concerned, that is worked out by two committees respectively representing the Public Service and the Railway Administration. There is a Public Service Cost of Living Committee and a Railway Service Cost of Living Committee, and it is always sought to secure the greatest measure of unanimity between the recommendations of these two bodies affecting the Public Service and the Railway Administration. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg, sir, has suggested that the basis on which the cost of living allowance is made to the lower paid public servants is wrong, unfair and inequitable. He has talked about public service employees receiving less than 4s. per day, 4s. or less per day. Well, I know of no European Government employee in receipt of as little as 4s. a day. I do not know of such cases, but in any event the lowest paid employees in the public service receive the full cost of living allowance. If there were to be a variation, as suggested by the hon. member in order to allow a computation on a children basis, then it would mean that the man with a family of six or eight children would get the full cost of living allowance, and the man with only three or four children would not do so, and he would be worse off than he is at the present time. I suggest that the present system is one which has been very carefully worked out by responsible people, and has stood the test of experience. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has somewhat ambitiously asked me to give him an account of the functions of the Public Service Commission. The hon. member for Durban, North (Rev. Miles-Cadman) is not quite so enquiring, but he rather suggested that the Public Service Commission was equipped with dictatorial powers. Well, sir, the scope and functions of that Commission are laid down by the Public Services Act of 1923, and I would refer my hon. fried, the member for Krugersdorp, to the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Act. But let me assure him at once that the Public Service Commission, while it has very wide powers and a very wide jurisdiction, is by no means a dectatorial body. It has not the power, and I am sure it has not the wish to have the power of dictating to this Cabinet or any other Cabinet. The Commission carries out its duties under the Act, it makes recommendations from time to time, but the members of the Cabinet are not necessarily bound to accept those recommendations. If the hon. member will refer to the Report which I tabled this week, the 31st annual Report of the Public Commission, he will, if he refers to Section 16 of that Report, find an instance where a Minister was not prepared to accept the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and he did not give effect to it. That could hardly take place in a totalitarian State, and under a system in which the Public Service Commission had dictatorial powers. The hon. member for Durban, North, has suggested that individual Ministers should not accept salary scales as laid down by the Commission, but should proceed to lay down their own salary scales.

If they are too low.

The main object in having a body such as the Commission to lay down salary scales, is to secure the necessary uniformity in such scales. There would be chaos if the Ministerial heads of Departments were to proceed to lay down scales in their own Departments. Imagine the uncertainty, the embarrassment and the indignation amongst public servants in other Departments, if a second-grade clerk in the Department of the Interior, for instance, suddenly found himself put up to £1,000 a year, and a similar official in another Department was enjoying the present scale! There would be tremendous competition between Ministers who are not in a position to view the situation in the way the Public Service Commission is. The Government, of course, is responsible ultimately for the laying down of salary scales—it cannot divest itself of that responsibility. The Government cannot shelter itself behind the Commission. The Minister would not lightly set aside the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. It is only in exceptional cases that that would be done, because the members of the Commission are themselves public servants of wide experience, who have been through the mill, who know the public service from every angle, and have been in intimate contact with representatives of the service through their organisations, and they are the best people to view the position as a whole, and to make recommendations accordingly. I venture to think we would have a very unhappy state of affairs in our public service if we were to do away with our present system, and allow the Ministers to run riot.

[Inaudible].

Salary scales are covered by Section 13 of Act 27 of 1923, which provides that the scales be those recommended by the Commission, unless the Governor-General-in-Council especially prescribes other scales. As hon. members know, the Governor-General acts on the advice of his Ministers, in other words no Government can divest itself of its responsibility in this matter. That is the legal position, and that is the position in fact. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has referred to the cost of living figures in relation to native employees. The hon. member raised this matter at an earlier stage of the discussion on the Estimates on the Vote of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. Her representations on that occassion have been taken note of by the Public Service Commission, and have now been referred to the Chairman of the Public Service Cost of Living Committee. He has been asked to go into those representations, and, in due course, the Public Service Commission will have to advise the Government in regard to them. I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to be good enough to allow the Commission an opportunity of examining the position. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has raised the question of cost of living allowances to employees of the National Road Board. Those employees are provincial servants, and, as I understand the position, the Provincial Administration pays cost of living allowances as laid down by the Public Service Commission. However, I shall be quite prepared to have the figures which the hon. member has quoted examined, if he will be good enough to give them to me, and any other further information he may wish to give, and I will refer the matter to the Public Service Commission. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has referred to the necessity for applicants for admission to the Public Service being British subjects. That requirement is laid down in the Public Service Act of 1923. Any applicant for the Public Service must be a British subject, and the same clause goes on to provide that he must have resided in South Africa for at least three years. As hon. members know, a British subject who has resided in the Union for two years becomes a Union national. If the law were to be changed to provide that applicants must be Union nationals, then it might well be that persons who had become Union nationals after only two years residence, would be entitled to join the Service right away. It seems to me that the present provisions of the Act constitute sufficient protection for Union nationals born in this country. There is no danger whatever of persons coming in from outside and filling posts which might legitimately be occupied by South Africans. The position of South African born Union nationals is adequately safeguarded by the Act. There have, of course, been opportunities in the past of altering the Act, but successive governments have not felt it necessary to do so, and the hon. member can hardly suggest that at this stage the Act should be altered.

In view of what the hon. Minister has said, I think it is right to make it clear that I have no objection whatever to uniformity in the rate of pay throughout the Departments unless they are uniformly too low, which appears to be the case among the bottom grades of very many of the employees of the Government itself, Europeans as well as non-Europeans. The Minister says he knows of no instances where 3s. 6d. a day is paid in any branch of the Service. Well, in his own Vote there are certain European messengers whose commencing salary is £60 per annum, which is £5 a month or 3s. 4d. per day for a 30 day month. So, I would refer the Minister, with great respect, to his own Vote.

Those are boys.

Then there is no such direct connection as I supposed, and I take back that part of what I said. With reference to this uniformity, I may be wrong again, but looking through the Votes concerning several Departments, there seems to be a considerable disparity, except perhaps on the very top grades. As regards these senior posts I certainly admit that there is considerable agreement in the provision of generous salaries, salaries which in their weaker moments members of Parliament might regard with envy.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 29.—“Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feebleminded”, £866,000,

I should like to ask the Minister whether anything further has been done to meet the needs of non-European feebleminded. Last Session I spoke to the Minister, and asked him whether he could make temporary provision for them in the new hospital, explaining at the time that we did not think that was adequate, especially for children for whom some special arrangement should be made. The hon. Minister knows that the position is really very bad at the moment, because they have to make use of the asylum for these people; it is bad, especially for the children. I should like to know whether any advance has taken place in the position since then.

I would like to know from the Minister whether provision has been made for the feebleminded who cannot be admitted to the hospitals. I think that there has been difficulty in providing accommodation for all and we would like to know what progress is being made with the building of new places of which we have no report. Then I would like to know whether the Minister can give us any indication whether the situation is becoming better in the country in general or whether it is becoming worse. We have received no report. If this service had fallen under Public Health then we would perhaps have received a report on the matter. It is very important however to know whether it is improving or getting worse. The number of patients is 15,970 for whom provision is made. We would like to know what the position is and whether all can now be provided for.

I would like to know from the Minister what the position is in connection with Valkenberg. Last year a land transaction was put through between the City Council of Cape Town and the Government. Valkenberg was sold to the City Council and near Bellville Sticklands Farm was bought for £8,000 or £9,000, with the purpose of building an institution there. At that time when the negotiations took place, I and other members of the Select Committee went to Valkenberg. We were shown round by the head of the institution, and he showed us how inadequate the building was. We gained the impression that Valkenberg was too small and did not have sufficient facilities for the patients. At that time it appeared to be a very urgent matter and the Government intended to build a new institution at Stickland as soon as possible and to make provision there for more patients. There is nothing on the Budget in connection with this matter and I would like to know how far the Department has progressed in this matter and whether they will continue with it as soon as possible. Many of the buildings at Valkenberg are dilapidated. Some of the patients are being nursed in circumstances that are entirely inadequate. The stoep is very small. Some of them must sleep outside, and when winter comes, then those people are not properly accommodated. I would like to know from the Minister how far he has progressed in this matter.

I also just want to put a question to the Minister. He will agree with me that the nursing in hospitals of the feebleminded is very difficult work for which much patience is required. I want to ask him whether he knows that there is a continual shortage of male and female nurses in the hospitals for feebleminded. I want to ask him if it is not perhaps due to the fact that the age for retirement is so low that even young people do not regard it worth while to go in for the work. The Minister must consider changing the age. Then also the salaries are particularly low. If we go to a hospital, then we see, as the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has said, under what difficult conditions these people must do the work, and I think the Minister will admit that the salaries should be increased. Then you will also receive more applications from people who want to do this work. I hope that the Minister will give a satisfactory answer in this respect and meet these people.

I cannot understand the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) not being able to follow the position from time to time, because as he knows the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene publishes a report annually.

We have not had one this year.

No, but it will be made available in due course—I do not say it will be printed but it will be made available. The position has undoubtedly been a disappointing one for a number of years. Progress has been made in various directions but there is no doubt that there is a shortage of accommodation in mental hospitals, both for Europeans and non-Europeans. The Commissioner for Mental Hygiene recently estimated the accommodation shortage as 400 for Europeans and approximately 2,300 for non-Europeans. The position in regard to non-Europeans, in regard to natives, will be eased very considerably as a result of the opening of the Mental Hospital at Krugersdorp. The superintendent physician, Dr. Toomey, who has been appointed to Krugersdorp, assumed duty on the 1st March last year. No patients have as yet been admitted there, but four wards to accommodate 500 native patients have already been completed. The plans at Krugersdorp have been based on the Queenstown model. There, as hon. members may recollect, the planning was so arranged that a comprehensive hospital can be completed stage by stage. It is not finally completed and there is still room for further blocks. At Krugersdorp we have now built accommodation for 500 patients. It is intended to have accommodation there for 400 European males, and 400 European females—800 Europeans in all; for 500 native males and 300 native females —800 natives in all, and 100 admission of hospital cases, making a total of 1,700. In due course we hope to have that accommodation. It is estimated that the total number of mentally deranged and defective persons at the end of December, 1942, was 16,358, of whom 7,448 were European, and 8,940 of other races. There were actually in Mental Hospitals and Hospitals for feebleminded at that date 13,356. There is no evidence that the incidence of mental disease is increasing, but the fact that there are additional admissions to mental hospitals is more an indication that the persons concerned, or the relatives, appreciate the value of treatment in a mental hospital. There is nothing to suggest that mental disability or mental disorders are on the increase in South Africa. There is, of course, a shortage of nurses at present. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has referred to that, but that is due to war conditions. There is a shortage of nurses in our ordinary general hospitals, there is a shortage of nurses in our tuberculosis hospitals, but that is due to the fact that many of these young women, who normally would go into the Civilian Nursing Service, have joined the army. Many of those who were in Civilian Service at the outbreak of war have preferred to go into the army units and there is undoubtedly an acute shortage of nurses in the Union at present. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has asked about the position in Cape Town. The Government has entered into an agreement with the City Council of Cape Town under which the land on which the Valkenberg Mental Institution is situated has been sold to the City Council, but the transfer will not take place until the Government has built accommodation elsewhere, and is able to transfer the present inmates to the new buildings.

Have you bought the land yet?

Yes, land has been bought at Stickland and plans are being prepared for the building of two mental hospitals, one for Europeans and one for non-Europeans, to accommodate 7.500 each. Hon. members will realise that, for the present, building restrictions have made it virtually impossible to obtain priority for these buildings, but the Department is proceeding with its plans, just as it is proceeding with working out the plans for institutions for non-European feebleminded. The hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) is perfectly correct in what she says—there is no institution at present which can accommodate non-European feebleminded. It is a position which cannot be allowed to continue but at present we cannot do anything about it. We are completely frustrated because of building restrictions and other circumstances. Building priority demands that other needs should be attended to first.

That’s all wrong.

But as part and parcel of the Government’s plans for post-war reconstruction the Department of the Interior is going into a scheme for buildings for the feebleminded. The Prime Minister has directed that every Department of State should prepare its plans for post-war expansion, and this is part of that plan, and I can assure the hon. member for Parktown that the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene and the Department of Public Health have this matter in hand.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 30.—“Printing and Stationery”, £500,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 31. — “Public Health”, £1,114,000,

I wish to avail myself of the privilege of speaking for half an hour. We are fortunate, so far as the Public Health Department is concerned, in still getting a report. True, it is a curtailed and summarised report, but none the less it gives us a good deal of interesting and valuable information. As I wish to discuss the Government’s policy I wish to mention a few points in the report. The first is that we can congratulate ourselves on the decrease in the death rate among children below the age of one year. Over the past twenty-two years it has dropped from 77 per 1,000 to 51 per 1,000. On the other hand, we cannot congratulate ourselves on the decrease in the mortality rate of all children, because so far as the coloured children are concerned, and so far as the natives are concerned, we do not know exactly what the position is. We have not got the figures, but we know that in several areas of the country the mortality figures among coloured and native children are thoroughly alarming. The mortality figure is still tremendously high and we are continually being told that it is becoming very serious in some areas, and in certain conditions, and that something has to be done in order to combat it. We also find that there is a very satisfactory improvement in the death rate among mothers at child birth. The mother mortality figure has shown a considerable change over the past twenty-two years. I don’t want to say that there has been a decrease because it has not been a decrease which has taken place at a steady rate. But it is a fact that in the past five years the mother mortality rate has on an average decreased by 2 per 1,000 in comparison with the past twenty-two years. If we take the years from 1921 to 1926, and if we take the period from 1937 to 1942, there is a clear indication that there is a drop in the death rate of mothers at child birth. We can regard this as satisfactory so far as the white population is concerned. We do not know what the position is in respect of the coloured population. In regard to the natives we are also in the dark. As a result of the conditions of life and the large numbers we have to deal with the position is that at the moment we have not got the figures at our disposal. But there should be a better method devised for the obtaining of the statistics, so that we may be able to know what is happening in the country. Whereas the mother rate in regard to the European has improved, we are unable to say that that is also the case so far as the coloured population is concerned; we have not got the figures, but although we haven’t got the figures we have the impression that those figures are not very satisfactory. We believe that by the extension of the necessary nursing services we should be able to effect improvements in that respect. There is an increase in the death rate from cancer. It is an alarming figure. While in 1921 the death rate was 69 per 100,000 of the population, that figure now is 109. It may sound very alarming. I am not concerned about it, because improved diagnosis will result in giving us more accurate figures.

And in addition to that people also live longer.

Yes, we also have to face the fact that people do live longer. I don’t want to say any more about that, as we are not in a position of being able to improve those conditions. I am convinced that the research work that is being done in this country is as much as can be done in a small country. I am of opinion that research work into a matter of this kind should be undertaken in the larger institutions. Now, I want to say a few words about tuberculosis in respect of which, so far as the white population is concerned, there is a reduction in the mortality figure from 46 per 100,000 of the population to 34. This is a satisfactory improvement. But, of course, it has to be still further improved. On the other hand, we are unable to say that there has been an improvement so far as the coloured and the native population are concerned. In regard to the coloured people I believe that the figure continues to be very high, and we cannot say that there is going to be any improvement until such time as we are able to improve the condition of the whole population as a result of better nutrition. The battle against tuberculosis is a battle which must be fought with the aid of nutrition, with the aid of surroundings and housing, and owing to the fact that we have not yet effectively tackled these problems we have not yet achieved the improvement which we should have. Then there is another small matter which I want to refer to again, and that is that every year we have more than 3,000 cases of diphtheria. This is a preventible disease if the children are inoculated with the anti-diphtheria toxine. This matter has had the attention of the Health Council and I feel that if the public were better informed it would lead to the public applying for such inoculation to be given. We can also make propaganda in our schools to ensure our children being inoculated so that these 3,000 cases of diphtheria may be prevented. The position so far as venereal disease is concerned is alarming, and it will become even more alarming until such time as we have a system under which full time salaried medical officers are employed in all areas of the whole country to look after the health services of our people, medical officers who will be there to deal with all aspects of the health problem in their respective regions. If we do that we may expect to have a general system of treatment and diagnosis for the whole population, for Europeans and coloured people, and afterwards for natives as well. The position in regard to venereal disease is alarming. We have treated 265 non-European cases and 45,000 European cases. If the figures had been 1,500,000 non-European and 200.000 European the position would have been more satisfactory. What is the position today? It is that those other 150,000 cases of Europeans are not being treated, and the 1,250,000 non-Europeans all carry on without receiving any treatment. Either it is impossible to reach them today, or we know nothing about them. The Minister of Finance spoke of money which was to be provided for the feeding of school children, and in referring to this matter I now come to the important question of the feeding of the whole population, because nutrition in the long run is the foundation of public health, and it is from that point of view that I want to discuss the policy of the Minister of Public Health and of the Government. The Minister of Finance said that he was going to provide £1,000,000 for the feeding of school children; I have not got the details of that scheme before me. The Minister eventually let it be known that of that total amount £50,000 would be available, or rather £50,000 more than last year, but so far as I know the whole of this £1,000,000 will not be available immediately. Before taking such a step we should have a nutrition policy. What is going to be the policy? Is it going to be a policy of giving a special meal to the children in the schools who are under-nourished, or are we going to give a meal to the children of parents in receipt of poor wages—or is it going to be the policy to select special children and give them a particular kind of meal? It is important that we should know whether we are really going to achieve anything by the expenditure of that money, and whether we are going to have a definite plan within the course of a couple of years. A well thought out policy cannot be laid down casually. I have had personal experience of the feeding of school children in the poorer parts of our town. The first 100 children were fed in that manner twenty-four years ago, when I visited that town. I found an alarming condition of under-nourisment there, and well meaning people in the town, who realised what was required, immediately established a Children’s Aid Society—that was twenty-five years ago. They erected a building, or they adapted an existing building which cost them just on £600. In that building they had a kitchen and they put up a large stove, and those 100 children were given a meal such as was laid down by us, on every school day throughout the year. Our intention was that they would get at least one good meal per day on a balanced diet. It might be a good thing to find out what has happened to that scheme which was started twenty-four years ago.

Where was that?

At Graaff-Reinet. It was started there twenty-four years ago. In the years when I was there we supervised the children and even today that is still being done by the doctors there. In those days the children were given a hot meal consisting of meat, vegetables, stewed fruit, or fresh fruit, and of course, also hydrates in the form of potatoes, etc.

At whose expense was that done?

The Children’s Welfare Society collected money and it was assisted by the Administration on the £ for £ basis.

What was the price of a meal?

For 100 children we estimated the cost to be about £600 per year. Of course, that is only a year of nine months. Now the question arises, how such a scheme as proposed by the Minister of Finance is to be carried out for the whole country? Is it a good scheme? Should it be extended to cover the whole population? We know for instance that in certain factories the workers are also given one good meal per day, because if the employers fail to do so those people do not get a decent meal. A scheme of this kind for the schools will naturally have to be worked out very carefully, but please don’t appoint another Commission. Let experts determine what is the best way of doing it, and let them decide how it can be established without unnecessary delay, and what class of children should be given such a meal. I am convinced that one properly balanced meal per day would prove to be of the greatest importance, but I want to add that such a scheme should go hand in hand with a careful investigation, a systematic investigation, into the conditions of the parents, into the question whether the parents are really not able to supply their children with a decent meal. I am very much concerned by the fact that there is a class of parent who will not even feed their children if they earn enough money to do so. They will use their earnings for other purposes — sometimes for liquor, sometimes for amusements, and they do not spend their earnings in the way they should. As soon as we start feeding our school children, difficulties may arise. I must say that when twenty-four years ago I stated on a public platform that if the parents failed to feed their children we had to see to it that the children were fed, and that it was a waste of money to have children on the school benches if they were not properly fed, it practically cost me my position.

We have progressed very considerably since those days.

Yes, we made great progress shortly afterwards when we had the influenza epidemic. I think it will have to come, and we shall have to provide meals for groups of children in our schools, but we shall have to do the work in collaboration with, and co-operation with social workers. If children are to be given meals in the schools, we must have a certain amount of control over the families benefiting from such a scheme. It will be a good thing to have such control because it is those families which require supervising. There must be supervision by a social worker who will look into the question of the family income and the way in which that income is spent. We have not progressed to such an extent yet that we are able to say what people must do with their earnings, but wherever the income of any family unit is less than what the family requires to live a healthy life, there should be control over the family income. I want to lay down this doctrine, that it is wrong for the head of the family to be allowed to use his income for other purposes while his children and dependants are not cared for. Whether we want to be free or not, that is the kind of freedom I believe in, the freedom that we cannot do as we like while our family is being neglected, and while our dependants are suffering hardships. The Minister has a Nutrition Council. I believe it is only a temporary council.

It is permanent now.

Well, if it is permanent now, surely we should hear a little more from them. Or rather, we don’t want to hear so much from them, but we should have the power of acting on the advice which they give the Minister after careful consideration. The difficulty, of course, is that the Department of Public Health has not got the power to act, and consequently the Minister has not got the power either of taking any action. He is in the hands of the Government and our great grievance is that this Government carries on a state of war during which they do not consider these important matters as being of sufficient importance to deserve their attention. Those matters are important, whether we are at war or not. The nutrition of the people is of the utmost importance, and what is happening? There is no co-ordination between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Public Health, at any rate there is not as much co-ordination as there should be. Recently a startling announcement was made in regard to bread. Personally I feel that people started writing too quickly about what our bread was doing to the population. I am not an expert in that respect but I cannot believe that the fact of our eating whole meal bread is affecting our health, or is having the effect of our not getting sufficient starch in our system. Other experts state that a certain acid prevents the starch from being taken up in our bodies. I am not so much concerned about their conclusions, I am of the opinion that they have published their conclusions far too quickly. We require more information and more data before we can arrive at such conclusions. If in addition to the bread which we are eating today we provide fruit and other types of food which are produced in this country in abundance—if those commodities are supplied to the people, we shall find that even the bread we are eating is not doing us any harm. But the co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Public Health, and the Department of Social Welfare is not what it should be. If we had proper co-operation between those Departments the things that are happening in this country today would be avoided; we hear of thousands of boxes of fruit being sent from Elgin to Johannesburg; the people in Johannesburg knowing the kind of fruit they were getting sent it back immediately it arrived, telling the consignor at the same time: “You had better bury this stuff, we are not going to do it.” There is an instance of food which should be supplied to the people being buried. I don’t want to repeat what has already been said on the Agricultural Vote. We have control in regard to the price of meat, wheat, mealies; we have control over the distribution of fruit, but these matters affect the Department of Public Health much more than the Department of Agriculture, but the Department of Public Health is powerless. The head of the Department has no say in these matters. He has no power in connection with them; he can only give advice. We have such an anomalous position here that we feel that none but an uncivilised nation would tolerate it any longer. I admit that all of us have been weak in regard to this matter in the past, but as a result of the developments that have taken place during the war these things have come to the forefront to such an extent that we can no longer wait, we cannot even afford to wait, in dealing with these matters, until the National Health Services Commission has reported. These are matters which should be remedied at once. We need not wait until that Commission tells us where the cardinal mistake lies in regard to these matters. Our Departmental heads should come together and put things right, and it should only take a little time to rectify the position. The Department of Public Health at the moment has no power to do certain things. The Minister should step in and should make the Cabinet realise that conditions of this kind must not be allowed to continue. It is a most important matter. We have a satisfactory Department of Public Health in regard to its control of infectious diseases, and the prevention of serious epidemics. The Department has certain specific work to attend to, and it does that work very well, but the great labour is the co-ordination of those matters in relation to nutrition. The experts should meet together with other experts on those questions, but I want to repeat that I shy at the faith which people have today in Commissions and in Boards. With all those investigations by Commissions and Boards which have no powers, no progress is being made.

You yourself are a member of a Council.

That is exactly why I am in such a good position to be able to place my finger on the spot where things are wrong. If the Minister could attend the private discussions of the Public Health Council—and I think he knows that that is the position—he would realise how powerless that Council is. It is not a matter of the Department or of some Council or Board doing this, that or the other—it is a matter of fundamental policy which is of urgent and paramount importance to the country. We cannot allow matters to proceed along this course. The Housing Board comes under the Department of Public Health. I don’t want to say much about that, but the position is that in regard to Housing we are certainly not by any means making the progress which we should make. I do not believe that we are making a hundred per cent. effort today in regard to the war, nor are we making a hundred per cent. effort in regard to our civil life. I believe that there are hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of people who can be organised to work on housing. It makes no difference to the finances of the country whether we spend £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 now or in three years time. We have found out that we need not get alarmed at an expenditure of £10,000,000 or £100,000,000. The war has shown us that. We can and must carry on with the housing programme. I know that there is a shortage of building material. In that connection I am very gratified that a thorough, comprehensive investigation has been made in regard to the types and kinds of building materials that can be used, and I think that that investigation has produced something. I also understand from the Minister of Public Works that a good deal has been achieved in regard to the kinds of materials which can be manufactured here. Even doors and windows can largely be manufactured of cement, and I understand that we have available in this country more than 96 per cent. of the materials which are required. I therefore want to express the hope that it will not stop at investigations and experiments. The experimental houses have been built. Let us carry on and devolop the system and build our houses. The position in regard to housing is really alarming. If we point to the slums and to the fact that the progress that has been made is inadequate and that the health of the public is suffering, we are told that the war is to blame for all this. According to the Prime Minister we may have war conditions for several years to come yet, and five years after the war the lack of progress will still be blamed on postwar difficulties.

We have made more progress in the last three years than in the pervious nine years.

The Minister has been talking about the numbers of houses that have been built.

I admit that what has been done is not enough.

We have got behind, and we are getting further behind. I hope that after the investigation in regard to new types of houses has been completed we shall carry on. We can no longer be allowed to build luxury houses if by doing so we are preventing houses for the poorer sections of the community being built. [Time limit.]

I have quite recently spoken in this House on the state of affairs in the Transkei, and I do not propose to go over that ground again. I think I said enough at the time to impress upon anyone willing to listen, the necessity of doing something and of doing something quickly. I am perfectly aware that the National Health Services Commission is sitting at the moment, but as I have said before we cannot wait until such time as that Commission reports and until such time as the Government has decided whether they are going to implement the recommendations of the Commission. Something must be done at once, and first of all I want to ask this question, as to what policy of the Department is in relation to the question of establishing and financing rural clinics. They are very essential in a scattered country such as the Transkei where, apart from the resident medical officers in the hospitals, there are only part-time district surgeons living in the town. My own observation leads me to believe that these clinics can be of very great assistance, not only in alleviating suffering amongst the natives but also in preventing sickness. I should like to know from the Minister today what the policy of his Department is in relation to that matter. So far as the financing of rural clinics in the Transkei is concerned, it has been on an unsatisfactory basis up to the present, and I would like to ask the Minister what the proposals of his Department are, so that we can place these things on a more or less permanent basis and so that we can keep these children going. I have repeatedly spoken on the question of tuberculosis in the Transkei. I now have before me the report issued within the last month by the Umtata Hospital Board, and they say here, amongst other things—

I want to deal with that question of the provision of beds in hospitals. I have the feeling that a hospital in a central position is not the proper method of dealing with tuberculosis in a place like the Transkei. I would remind the hon. Minister that we had a serious outbreak of leprosy in the Transkei some years ago and that that problem was dealt with on the basis of farr institutions such as Emyanyana. The situation today is this, that a native comes to the hospital at Umtata; he is treated for some time, and when he shows some signs of improvement he is sent back again to his home, and there follows an immediate deterioration in his condition. I feel that if we could establish these farms in the Transkei for tuberculotics, we would be able to deal effectively with a much larger number of natives than we do at the present time, and that we would be able to do so at a much smaller cost than that of a hundred-bed hospital in a central place; and I hope the hon. Minister will consider that question. I am aware that there is a difference of opinion as to whether that type of service is the best or not, but in relation to leprosy it has proved itself to be a development along the right lines. Then I want to return to the question of vital statistics. I raised this question the other day, and I had a reply from the hon. Minister of Native Affairs. But I am going to suggest that this is not a matter for the Minister of Native Affairs. It is a matter for the Minister of Public Health.

In actual fact it is a matter for the Minister of the Interior.

Fortunately the Minister of Public Health is also the Minister of the Interior, so perhaps he will honour us by giving us an answer today. Successive commissions who have investigated the question of tuberculosis in native reserves have cried out for vital statistics. I want to conclude by asking the hon. Minister once again to tell us what his intentions are, and I beg him not to tell me that although he is trying to institute a system of vital statistics in the Transkei, he cannot do so on account of the war.

I would like to say a few words about the work of the Department of Public Health and associate myself with what the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) has said, viz. that he does not have very much faith in reports of commissions and blue books. I agree with that. Commissions are appointed, reports of commissions are considered, and then the Government finds that at the moment the proposals are impracticable, or that further investigation is necessary—all kinds of delay take place until the blue books are shelved and a layer of dust begins to cover them. I think that if Public Health is really a serious matter to us, and it is a serious matter, then every effort must be made, then pressure must be brought to bear on the Government to supply more conveniences for the furthering of Public Health. The situation has arisen that practically a sort of political competition has been started between the various parties, especially the Government and the official Opposition to suggest schemes, but little is done. We learn from Durban, and we learn from hon. members here that the time has come when the people should wake up in connection with the serious conditions that exist there and that the Government must take action. The Government’s reply is another commission. I want to suggest that the Government and the Department of Public Health makes an immediate start especially on the platteland. The people on the platteland, a class of people there, live under very difficult conditions. The small farmer, the shop assistants and bank clerks who receive no support from any Governments funds in time of real need, have a particularly difficult time. There is a great lack of hospitalisation and such things. I know of actual cases of young farmers who have been totally ruined by long illnesses of two or three years. Why can we not begin immediately by creating clinics in the districts. Perhaps we can encourage districts by contributing on the £ for £ system to funds which the people raise for the purpose of establishing clinics, and where there are no nursing homes, create nursing homes on the £ for £ system. In my constituency we are fortunate, because there we have established a first class hospital on the £ for £ system, but other smaller towns have not got it, and are not within reach of it. We must enable them to equip decent places with one or two nurses where cases can be treated that are not so complicated and serious that they need to be sent to a large central hospital. You get today cases where a mother of a family perhaps lies ill for months and months. No provision is made for her, there is no possibility of being nursed in the neighbourhood, the only possibility is transfer to a hospital which is a long way off. Now the position is that the mother lies there, the family is neglected, and the mother does not get the necessary attention. These are things that demand our immediate attention. I know that there is a commission that is considering matters and which is conducting an investigation, but it will perhaps take a long time before the commission reports and before effect is given to recommendations. I feel that a practical beginning must be made immediately, especially on the platteland where people are isolated and have not the conveniences that are available in the towns and cities. I will leave the towns to the commission that is now engaged with this matter and to work out schemes for them. I suggest this. In the second place I want to point out that the Minister’s figures in connection with housing were a revelation to me. The Minister has said that we have made good progress during the last 3½ years. If I understand the figures properly, then in that time about 15,000 houses were built for non-Europeans. The figures which he gave for Europeans was 800 houses. All I can say to the Minister is that I think that the scale in this connection is very skew. There is a serious and a real shortage of houses for Europeans and if we compare 800 with 15,000 then it is time that we should ask the Minister to try and load the scale on the other side and to make provision for the thousands of European families who are today without proper housing.

I do not intervene in this debate with any intention of prolonging the Minister’s agony, because I know the anxiety to get on to the Labour Vote. But I will not have another opportunity of calling attention to something of vital concern in the general health policy of the Union. I was amazed the other day to hear from the lips of the Administrator of Natal, that out of the native women who give birth to children, three out of five suffer from venereal disease. Surely we are in a State where it is possible for us to appreciate the terrible ramifications of the incidence of venereal disease. The other day I sat agape when I read that the League of Nations had considered the fact that there were 1,000,000 blind people in India. India is a very long way from South Africa, but the Minister is probably not aware of the fact that the incidence of blindness among the population of the Union of South Africa is as high as it is in India. There are, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, no less than 25,000 blind people in the Union today. Fifteen years ago when I interested myself in the incidence of blindness in an endeavour to prevent, if possible, this economic wastage, I used to be taken to task when I used to estimate that there were 10,000 blind people in the Union. As the result of the introduction of the Blind Persons Act in 1936, it has been possible for the National Council for the Blind to register these people, and we have on the books of the Council no less than 23,661 blind people today. And that is not all of them. I want to tell the Minister that there was an effort made to advertise for people to conduct a survey of certain of the areas of the Union of South Africa. And they were prepared to pay £1,500 per annum for an opthalmologist. Only one answered the advertisement and he was over 70 years of age. So the position has fallen away. We know, however, the terrible incidence of blindness in this country, we know that there are nearly 2,000 European blind, there are nearly 2,000 coloured blind, and there are nearly 20,000 registered blind natives. I can tell the Minister that out of every 600 blind Europeans registered in this country, 62 of them go blind under the age of 40. I can tell the Minister the names of these people and exactly the cause from which they are blind. In most cases it is due not to malnutrition, but to neglect at the time of birth, and inherited diseases. Amongst the coloured blind, 38 out of every 100 go blind under the age of 40, and of a large proportion of non-Europeans who go blind, their blindness is due to venereal disease. Amongst the native registered blind only thirteen out of every 100 go blind under the age of 40. Amongst natives, cataract and other diseases are the principal causes of the blindness. Roughly speaking, amongst the native population there is one blind person in every 300, amongst the coloured one out of 800, and amongst Europeans one blind person out of every 1,200. But there are areas in the Union today where the incidence of blindness amongst the population is as high as one in sixteen. As a result of that, charitable endeavour created a hospital run in connection with the Johannesburg non-European Institute for Blind Workers at Roodepoort. A hospital was set up for the purpose of dealing with registered blind people, and it is gratifying to know that out of 26 people who entered that institution last year, 12 were cured of their blindness. The Department of Public Health is not helping to prevent blindness in this country. It has money which could quite easily be utilised for this purpose, but they cannot promote the prevention and cure of blindness simply because they are under the impression that this is something to do with hospitalisation.

With reference to the people’s health on the Platteland, I think that this is a matter that is causing much anxiety. There are various diseases that prevail on a large scale. I shall mention two. There is tuberculosis and there are venereal diseases, that have affected from 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. or even more of the population, particularly the coloureds. Let me give the Minister this assurance that we have many more tuberculosis cases on the Platteland today than he actually thinks. Now the Minister knows that in the past there has been an arrangement that holds the local bodies responsible for the support of those people during the period of their illness. But that burden has become insupportable to those local bodies, and what I would now like the Minister to do is to make a statement regarding what the policy of the Government is in the matter of contributing towards the improvement of that position. I do not know if the Minister knows it, but we have instances where the District Surgeon has stated that there are over a hundred cases of tuberculosis in the area of one Divisional Council. It works out at about £180 a year to keep one person in hospital. I know of one Divisional Council in which there are 150 cases. If we now multiply 180 by 150, then it means that that Divisional Council has to provide an amount of between £25,000 and £30,000 per annum. It is quite beyond the potentialities of such a local body. The Platteland has sent a deputation to the Minister, and the Minister has made certain promises to it. I can tell the Minister that the position is critical. Does the Minister know that some of the Divisional Councils have already definitely decided that no matter what happens they cannot see their way clear for the future to care for these cases of tuberculosis. Does the Minister know that there are coloured persons walking about until they die from tuberculosis? The local bodies must obtain that money by imposing local taxations, and he will agree with me that when the expenditure runs into tens of thousands of pounds the local bodies cannot possibly afford it. I have not the necessary time now to quote all the figures. The Minister knows what the figures are, because these were submitted to him. Those figures show what proportions the disease has assumed, and what the position now is. Where this is so, the Minister dares not allow that position to continue. He must make the statement and tell us what he is prepared to do. If necessary, he must contribute 100 per cent. in order to prevent those conditions and to save those people. What to me is so astonishing is this: If we look at the estimates then we see on page 167, G/8, the amount for the prevention of the spread of tuberculosis, and that there is a reduction of from £11,225 to £2,300. There is a reduction of altogether £9,000. Why is that? Has the position according to the Department then improved so that less money need be spent? I want the Minister to tell us what is going on. I would have thought that the Department would be prepared to put at least £50,000 or £100,000 additional on the estimates for the purpose of improving conditions. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact once again that this disease has increased in a terrible manner on the platteland, and where the Divisional Councils have withdrawn their assistance in many cases, the Minister comes and reduces this amount by £9,000. I hope that the Minister will be abe to give a satisfactory explanation of this. Then we find more or less the same sort of thing in connection with the treatment of venereal diseases.

You are reading the estimates quite wrongly. The amounts to which you are referring refer to separate institutions.

My point is that additional provision should have been made. The Minister should have come forward with a plan and with the necessary money to assist the Divisional Councils to resist the spread of these diseases.

But surely you have noticed that the Vote has been increased.

But it is being done on such a small scale that it is practically worthless. The increase perhaps provides for the increase in the price of the medicines but there is nothing to prove that the Minister is tackling these matters on a big scale. In connection with G/8 there is a decrease of £9,000, and we would like to have an explanation of this. Then I would like to touch on a few other points. I see that in connection with District Surgeons—that is Item D—there is a reduction of £2,220. Now what is the position today? I do not know if the Minister knows it, but in my constituency there are three towns without a doctor. The people are a tremendous distance from the nearest doctor. I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that there is also a reduction in connection with nursing. There is a reduction under D/7. Does the Minister realise that if there is not a doctor in a town, then the position is sad and wretched? In the small towns such as Loxton and Brandvlei there is no doctor. Unless the District Surgeon gets a proper salary he cannot remain there, because the towns are so small that his income is also small. The people cannot make a living, and they go elsewhere where they can get a bigger income. The Government must take the small towns into consideration and give the District Surgeons a bigger allowance. I also want to draw the attention of the Minister to a little place like Vanwyksvlei. There was a nurse. There are poor people, and they cannot afford to go to Carnarvon to fetch a doctor there. There is no nurse, and they simply have to die. I want to appeal to the Minister to make a special allowance to the nurses, so that they may remain in such places. We must try to make those places attractive to them, because at the present time such places are unattractive to nurses and doctors. I want to ask the Minister to reply to this point, whether he will make it more attractive for doctors and nurses to remain in such small towns. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, without desiring to delay the passing of the Vote, I hope I may have the indulgence of the House just long enough to support what the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) has said in regard to the usefulness of native clinics, which we should like to see established throughout the Union. I am fortunate enough to have in my constituency a clinic which was established I think by the present Minister of Public Health, which is in its way an example to the whole Union for the sound methods on which the work is carried out. Some years ago, whilst the present Minister of Finance was Minister of Public Health, I drew attention to an example of a clinic that I came across in Swaziland of a very satisfactory kind, and I should like to say that the methods adopted in the Bulwer district where a clinic has been established—

A health unit, we call it.

That is established on very sound lines indeed. There the method is not merely the curing of ills, but the building up of propaganda in favour of prevention, teaching the native people in their backward condition that they should use vegetables in diet, and improve generally all their methods of feeding their children and generally conserving their health. They seem to have taken to it very readily, and very good work has been begun in that district. So satisfactory has it been that neighbouring districts have passed resolutions supporting the establishment of health centres or clinics of the same kind. I hope the Minister will be encouraged by what has taken place, to persevere with that policy, and to give us further proof of the wish of the Government to improve the health of the natives, and encourage amongst them sounder ideas in regard to health matters than they in their primitive state possess today.

Mr. Chairman, as the Minister will recollect, for a number of Sessions we on these benches have been asking him when the question of responsibility for native hospitalisation in the reserves is to be decided. The Minister will remember that the Provinces have said it is beyond their capacity. He told us last Session that the matter has been referred to the Financial Relations Commission to decide the matter as between the Central Government and the Provinces. Now I want to ask the Minister when he expects this Commission to report, because it is a long time ago now since it was appointed, and in the meantime native hospitalisation in the reserves suffers. On the second reading of the Housing Bill, I raised certain points in connection with housing of the coloured people and natives, which the Minister apparently did not think called for a reply, and therefore I want to raise them again now. The first one is this matter of supplying cement floors in sub-economic housing schemes. I believe there is some other material besides the cement, but in the climate of the Western Province, these floors are very cold indeed. I know it is not possible to get timber at the present time for flooring, and therefore I want to ask the Minister, as a temporary measure, whether ordinary earth floors cannot be used. That is what most of these people are accustomed to. I can assure the Minister they are better than cement floors. I can assure the Minister that these cold cement floors are a great cause of complaint, especially when many of these people have no beds at all and have to sleep on the floor. I ask the Minister to get the Housing Board to look into this matter, and see whether it is not possible to approve of these simple earth floors, and put in timber floors later after the war, whenever timber is available. I also want to ask the Minister whether his Department will not now give up the policy of approving two-roomed houses. In many of the newest sub-economic schemes these two-roomed houses have been built. I am sure the Minister will agree it is wrong to expect an ordinary family, wife, husband and children, some of the children quite big, to be housed in a two-roomed building. They must have one room a as living room, and that means herding the whole family together into one sleeping room. I knew a municipality which has been able to put up three-roomed sub-economic houses at a rent of 10s. per month and if that can be done in one case it can be done in others. I do hope the Department will from now on set its face against the two-roomed house. I want to ask the Minister whether the Housing Board will not approve of advances being made to non-Europeans to get their own houses. Assisted house-building schemes of that kind have been put into force in other places. Bloemfontein has made an outstanding success of it, and this method of providing houses is cheaper for the native and the coloured man. Where these schemes have been put into operation they have had to be undertaken out of economic loans—in the case of the Bloemfontein Municipality for instance. There is nothing in the law to prevent such understakings being financed out of sub-economic loans. Requests have been made to the Minister for sub-economic loans, but the reply has always been that the Housing Board has set its face against this. There is a serious shortage of houses today. That shortage could be much more easily met if sub-economical loans could be made available to individuals.

I feel I must conclude my remarks because I had left off at a point which might be interpreted in the wrong light. I do not want to leave this House under a false impression. The Government is by no means unsympathetic and the sympathy is translated into action not only by Dr. Peter Allen, Secretary for Public Health, but also by Mr. Kuschke, Secretary for Social Welfare. Both are working in collaboration with the National Council for the blind, both are anxious to give whatever help can be given in accordance with the Government’s policy. I left my remarks at a stage where this Palmer Hostel, associated with the Transvaal Institution at Roodepoort, is faced with having to shut down after having run for about twelve months. It has done tremendously good work. It is financed by funds raised by the National Council for the Blind. The Government in subsidies pays out about £350,000 towards blind welfare work. We feel that we have funds which the Secretary for Public Welfare would be prepared to spend if only he could. He could carry out a survey if he had the necessary material. Mr. Kuschke is in the same position. He is anxious to see this type of work developed. He is feeling it is doing the work which the State should do, and the whole policy of the Administration is to help. We feel that despite the fact that the Department of Health and Social Welfare have arrived at the idea that this is hospitalisation, it is nothing of the sort, it is a need for following up Welfare work in the cause of prevention. Your hospital system may be able to do it. If this new hospital with 500 beds, this new hospital at Orlando, is built, and if it gets those 500 beds—if we are able to ask the Johannesburg Municipality to allocate 50 of these beds to an Eye Department, and if, as a result, it is possible for us to go into the Mafeking and Marico Native Locations and bring out one of each 50 of the population who are blind, we may be able to do something, but I doubt if arrangements could be made with the Municipal authorities to bring in these people from the rural areas, who need this care and this preventive work which will have the effect of completely curing their blindness. It has been said that the great tragedy of blindness is not the blindness, but the fact that so much of it is preventible. We are a new country and we are just starting this work, and I appeal to the Minister not to curtail public initiative or voluntary effort, because if the Palmer Hostel shuts down it may be ten or fifteen years before another Institution opens up. I appeal to the Minister to make it possible for Mr. Kuschke and Dr. Allen to assist the National Council of the Blind, to assist voluntary effort to go on, and help the Government in what is their real desire, and to save all this useful wastage of human material in the field of social welfare work. It is for that reason that I have intervened, and I hope the Minister will make it possible for these institutions to remain open.

I would like to focus the Minister’s attention on the position that has arisen in connection with sub-economic housing schemes. In reply to questions we put, it was disclosed that about £20,000,000 was spent on the schemes, and that under these schemes 24,014 houses were built for non-Europeans, and only 3,266 for Europeans. The Government is not responsible for it that so few houses have been built for European persons. The Government advances money to the municipalities at ¾per cent. interest to build the houses and to let them at a cheap rental, but in practice it boils down to this, that local authorities are not inclined to obtain money for cheap housing schemes for their European citizens. They are going in for sub-economic housing for non-Europeans on a great scale in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and a few other places, but they hesitate to use money to build houses for European persons. Thus we find that more than 24,000 houses have been built for non-Europeans and only 3,000 for Europeans. Cannot the Minister spur on the municipalities to avail themselves of the schemes and to build houses also for the European people? Take Cape Town for instance. There we find that low-paid people live in these houses and that they pay from 15s. to 30s. per month. In Bloemfontein, however, such families have to pay that price for one room, and house rent is one of the principal items of expenditure. House rent takes about one-fourth or one-fifth of the income of a family. If the municipalities can be persuaded to tackle more sub-economic housing schemes for the low-paid labourers, then they can come out better with the meagre wages they receive. I therefore want to ask the Minister to encourage the municipalities to make use of these schemes, and by so doing to give the low-paid labourers houses at a reasonable rental. There is something else that I would like to ask the Minister. We know that tuberculosis sufferers from outside are not allowed in our country, but in reply to a question we got the information that 6,000 came in from England last year, British soldiers.

From England ? Those were probably soldiers on their way home.

I asked the Minister what the position was in connection with Nelspoort, and how many tuberculosis sufferers were brought in there from outside. Now I would like to know if the English soldiers are supported here at the expense of the Union or at the expense of the British Government?

I wish to give my support to the plea by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Bowen) for assistance to the hostel for the cure and prevention of blindness at Roodepoort. I have known the enterprise at Ezenzeleni since its inception. I have seen the various steps in its development and every one has been a tribute to the devotion of the people who have given themselves to this work. I know that for the most part, these people have had assistance from Government departments; but this is not so in respect of this hostel which is designed to provide a place for the treatment and prevention of blindness. It has struggled into existence against considerable difficulties and is today in danger of being strangled by red tape. It seems to belong to no department—it has no claim on anyone’s assistance; but if, in fact, it is strangled, it will be a tragedy. It is the only effort of its kind in existence and it is blazing the trail towards that preventive work which is so overdue in this country and so highly necessary. I do hope the Minister will give the matter his earnest consideration and that he will get round any corners which can be got round to keep that hostel in existence. I also want to support the appeal by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) on the subject of housing, in particular his appeal that the Minister should consider getting the Housing Board to put an end to the two roomed house. It is a fact that a great many of the houses at present being built under housing schemes to take people out of bad surroundings, are actually slums before they are occupied. That seems a ridiculous position and it seems only necessary to be brought to the notice of the Minister for him to see that an end is put to it. I know that to abolish the two roomed house is of course to increase the cost of the housing schemes, and that that will create many difficulties, but I imagine that the Housing Board is already faced with that difficulty, and has had it pressed upon it by the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on urban African conditions. I feel in any case that this problem must be dealt with apart altogether from this question of accommodation. I feel that there is no sense in continuing these two roomed houses and that we should turn our backs on the practice of building them.

The Church felt so concerned about the tuberculosis position on the platteland that they summoned a congress of interested persons at Riversdale last year to discuss the subject of the prevention of tuberculosis. I just want to say to the Minister that if a municipality wants to send tuberculosis sufferers to a hospital then it takes so long, even where they are prepared to bear the expenses, before they can get accommodation that the patients generally die before the time. At the congress figures were submitted that were obtained from the various municipalities in regard to mortality cases as a result of tuberculosis.

I shall be glad to have those figures.

But they have been given to you.

I was astounded when I heard the figures from the wives of predikants and others who took the trouble of approaching various municipalities for data. What causes me to worry is that the Government want to help, but that it is all patchwork. Why cannot we tackle a disease such as tuberculosis, which is a terrible disease, and eradicate the thing from beginning to end. It is a national matter. The municipalities have not the funds to tackle the matter. Here and there institutions are erected and steps are taken, but it seems to me that there is no comprehensive plan of tackling this terrible scourge. It is clear that if radical steps are not taken and infections proceeds as in the past then it will be a big catastrophe to our country. If the Government will take into consideration the value of the health of the citizens of the country, then it will realise that it is worth while to take steps. The same applies to venereal diseases. There is no co-ordination. There is no compulsion. One gets charitable institutions that work in the various districts, but it is all on a loose footing. One does not know whose duty it is, whether it is the responsibility of the Divisional Council, of municipalities, or of Provincial Councils—the Central Government must take steps to coordinate the combating of these diseases.

For that reason the commission has been appointed.

I hope that it will not again remain at a report, but that they will tackle such a disease thoroughly and eradicate it. I spoke the other day to the District Surgeon at Wynberg, and he told me that the people were entirely lost. They do not know if they fall under Cape Town, or under the Divisional Council, and there is the Roman Catholic Church with its societies, and our church, and the Anglican Church; there is no co-ordination. A patient suffering from venereal disease remains in hospital for perhaps a few months; it costs £15 or £18, or more, and he is not completely cured, but he can leave the hospital provided he comes for treatment once a week, for four weeks. These people perhaps live on the Cape Flats, miles and miles from the hospital. It was difficult enough to get the patient there in the first place, but they do not return for four weeks, with the result that the disease continues and infects other people. That is also the reason why one finds so many blind children and malformed children. The disease spreads, it is not cured entirely. That is the result of patch-work. One spends £18 or £20 to cure a person and all the time it is waste of money because the person is not quite cured and does not get the final necessary treatment. That is how it happens also on the platteland. Municipalities have already reached the position where, if they do not have to pay then they do not pay. Nor do they care if tuberculosis sufferers who apply, have to wait three months or six months. A tremendous change should be brought about in connection with these matters. It is all patch-work. As regards housing, I am not satisfied that the types of houses that are being built are the best. The specifications are laid down and loans are subject to the condition that the house are built according to the specifications. But the houses are not always satisfactory. There is a tremendous shortage of houses, and there is talk, talk, talk, but no steps are taken to provide for the shortage. I am glad that the Minister now appears to realise that the Government has a responsibility there. The Minister says he is glad that I now think as he does. If he will take the trouble to go into the matter he will see that the first speech which I delivered in this House related to housing. I said at the time that the only way out is for the State to build houses, that the State should ensure that the people got houses and that it could not be expected of the municipalities to do this. I am glad that the Minister now realises the responsibility of the State. One should think particularly of the poor people, the people who are not in a position to pay a first instalment. The people who have means can help themselves, but the poor people should be assisted so that they can also have a sense of pride in the ownership of their own houses. Care should be taken, however, particularly in the small towns, not to build all the sub-economic houses in one area, they should be spread over all parts of the town, otherwise the area in which the sub-economic houses are built will easily get the name of a white location. We must avoid that. [Time limit.]

It is most encouraging to see the way in which members on all sides of the House are anxious to take part in this debate on public health and to offer suggestions by way of assistance to the departmental heads. I think it is a sign of the times, this interest in public health and public health development, and particularly in regard to such matters as housing, nutrition, and the National campaign against diseases such as venereal disease and tuberculosis. I am grateful to hon. members who have made various suggestions this afternoon. These suggestions will be carefully examined by the Department, in due course. I think I might remind the Committee that despite the difficulties which we have had during the last three and a half years, despite the injunction on all Government departments to go slow, to cut down in regard to spending, the Public Health Department with the approval of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has been able to carry on as usual, and not only carry on as usual, but to expand, with the result that as I pointed out last year for the first time in the history of the Department, the Departmental estimates topped the £1,000,000 mark. I mention these things because it is quite obvious that public health cannot stand still even in war time. The Government has fully realised this, and I think that evidence has been given on many occasions that it is the desire of the Government, it is the desire of the Public Health Department to ensure that it shall not stand still, but it shall adopt a progressive policy despite the difficulties of the war. That has been the slogan of the Department—progress, carry on despite the difficulties and setbacks, carry on and do not be perturbed by outside difficulties. But quite obviously one cannot bring about all the reforms one would like to in a day. Many of the Institutions of the Public Health Department, many of its activities have been the result of experience, gained over a number of years. It is true that public conscience is demanding a forward step, a revolutionary forward step in a number of directions. I think it is true that the time has come for the Public Health Act itself to be reviewed. I think the time has long passed. I think the Public Health Act, the Act of 1920, is out of date, as far as our existing circumstances are concerned. But do not forget that the Department of Public Health is at present bound by the provisions of the Public Health Act. It is limited in its functions by the provisions of that Act, and until the Act is altered, until the public of this country is educated to a State where it requires that that Act should be altered, the Public Health Department will have to carry on within its present limitations. Now this has been realised. The Departmental head has realised, and I have realised, that, but there are some persons who suggest that because one realises these things one should act at once. There are people who say: “Why don’t you step in? Why don’t you act at once? Why have a Commission? Why have a plan?” I ask hon. members to remember what this stepping in would mean. I ask hon. members to realise the implications of tearing up the Public Health Act and introducing a new Bill straight away, without any prior consideration, without any prior planning on a scientific basis.

You have had three and a half years.

I do not propose to bring this debate down to the level of party politics or political auctioneering. Perhaps part of the reason why the activities of the Department of Public Health are not known as well as they ought to be known to members of this House and persons outside, is that we have tried to keep its activities out of the political arena. If there is one Department whose activities should be divorced from these matters, it is the Department of Public Health. I do not propose to compete with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) or any other hon. gentleman who seeks to traffic in matters of human material, human interest, and upon a basis of political expediency. I think we should leave these things out, it has not been done in the past, and I do not propose to allow it to be done now. If we were to tear up the Public Health Act, what are we going to put in its place? Is the Department of Public Health going to take over hospitals, assume the financial responsibility not only of infectious but of other diseases. I put that question to hon. members representing the Province of Natal. If the Public Health Department came forward with a new Public Health Act in terms of which hospitals would be taken over by the Central Government, could Natal agree to that?

No, I think not.

If we were to embark upon other activities without consultation with the people concerned, there would be a good deal of opposition and criticism from local authorities. There are many pitfalls in the way; there is a great deal of health propaganda to be made in the country before these changes can be made, and it is for that reason that Government, instead of rushing in without prior investigation, has decided, so far as the long range policy is concerned, to appoint a National Health Commission with sufficiently wide terms of reference to go into all these difficult and controversial matters. The long range policy of the Department is symbolished by the appointment of that Commission. Some hon. members laugh and say “another commission”, but the alternative to having a Commission is to do nothing, because any attempt to change in vital fashion the existing order of things so far as public health is concerned, would meet with a storm of opposition unless there was prior enquiry and unless the people in all the provinces were given an opportunity of expressing their views. I am not going to go into the vexed question of Provincial and Central Government control. These are matters which the Commission has to investigate, the public is given an opportunity of expressing its views, and the provinces are also given an opportunity of putting, forward their standpoint in regard to these and other financial relationships. The Commission has, as I say, sufficiently wide terms of reference to allow it to traverse the whole gamut of public health matters in this country. Its terms of reference are unrestricted, it is specifically charged with reviewing the provisions of the Public Health Act of 1919, with making recommendations for the provision of an organised national health service in conformity with modern conceptions of health, which will ensure adequate medical, dental, hospital and nursing services for all sections of the people. Those are very far-reaching terms of reference indeed, and if that ideal is to be translated into practice, then quite obviously a great deal of money will have to be spent, and a good deal of reorganisation will have to be made. Hon. members must remember that Rome was not built in a day, we cannot by a stroke of the pen produce this new health Utopia. The policy being followed by the Public Health Department is, I venture to think, a wide policy, it is the policy of the scientific approach, a wide investigation, opportunity to all parties to state their case, no stampeding of opinion, no rushing in without an opportunity for the expression of all views. That is the long range policy of the Department as embodied in the appointment of this Commission. The Commission has embarked upon its work in a spirit of enthusiasm, and it has been accepted by the public with enthusiasm. It has not found any difficulty in finding witnesses ready, to tender evidence, it has been almost embarrassed by requests from individuals and public bodies to give evidence, it has not allowed the sittings of Parliament to interfere with its activities. During this Session of Parliament the Health Commission has continued with its sittings, and as soon as Parliament goes into recess that Commission will proceed upon a tour of the whole country, paying particular attention to places such as the Transkei and other native territories, and to the Platteland, which has its own peculiar medical and hospital problem. It intends not only to hear evidence, but to see for itself. I think the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) will agree that that is a wise policy, and it is the right approach to the problem. The Commission has a great and wonderful opportunity; it is possible for that Commission to come forward with far-reaching schemes which may completely revolutionise our public health ideas in this country, and enable the Government of the day to introduce a new deal which will mean something for every section of the people. One does not want to anticipate the labours of that Commission, for it would be premature, it would perhaps be impertinent, and certainly unwise to attempt to anticipate the recommendations of that Commission. The Council for Public Health, of which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is a member, meets once or twice a year, and it does very useful work when it does meet, but I visualise something of quite a different nature, a permanent body of professional and other officials who will be there to help and guide the department throughout the year. We have to change our whole conception of the Department of Public Health, but we must wait till the Commission reports. That Commission, I hope will be able to report at least by the beginning of next year if not by the end of this year; it has already made excellent progress. There were those who prophesied rather dolefully that we should hear nothing about this Commission for another two or three years. Well I understand that as the result of progress made today we shall have that report within a reasonable time, and this House and the country will have an opportunity of considering the report, and the Government will have an opportunity of formulating its policy in accordance with its recommendations. But it is not sufficient to rely merely on this Commission, it is not sufficient for the Department to fold its arms and say: “We shall wait for a year or eighteen months, and just carry on in the same old way, before bringing about any innovation.” The Commission was appointed last year, and the Department has not been sitting still since then. A number of innovations have been made, and I think in the forefront of current policy should be placed housing and nutrition, and side by side with these as corollaries should be placed the campaigns against tuberculosis and venereal disease. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has referred to the fact that one of the difficulties of the Department of Public Health in dealing with infectious diseases is the lack of vital statistics in respect of the native population. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has also referred to that matter, and the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has also taken an interest in it, as well as the member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming). It is true we have no vital statistics in regard to the native. Some of the statistics in respect of Europeans, from which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet quoted this afternoon, provide most interesting data. He referred to cancer and to the fact that the death rate per 100,000 had increased from 58.54 to 109 in the course of the last few years, a very large increase indeed. But as he pointed out, that did not necessarily mean that one had to draw a very gloomy inference. I think it is accepted now that the increased incidence of cancer in the death rate is due more to the fact that persons are living a longer period than formerly. In earlier days, sections of the population did not reach the cancer age, but through better nutrition, better living conditions, and modern science, more members of the community now reach that age, and are now beset by this enemy, the scourge of cancer. But however that may be, the figures that are obtainable concerning Europeans show how important these statistics are to the Department of Public Health. Vital statistics are part of the munitions of war of the Department, which is very much hampered by not having those statistics in respect of natives. About 1937 the Minister of Commerce and Industries, Mr. Stuttaford, appointed a committee to go into this question of vital statistics amongst the natives. It is quite apparent from their report that the Department of the Interior, which would be responsible for this work, would have to increase its staff very largely, and a fairly widespread organisation would have to be brought into being.

It might have been done before the war.

Perhaps it should have been, but it is impracticable today from the manpower point of view. As hon. members know, we cannot even have the biennial registration of voters, because we cannot get the necessary manpower, and there are other difficulties in regard to obtaining these statistics.

Without them you cannot have a policy.

There is a good deal of truth in that interjection, but I can tell the House this, that in my capacity as Minister of Public Health, I am urging myself in my capacity as Minister of the Interior, to formulate plans for post-war expansion which will enable this to be done. In other words, I have asked the Department of the Interior to include provision for vital statistics amongst the natives in its post-war expansion plans. I mentioned earlier in another debate, that the Prime Minister has instructed all Departments to prepare plans for post-war expansion as part of the general policy of postwar reconstruction. Many of these plans will be co-ordinated by the Economic and Social Planning Council. So far as the Department of the Interior is concerned, provision for obtaining vital statistics amongst the natives will be made. Nutrition, Sir, is one of the items of immediate policy. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has said that he would like to hear more of the work of the National Nutrition Council. Well, Sir, I agree that perhaps it is unfortunate that that annual report has not been published. As the result of one of the recommendations of that Council, a Union nutrition officer, Dr. Laskie, has been appointed. The Department has now a sub-section dealing with nutrition, and the task of that section will be to co-ordinate the activities of the Nutritional Council, and other bodies concerned with nutrition. Dr. Laskie is busy compiling a report of the Nutrition Council. The main work of the Council has been done hitherto by a sub-committee, and it is due to this sub-committee that one is enabled, or should be enabled to get the necessary co-ordination between different Departments. The Public Health Department is vitally concerned with the provision of nutrition, that is to say proper food to the community. The Minister of Social Welfare is concerned in the matter of feeding school children, and the Department of Agriculture is concerned with the production of foodstuffs and its distribution. There is an Agricultural and Economic Committee of the National Nutrition Council, and the Chairman of that Council is the Secretary for Agriculture. There is also on that Council representatives of the Department of Public Health and Social Welware, they are in fact the secretaries of those two Departments. And so in regard to other committees. But I do feel, Sir, that there has not hitherto been quite the necessary co-ordination one would have liked in regard to some of these matters Steps are being taken now to see whether it will not be necessary to reconstitute the National Nutrition Council in order either to make the membership smaller, or by the appointment of a small executive committee to enable that Council to meet more frequently than it has done in the past, and to have more immediate contacts with the Department than it has had. The appointment of our nutrition section in the Department of Public Health will materially help in this matter. I agree with hon. members who have mentioned the distribution of foodstuffs. It is quite inexcusable that a large section of Europeans in this country and a much larger section of non-Europeans are not receiving a sufficiency of protective foodstuffs, and that food and citrus should be destroyed because of a so-called surplus. There is no surplus in this country. When persons are hungry or badly nourished there is no surplus, and there never can be a surplus. As hon. members know, there has been established a Committee consisting of representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Public Health, Social Welfare and the Citrus Board, and I understand also of the Deciduous Fruit Board, which is now busy preparing plans, not merely in regard to citrus but in regard to deciduous fruit, and I hope, Sir, that that is going to open the door to better co-ordination and to the elimination of such wastage as has taken place in the past. Let me say I read with some concern a statement published by the Chairman of the Citrus Board that the Government has been offered the surplus citrus for the year 1942, but had declined to accept it because the Government refused to pay the railage charges. I must confess that that statement shocked me when I read it, because I was not aware that any such offer had been made to the Government. I have made enquiries, and I find that what happened was that at the last moment the Department of Native Affairs was told that it could have the surplus provided it took over that surplus at the source. That Department was given no opportunity whatever for making arrangements for distribution and it could not do so in the time available. It was no question of the offer being turned down, because the Department refused to pay the railage, the offer was not accepted because it was made at a time when it was impracticable to use that offer.

Did not the Railways refuse to pay the carriage?

I understand that the explanation I am giving is the cause of that being turned down. The Railways themselves may not have been concerned, because I am perfectly certain that whatever the attitude of the Railways, it may be that in this matter it was for the Central Government to pay, and not the Railways to make a loss. That is understandable, but that would not be the cause of the turning down: of the offer. The Minister of Railways might quite correctly take up the attitude that if the State is going to assist needy persons in obtaining proper food, it is for the Central Government to pay and not the Railways. That may be the proper attitude, but I understand from the Secretary for Native Affairs, that the primary cause of the refusal to make use of the offer, was that they were unable to arrange the distribution. Quite obviously it is no use being landed with 6,000,000 pockets of citrus when you have to get them to the native reserves, and you have to make your arrangements for distribution and so on. This Inter-Departmental Committee which has been established, has now an opportunity of timeously going into all these questions, and working out a plan which will be available when the new citrus season approaches. The Department of Public Health is putting before that Committee a co-ordinated plan somewhat along the lines of a system operating in America in regard to various foodstuffs. Whether that suggestion will be adopted or not is a matter for the Committee. I can assure hon. members that these questions which have quite rightly so concerned the thinking public, are being dealt with now along proper lines of co-ordination between the Departments concerned. So far as the administration of the feeding of school children is concerned, that will be undertaken by the Department of Social Welfare in conjunction with the nutrition officer and the provinces. The question of housing has been raised again. There some disappointment has been expressed that more progress has not been made. I can only repeat what I said in conjunction with the Housing Bill that if the achievements of the past three and a half years are disappointing, then the achievements of the previous nine years must have been lamentable.

That is no excuse.

Of course it is no excuse, it is not going to help us to be always delving into the past, but it certainly seems to me to be somewhat carping that when one does make progress during a period of great difficulty, the only comment that is made on the opposite side is: “Why have you not done more?” I am not satisfied, I say that quite openly.

Why should we be satisfied if you are not?

But I do not indulge in carping criticism of the Housing Board, or the officials of the Department of Public Health. I do not expect them to make bricks without straw, or houses without bricks. No doubt the hon. gentlemen opposite who are so used to dropping them would not experience any difficulty. I want to tell the House that if the Housing Board tomorrow were to put before me a plan for building 50,000 houses, it would be just worth the paper it is written on, because it would be physically impossible to build them. Hon. members must face up to these questions with a sense of reality. In appointing a committee to make a national survey of housing, I think the Department is acting wisely, and again making the scientific approach with a view to tackling the matter more forcibly when building materials become available in greater quantities than now, and when circumstances change. Meanwhile, local authorities are succeeding with their sub-economic and economic schemes, and the Department of Public Health, through the Housing Board, is encouraging local authorities to do their duty. But we cannot decide in what way we may have to go forward on a national basis until the problem is known as a whole, what housing is required as a minimum in the next five years to provide for the poorer sections of the population. Some hon. members have suggested that not sufficient sub-economic housing is taking place in respect of Europeans. Well, sir, I would again remind hon. members that it is the local authorities that have to build. They can go forward with their schemes, because they know the needs of the local areas.

Why not compel them to do it?

My carping friends over there will never be satisfied with anything. They were satisfied with nothing at all at a time when there was a Government in power which had unlimited funds, but now that more progress has been made in three and a half years than was made under the previous Government, they are not satisfied. They were satisfied before and kept quiet, but now when buildings are being put up despite great difficulties, all they can offer is carping criticism without any generous appreciation of what is actually being done. The hon. member says why not force the local authorities? The hon. member knows as well as I do that one of the principles of the Housing Bill we have been discussing is to expect the Department of Public Health to bring pressure to bear on local authorities. He knows it is my policy to exert pressure on local authorities.

It is rather late in the day.

Why did not the hon. member say that six or eight years ago? I should say action has been taken timeously in anticipation of post-war reconstructions. I leave it to the House as a whole to judge whether or not the efforts now being made by the Department of Public Health are on wise lines, and whether this charge of delay can be substantiated. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) have asked me some questions regarding the plans of houses for natives, and they have expressed their disapproval of two roomed houses for native under sub-economic schemes. Well, I have plans and pictures here which I would be pleased to show to these hon. members who are interested in these matters, showing the designs drawn up by the Housing Board for two and three roomed cottages. It is true that in some cases two roomed cottages are built. At Q Town near Cape Town two roomed and three roomed and four roomed cottages are built. Quite often provisions are made for varying needs. You may have a cottage of two rooms for two newly married people, for whom such a cottage is quite sufficient. Afterwards they may have children and pass on to a larger place. But there may be an elderly couple of two for whom a two roomed cottage is sufficient. So I do not think we should agree to rule out these two roomed cottages altogether they may come in useful. But I do agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern and with the hon. member for Cape Western that it is very undesirable that two roomed cottages should be placed at the disposal of tenants with families. I am in entire agreement with them there. The question of the flooring raised by the hon. member for Cape Western is one which I shall bring to the notice of the Housing Board. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) has asked me what is the Government’s policy in regard to the clinics in the Transkei. Let me say this. These clinics have done excellent work and the Government is now taking them over. Hon. members will recollect that these clinics were established through the financial generosity of the Native-recruiting Corporation of the Chamber of Mines, which placed a subsidy at the disposal of the Government. The clinics were started by way of experiment, and they have certainly proved themselves, and the Government is taking them over and proposed to extend them. I am hoping to have the opportunity with the Secretary for Public Health of visiting the Transkei at the end of the Session. The Department is hoping to acquire land near Umtata for the purpose of erecting a tuberculosis hospital service which will serve a large area. It is hoped—the plans are being formulated—visualising the possibility of having a large hospital there which will serve a large area with small subsidiary hospitals ranging round in the outlying areas. The existing clinics which are attended by Native Nurses are proving most useful. There are one or two places where the patients can remain but in the majority of cases these places cater for out-patients. But they are proving extraordinarily useful. The experiment at Bulwer in Natal of a Native Health Clinic has proved exceedingly useful and interesting. The Department has now established a similar clinic at Bushbok Ridge in the Transvaal and it is proposed when the time arrives—and there is provision for it—to have a similar one in the Transkei. We are anxious to have a little more experience of Native Health Units as opposed to clinics before doing anything more in the Transkei. The difference is this. The Native Health Unit operates as a centre—and around it there are supply clinics which radiate from that unit. In the Transkei we have started with the clinic, and we have still to build the unit in the centre. In the Transkei we have started, and also in Natal, from different angles, and in the light of of that experiment no doubt we shall be able to develop our future policy. The war against tuberculosis is being waged continually by the Department. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) has pointed to one or two items on the Vote and has suggested that either there has been a decrease in the Vote, or that the item has remained static. He has chosen one or two items in connection with some small institutions. If he will examine the items relating to refunds to local authorities he will see that there are increases, but the expenditure on tuberculosis, the annual expenditure on tuberculosis by the Public Health Department, is not reflected only in the Departmental Estimates. The House must also have regard to the Loan Estimates.

What are you doing for prevention?

Hon. members know that in the Loan Estimates will be found items dealing with the construction of hospitals.

Yes, but what are you doing meanwhile?

What are you doing about prevention?

If my hon. friends would listen to me I might feel that they were sincere in their desire to get information.

What about T.B. people coming in from outside?

I never quite understand which part of the Zoo I am reminded most of when I hear that babel from the other side, when the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker), and other hon. members over there get down to it. Let me give the House just one or two figures.

What about prevention?

In 1935 the amount on the Maintenance Vote for tuberculosis was £32,320. On the Loan Vote the amount was £12,400, making a total of £45,000. In 1935 the total annual expenditure on tuberculosis on maintenance, and on the Loan Vote, was £45,619. On the 1942-’43 Vote the item for maintenance was £142,240, an increase of about 400 per cent. The item for capital expenditure was £219,365, making a total of approximately £360,000. In other words in 1935 £45,916 was spent whereas in 1942-’43 we arranged to spend £360,000, an increase of plus-minus 800 per cent. No impartial observer of these figures could say for one moment that the Department is standing still, that it is not making progress. These figures speak for themselves. The Department is spending large sums every year and will continue to do so. Part of the present day policy is to establish fairly large tuberculosis hospitals at various centres where patients from a wide surrounding area may be treated.

What are you doing for the prevention of tuberculosis?

If my hon. friend had listened to what I said about nutrition and housing, he would realise that if he can combat malnutrition and provide good housing we shall have won the battle.

That is in the distant future.

What the Department is doing is not taking note of silly interjections but getting on with the job.

Where are these houses which you are speaking of?

One of these houses which is eminently suited for the hon. member for Cradock is fairly near this House—it was discussed and dealt with earlier on in these estimates under the Mental Hospital Vote.

Are you referring to the Minister’s residence?

As it is quite obvious that that last subject is much more germane to the hon. member over there I shall not detain the House any longer, but if any hon. members are interested in these matters I shall be very pleased to discuss the subject further with them and to give them any information they desire to have.

You have not told me yet what you are doing about prevention?

I want to add my tribute to the work which has been done at Ezenzelini, I would like the Minister to give us a contribution to that Institution for the prevention of blindness. No such contribution is made. The only funds which that Institution gets are from the public and from the National Council for the Blind. This is for natives. Not only do we get nothing for the natives, but we get nothing for the Europeans either, and I should like the Minister to consider the matter from that angle. The National Council for the Blind has voted funds for the prevention of blindness, but those funds are on far too small a scale to enable them to do anything effective. It is much better to prevent blindness than to allow these people to get blind and then to have to give them pensions and all the expense connected therewith. I put that to the Minister. There is another matter I want to draw the Minister’s attention to, and that is the disgraceful state of affairs prevailing at Sophiatown in Johannesburg. Here we have a place where you have sixty-six rooms in one particular area, on four stands, being occupied by 330 people—that is 330 people living in sixty-six rooms. There are only ten lavatories and thirty-three people to each lavatory. Conditions are so bad that these natives have to buy their water. They pay 3d. per paraffin tin of drinking water and 1d. for what they call second grade water—that is washing water. The rent charged for these rooms, which are 12 ft. by 10 ft. and some only 10 ft. by 9 ft. is £1 5s. per month, which means that these natives pay something like £82 10s. per month, or £990 per year, for these sixty-six rooms. There is no cross ventilation, no drainage, and only bucket sanitation. The children there have no means of occupying themselves—there are no schools—we are making criminals of them—and their health is also affected. I mentioned some time ago that disease knows no colour bar. These children are becoming infected with tuberculosis, and other diseases. Venereal disease is rife, and it is time the Minister took this matter in hand and dealt with it, not only from the point of view of the health of these natives themselves, but also from the point of view of the health of the European community in general. These natives are employed in European homes—they are the servants, the domestic servants in European employment, and these diseases may be and are spread by them throughout the homes where they are working. I know the Minister is doing his best through the Public Health Department to cope with the situation, but I do feel that the matter is so urgent that it is deserving of his immediate and urgent attention, and that definite steps should be taken to do away with this grave menace to the health of the native population as well as to the health of the European community.

I am sorry that the hon. Minister adopted such a tone here towards us, a tone that really does not become the Minister. I can assure the Minister that we on this side of the House are discussing this Vote of public health with the greatest seriousness. Now the Minister comes here and he tries to make some remarks to get rid of the matter. What we expected was this: We expected the Minister to take this matter seriously. I asked the Minister in all seriousness why the one item for the prevention of diseases should have been reduced by £9,000. The least I expected was a serious reply to my question from the Minister. I am not au fait with all the measures that the Minister has adopted; but he speaks here of an 800 per cent. expansion. That may be so, but now I ask whether the position of 1935 in comparison with the position today is not due largely to the fact that numbers of soldiers are returning from the North who suffer from tuberculosis, and that there must be special institutions to treat those people. That still has nothing to do with the ordinary spread of tuberculosis in the country. If the Minister of the Interior cannot give a reasonable reply, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to give us a reply. The Divisional Councils of the Cape are surely not bodies that one can eliminate with one stroke of the pen. Special deputations went to them. As I have said, the least we expected was that the Minister of the Interior would tell us what his plans are.

There will be a clause in the Finance Act.

We expected a reasonable answer from the Minister; we expected him to tell us that he is willing to take the matter into consideration and that legislation will be introduced. The Minister is treating this matter in a frivolous fashion, and that is not the way in which to treat a serious matter such as this. There are thousands of people on the Platteland who cannot go to anybody for help, because the Divisional Councils simply cannot afford the expense. Then I put a serious question to the Minister—in so far as my constituency is concerned—viz. in connection with the scarcity of doctors and nurses. The war has drawn away many doctors and nurses. There are about three towns in my constituency in which there are no doctors. The nurses are drawn away from the small towns, which are in many respects very uninviting. I want to ask the hon. Minister if he will not make provision in those towns where there are no doctors or nurses in order to ensure that proper care is taken of the health of the people there. I expected the Minister to get up and say that he would go into the matter and see what can be done. As regards housing, I just want to say this to the Minister. We want to be quite appreciative. In my constituency considerable improvement has come about, and I am grateful to the Minister for the funds which have been made available. But yet there are some of the towns in my constituency in which nothing has been done in connection with an improved housing scheme. We have persuaded the Minister to bring pressure to bear so that the municipalities shall be compelled to step in and help those people. There are areas in the country where the position is very serious, and I hope the Minister will ensure that those people shall also have a reasonable chance to live. Then the Minister also said that so far as tuberculosis is concerned one must take into consideration what has been done in the matter indirectly. He said that one had to consider housing and nutrition. But there is another factor that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister, and that is clothing. There are numbers of coloured people, particularly on the Platteland, who live in a reprehensible condition. They go practically without clothing in the winter months. I hope that the Minister will also pay attention to this third factor, viz. proper clothing to enable the people to retain their health.

On the question of the distribution of foodstuff I was very much disappointed with the remarks which the Minister made on the bigger issue. He really confined himself to the charge that the Government had refused an offer of free food. Well, that is only scratching the surface of the subject, and I feel that while he probably never made a truer statement, than he made when he said that there is no surplus of foodstuffs in this country, he should have added that we have thousands of people who are not in a position to get food almost of any description, and certainly not in a position to buy most of the foodstuffs produced here in South Africa. Now I hoped for a statement from the Minister as to how he was going to deal with the position which is arising. Firstly I want to put this question to the Minister. Does he expect the producer of this country to grow food and then give it to him to distribute free? Because that seems to be the basis on which the discussion has proceeded.

I am expecting nothing. That is why we have the Inter-Departmental Committee.

The Inter-Departmental Committee does not seem to me to be one which will get very far. We have been told that we have a surplus of foodstuffs which we can export—I don’t call it a surplus of foodstuffs. We produce more food than those who are in a position to purchase can consume. That was the position just before the war. We were testing the overseas markets for what, for argument’s sake, we might call a surplus. We we exporting large quantities of meat and butter which should be consumed in this country, but owing to the purchasing power of the community the would-be consumers, were not able to purchase this food.

That is exactly what we are saying.

Half the sugar crop of this country went overseas, and you have no finer energy building food than sugar. And so you can go the whole gamut in regard to the food sent overseas—you find that the great majority of those living below the breadline were unable to purchase these foodstuffs which we were sending overseas. I was hoping that since we were now discussing social security, since were were discussing the desirability of uplifting the poorer classes, the Minister would have come forward and given some indication of the policy which the Government was going to follow in the future.

Won’t you give us the policy?

Yes, give me your seat. Does the Minister look to private members to give him a policy? Is the Minister so bankrupt of a policy himself?

Of course he is.

Perhaps it is too optimistic on my part to look to the hon. member for a policy.

Those humorous interjections which we enjoyed in the olden days when the Minister was a backbencher are unbecoming to him today, when he enjoys a position of responsibility. This is a serious matter. We have ample food in this country and yet we have our poorer classes unable to buy the nourishing food so necessary if we are going to build up the Nation.

Are you beginning to see the light?

We have had for years now the Nutrition Council sitting. We have had reports of all sorts laid before the country, we have had statistics of all kinds in regard to food value, we have had statistics of every sort in connection with nutrition foods, and protective foods, but I have yet to see a policy which has enabled one single lb. of food to be put within the reach of those who need it so badly.

Have you ever heard of brown bread?

Oh, yes, and I have eaten it too. But I don’t know whether the brown bread sold at 6d. or 6½d. per loaf is any nearer the reach of those who are below the breadline than the white bread was. I really fail to see the force of the Minister’s interjection. I hope, without bandying words, or chipping one another, the Government will come forward with some scheme that will enable the product of this country to be put within the reach of those who need it so badly, and put a stop to this fatal policy of exporting the very lifeblood of the people, export the very foodstuffs which must be brought within the reach of the thousands of people of this country if we are going to produce strong children and a healthy nation. I think and it appears to me that that is one of the most important things which can be tackled by the Public Health Department and by the Department of Social Welfare, and the country is waiting for that policy, and the producers of foodstuffs are waiting for a policy. They are waiting to produce but they cannot produce and then sell what they produce at less than their cost of production. I put it to the Minister that you cannot have a better time than the present when money is plentiful, to start a comprehensive scheme of purchasing instead of allowing the export of our foodstuffs—and I say that the time has come that we should look to supplying our own people who need things so badly, rather than export our foodstuffs to the outside markets.

My quarrel with the Minister is not so much about the way he is spending the Public Health Vote but my quarrel is rather that he was not able to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to make this Vote £11,000,000 instead of £1,100,000. I know that good health is an expensive product. Both the prevention of disease and the maintaining of good health cost money. South Africa has been handicapped by the fact that for many years insufficient money has been voted to provide for public health, to provide for the health of the nation. What can one expect from an expenditure of £1,000,000 for a population of 10,000,000 people. I can assure the Minister that the country is becoming health conscious, but the trouble has always been that this House has not been health conscious.

The Government has not been health conscious.

Nobody seems to have been conscious of the fact in the past that there has been a need for good health and to satisfy that need is a costly process. Now I want to tell the Minister that he at least has shown a little originality in the fact that under him the Public Health Department has established a native health centre at Polela, and is now in the process of establishing another health centre for Europeans in the Knysna area. Here are two experiments being made by the Public Health Department which might very well help in a solution in many ways to our health problems in this country. If hon. members would take the trouble to read the Blue Book published last year by the Interdepartmental Committee on the health, social and economic conditions of natives in urban areas, and if they were to read that in conjunction with the Carnegie Report, on the health conditions of the poorer sections of the European population, I am sure their eyes would be opened to the enormous health needs and especially the preventive health needs of this country. It is an appalling condition that in the King Edward VIII Hospital, out of every hundred native babies born twenty-two died of congenital syphilis, and out of a thousand babies born in the Alexandra Township in Johannesburg—out of every thousand babies born in one year three hundred and eighty died before they reached the age of one year. These are the people who work for us in our homes. These are the people who may carry disease not only to our doorstep but right into our homes, to our children, and I am sure that if the mass of the people realise the significance of the figures published in these blue books and the enormous spread of tuberculosis and venereal disease among natives, they will recognise the danger from the economic and the industrial point of view — they will recognise the danger of the supply of native and coloured labour decreasing as the years go by—and they will also realise the danger of the European incidence of tuberculosis and venereal disease increasing and becoming as serious as it is among the natives and coloured people. I only want to say this, that in the past it has been pointed out that one must not consider that this Vote on public health constitutes all that is spent on public health. As a matter of fact a former Minister of Public Health pointed out to me that I did not take notice of what the Provincial Councils, the Municipal Councils and the Divisional Councils spent on public health. That exactly is where the canker lies. There is no co-ordination and no co-operation between these various authorities, and until we have a co-operative system, until we have unified control in health matters, all the work we are doing today is so much patchwork. Good work is certainly being done in various respects, I am not deprecating the work of the Minister or of the Public Health Department. I know they are doing excellent work, but that work will only be complete, it will only be on a secure foundation when it is directed from one central combined administration.

That is why you were appointed on the National Health Commission.

I am hoping that this Commission will convert this House. I do not want to speak now as a member of the Commission but as a member of Parliament, and I think this Commission will probably succeed in making this House health conscious. In regard to this matter of vital statistics amongst the natives, how is it that the old Cape Government could keep such vital statistics? The real difficulty in this matter of health services is that there has never been a sufficient sum of money provided for that purpose. This will be realised if we compare what we spend on health services with what is spent in New Zealand. Unless you provide for health from the cradle to the grave, you cannot have good health throughout the country. We will be a C.3 nation unless we wake up to the fact that good health needs money.

The hon. Minister must now be aware that it is not only this side of the House that criticises his Department. One hon. member has said that the Minister’s policy is bankrupt, and I reiterate that it is bankrupt. Another member said it was patchwork, and I also reiterate that all his work is patchwork.

Excuse me, I did not say his work was patchwork.

The Minister boasts of his brown bread, and I think that is the most he has tried to do to feed the people. I think the Minister is very much to blame that the poor people in the country are not being properly fed. Food is one of the items you need to have public health. We know that thousands of cases of citrus were thrown away, grapes are buried, and food in general is destroyed, and I ask the Public Health Department why is it they have not stepped in and provided certain facilities for storing that food to give it to the poor, as they need it? If the Minister had done that he would have been able to tell us that he had done something as far as feeding the country is concerned. Another thing, I feel that even the price of 6d. a loaf for bread is abnormal, because there is a tremendous lot of profit made. In time of war there should be no speculation in the food of the people, and there is an enormous amount of speculation in food going on. If the Minister had enquired into that speculation and tried to give the poor cheaper food, he would be doing something in the interests of public health. I want to ask the Minister what he has really done to alleviate distress on the platteland. As far as the platteland is concerned we find that there is very little done. If you go to the Minister and ask him to assist public bodies, he only gives you a small donation. For instance, in the Fish River Valley at Mortimer there is a clinic which the public pay for, they have put £100 of their own money into it, and many have volunteerd their services. But when you go to the Minister for help, he gives you a very small amount. I feel the Minister should go out of his way to give these people sufficient money. In the Valley 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. to the natives have venereal disease. That is practically being cleared up not by the Minister and his Department but by the people themselves. I appeal to him in cases like that to be more liberal as far as money is concerned. In Middelburg, for instance, the Town Council has done a tremendous amount of work with special clinics to combat disease, and they should be assisted more than they have been, and matters of this kind should not be left to the public as a whole to subscribe.

You do not realise, apparently, that the Department is bound by law to pay, and does pay a certain amount, no more and no less.

I feel that the Minister should be more liberal. The platteland is really not protected at all. Although there are clinics here and there, these natives intermingle again, and though you have perhaps cleared up a certain portion, you find that because there is no continuous service they are re-infected. This service should be kept on not for a month at a time but for years. I appeal to the Minister to give us more service in that direction. There is another item which I wish to discuss, and that is housing on the platteland. If the Department would give the farmers certain assistance in housing his natives, that would be one item in promoting public health. If you give the people food and provide them with clinics, you must still improve your housing, and on the platteland nothing has been done.

The sum of £400,000 was diverted to the smaller municipalities.

I am talking about farming. I know there has been improvement in the smaller towns.

That has nothing to do with public health; that is social welfare.

I am pleading that the farmer should be included; why should he be cut out?

He is not cut out; he comes under Social Welfare.

I still say the farmer should be assisted.

You must say that to my colleague the Minister of Social Welfare; it has nothing to do with public health, and never has done.

Oh, I see. The Minister now says that the rural population has nothing to do with public health.

At 6.10 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 11th 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 31st March.

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.

as Chairman, brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs, as follows:

1. (1) That it recommends: The grant, under the provisions of section eighteen (4) of Act No. 18 of 1936, by the South African Native Trust in favour of Frederick Cloete Harris, of a certain piece of land, in extent approximately five morgen three hundred and ninety-nine square roods, being the Bluegums Trading Site, situate in Location No. 3, District of Herschel, subject to such conditions as the Trustee may approve.
2. (2) That it has no comments to offer upon the Proclamations and Government Notices.

A. B. Payn, Chairman.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House on 5th April.

I move—

In his reply to the Second Reading debate the Minister of Public Health accused me of exaggeration—that I exaggerated the matter considerably, and that I did not give the Government sufficient credit for what it has actually done in the past three-and-a-half years in respect of sub-economic housing. The Minister has given certain figures to show the amount of money which the Government has made available for housing, and he also gave figures showing the number of sub-economic houses that have been built in the last three-and-a-half years. The Minister has, however, neglected to give the figures for houses built for the occupation of Europeans, and by way of an interjection I asked him what those figures were, and he promised that he would get those figures and submit them to the House; I hope therefore that the Minister will give us the figures on this occasion. But what the Minister has also neglected to do is to say something in connection with the Government’s policy as regards the present serious housing distress. I went into that matter in my second reading speech, and imparted facts to the House as to what the actual position is at present. I mentioned facts and quoted figures to indicate what a serious and urgent shortage of houses there exists at the moment. There is not only a shortage of sub-economic housing, but a shortage of houses in general, and the position is becoming worse day by day. Reports have been received from Pretoria, for instance, that European families are obliged to take up their abode in stables. There are no houses or rooms available, and they are compelled to live in stables. There was one case in Pretoria where a European family of a man, a woman and children, had to pitch a tent on a big erf in which to live. There are no houses and no rooms, and it is imperative for the Minister to say what the Government intends doing in connection with this matter. It does not help to inform the House that the Government is busy making plans, or that it is going to institute a national survey. If a national survey is to be undertaken it will necessarily take a few years before the Minister will have the necessary information at his disposal. If plans have to be made designed to be carried out after the national survey is completed, that will also take two or three years. What the country wants to know is what the Government intends doing at this juncture to provide for the housing needs of the population. Recently the Government proclaimed new emergency regulations which determined that when a person buys a house he has no power to give the tenant notice to move out. The buyer can therefore not go and live in that house even when he has bought it; he must wait until the tenant moves out voluntarily. That emergency regulation will do nothing to improve the shortage in any sense. Whether a person buys a house and does not live in it, or whether the tenant is allowed to remain in the house, will make no difference to the housing shortage that exists today. The Government has the power to do something in this connection. The shortage is principally due to the fact that there is a shortage of building material, to the fact that building activities have been practically stopped. It is also due to the fact that employers in the building industry have been placed under control and many of them have been inspanned to do Government work. But although there was a shortage of building material, we learn that the shortage has in a great measure been done away with. I have here a cutting from one of the daily newspapers of a few days ago, in which it is stated, inter alia, that the Housing Board has informed some housing company or other that the difficulty in connection with building material for the continuation of sub-economic housing schemes has been removed in a great measure as the result of a new method of construction under which the use of imported building material is well-nigh eliminated, or in any case reduced to a minimum. They also mention that the substance used instead of building material is permanent, and that there is no question of it having to be substituted at a later stage by ordinary material. In other words, the Housing Board states that it is now possible to substitute locally-manufactured material for imported material, and that as a result of this sub-economic scheme can be proceeded with. Now. I want to ask the Minister if this will not enable the Government to ensure that the building industry shall be set going again to a large extent. The Government must extend assistance to reduce the housing shortage that exists, not only on a sub-economic basis, but also in general, and if the Government is in a position to release building materials or to make available a substitute for imported building material, then the housing distress can be alleviated to a great extent shortly. Then there is another way in which the Minister can perhaps contribute to remove this housing shortage. Under the Act of 1937 provision is made for building loans to private persons through building societies, but I learn that although the provision still exists in the Act, the Government is making available no money to enable persons to obtain a loan. The. House will recall that the provision in the Act provides for loans to persons through the medium of building societies. It applies only to persons who receive an annual salary below a certain amount, namely less than £600. Then they are entitled to a loan from a building society, but it is a loan that covers 90 per cent. of the building costs of the property. At the moment building societies only give a maximum of 75 per cent. of the cost, but under the provisions of Act No. 41 of 1937 a Building Society can advance up to 90 per cent. of the full purchase price. The Government gives one-third of that amount, and the building society itself advances two-thirds. The Joan is granted at a very easy rate of interest, and the repayment extends over a long period. The provision is to the great benefit of ordinary wage earners, and enables them to have houses built in view of the easy period of repayment, and it also enables them to do this with a small amount of cash, for 90 per cent. of the total costs are allotted to them. I think, however, that for some time now the Government has made no money available to building societies for this scheme. The position is, moreover, that the scheme applies only to the building of houses, and not to the purchase of houses, and, where that is so, it will not be of much use to make money available in view of the fact that of recent years no building material has been available, and the building industry has come almost to a standstill. I want to ask the Minister to instruct his department to go into the matter of the provision of building material, or the substitution of material manufactured in our country for imported material, and I want to ask him further to bear in mind that the Act should be amended so that the person who gets the money should not only build, but that he should also be placed in a position to buy, without the necessity of having to build. At present the loans are being granted only for building, but the Minister, through a simple amendment of the definition of “building loans,” can enable persons to buy houses as well as to build them. This will be of great assistance, and it will contribute largely to enable wage earners to acquire their own homes. In conclusion, I want to urge the Minister again to inform the House and the country in his reply of what the Government intends doing at this stage in connection with the serious shortage of housing that exists.

I have been and still am in general agreement with the principle of this Bill. But from the beginning I have had a very uneasy feeling about clause 3 of the Bill, a feeling which has steadily grown as this Bill has moved from one stage to another in this House. That uneasiness is due to the implications of this clause in relation to the property rights of the coloured people, of the non-Europeans. When the Bill was first introduced, I think the Minister did slightly mislead the House—not intentionally, by saying that there was no change implied here in the Common Law. I endeavoured to probe that situation, and on the information I got I was inclined to believe that that was in general true. Yesterday morning in the Committee stage of the Bill the Minister did say that he had made a mistake about that, but even under his explanation I thought there was going to be no great change in the administration of the Law, that is that the powers to be taken were powers which would not alter in effect what could be done under the Common Law. My impression still was that under the Common Law it was possible not only for private owners of land, but for public owners of land, to sell particular pieces of land with a servitude in regard to racial occupation and ownership. I find, however, that that is not the case and I am now clear that this clause does introduce a new principle, and to me a very grave new principle, particularly as affecting the Cape. Here, for the first time, under this Bill the public authorities of this Province will have the power to impose a racial servitude on land which they are proposing to alienate. It is true that that power will be limited at present to land which will be used for the erection of housing schemes under money voted by the Housing Board. But that is a limitation—of which I am glad at present—which does not alter my anxiety about the clause as a whole. This new principle is an exceedingly dangerous principle in the Law of the country; it is a precedent which can now be extended to any length, and I am particularly anxious about the possibility of that precedent being used in that the Minister has repeatedly made it clear to the House that his action in regard to this Bill is based on the terms of the statement made by the late Genl. Hertzog to this House in 1939. I remember being very anxious about that statement at the time, and one of the few small consolations I had in 1939 for the outbreak of this tragic war was that we thereby got a change of Government which I hoped would not be committed to the position supported in that statement. We knew that Genl. Hertzog’s policy, the statement he had made, would have been implemented, that the policy be there laid down was to be carried when he came back the following year. I have now read the statement again, and I am still more anxious about the future if that statement is after all, to be the basis of this Government’s policy and is to be acted upon. The Minister has based this piece of legislation on the ground that it is merely implementing the statement which Genl. Hertzog made. Now that statement goes a great deal further than the law which the Minister is now making. It suggests that it will be necessary to legislate in order to empower public bodies, when selling or letting land, to limit the occupation or ownership to Europeans or to non-Europeans. Now I know it is too late to get the Minister to change his intention in regard to the present Bill and drop this clause 3; although I still feel that the present Government has made a mistake in introducing it. I concede and I am willing to support the general contention that the principle of residential separation is, in the conditions existing in this country, probably a sound one. But that only necessitates a servitude on occupation, and that I am prepared to support, but the servitude which is taken here is a servitude on ownership, and there is no reason, so far as I can see, why the Minister should not follow up this step by further legislation which will empower bodies not only to place a servitude on land on which housing schemes are erected, but on any land.

Many coloured persons have asked that this should be done to protect them because of Europeans buying up property in coloured settlements.

I feel that the coloured people who have asked for that are unaware of the possible ramifications of what they are asking, and that is why I feel that the coloured people are in a difficult position because neither by education, experience or advice, are they able to see the long range dangers of proposals they may make or be willing to accept to meet immediate difficulties. I feel so strongly about this because of my long association with the Native position in this country. I am prepared to accept the principle that residential separation is the best thing in this country in view of the present attitude of the public mind. But I view with the gravest alarm any attack on property rights as such. I have seen what has happened to the native population. We began with the principle of social segregation. Then we went from social separation to residential segregation, and then we went to limit their property rights—which is largely the explanation, not merely of the present poverty of the Native population but of the hopeless lack of any future for the Native population of this country. We are now apparently beginning to embark on the same road with our coloured people. It is easy to begin with residential separation on social grounds, and then to take the next step and say that the limitation of property rights only applies to small areas; and from there it is all too easy to go further and to justify, as the hon. member for Fordsburg has done, the taking away of further rights by saying that what is asked for operates both to Europeans as well as to coloureds. It does not work out like that in practice. The intention of this whole move is to separate the coloured people from the Europeans and it ends by giving the coloured people only such property rights as the Europeans are prepared to allow them and do not themselves want. It is so easy to say that Europeans will not be able to buy in coloured areas and that therefore similarly coloured people should not be allowed to buy property in European areas. It is a very specious argument, the effect of which we have seen in respect of the native. The areas set aside for coloured occupation will be areas where the property rights are not only less valuable, but will be closely circumscribed. We have to see these things in the light of the prejudice prevailing in this country, and we find that no matter what the intentions are the results are usually to the detriment of the weaker sections. In the Native field, it was only the year before we came into Parliament—that legislation was hurried through, and hurried through before we should come into Parliament—under which Parliament abolished the right which up to that time the Native population had had to buy land in urban areas. Always in the past the native population has had the power to buy land in urban areas even where they could not occupy it; but it was easy to say: “Why should they buy land in areas where they cannot occupy it?” So that right was taken away under the Native Laws Amendment Act of 1937, and when that was taken away a very important property right was taken away, a right on which the native population might have been able to build up some foundation for progress. And it is the same sort of development which I fear from this Bill, from this clause, and it is for that reason that I am so anxious about the power which the Government is instituting here. The only thing I can now ask for is that the Minister will make a statement of what his intentions are in regard to this declaration by Gen. Hertzog — what his intentions are as to the future policy of the country. I know he has said in other places and at other times that it is not his intention to interfere with the property rights of the coloured people, but this is the first step towards that interference, and if he has any intention of implementing in full Gen. Hertzog’s declaration, then there can be no doubt of interference with the property rights of the coloured people. I hope he will at least give us the assurance that this is the last step in that direction which his Government intends to take and that so far as this Government is concerned, there will be no further interference into the property rights of the coloured people.

I sat here and listened to the speaker who just sat down, and while I listened to her it occurred to me what the cause is of the trouble we have had with the coloureds on the train, and of the perpetual clashes we have seen in the cities with the coloureds. It is because these people are told that they are being deprived of their rights, and because they are perpetually incited by people who ought to know better.

It is so easy to call an opponent an agitator.

I can understand—this speaker represents natives—that she is anxious to get for those people even more than the European persons have. We are heartsore because the Government has not come forward immediately with a scheme to remove once and for all those evil conditions that exist in the cities, and also on the Platteland, where coloureds and Europeans live cheek by jowl. She said that she was also in favour of separate residential areas. But now there is something else—she wants the coloureds to have the right to be the landlords of the Europeans. I say that we are disappointed with this legislation, because the Government comes year after year with bits of patchwork, instead of thrashing out the matter once and for all and coming to light with a comprehensive scheme under which this matter, which is of vital concern, can be dealt with. It avails us nothing, and it avails members on the other side nothing if they win this war and have to comtemplate posterity becoming bastardised. And then we find that people such as those we have now heard coming here to ask why coloureds cannot be the owners of land in European residential areas, and why European persons should not have the right of buying property in coloured residential areas, and why they may not buy land in native territories and vice versa. All this might be correct in theory, but we must look at the practical outcome of matters of this nature. Assuming that a European person goes to live in a coloured locality, what will the position ultimately become? No, we say that European persons must not have the right to own land in native and coloured territories, and it is only right and fair that natives and coloureds must not own land in European residential areas. That is all we ask and demand of the Government, that it should introduce legislation to put a stop to the state of affairs in Cape Town. It we allow people to live together, and if they come into contact with one another socially, then we cannot prevent the process of bastardisation. Only a few weeks ago I was told that a woman here in Cape Town was married to a coloured person before the magistrate. We cannot curb that sort of thing unless we make provision for the people to live apart. We must determine where European people must live and where the coloureds must live. We cannot simply let those things go on because inciters such as the last speaker whom we heard here bring the people into resistance against this. I say that coloureds and natives ought not to possess land in European residential areas, and vice versa. I don’t think there is a single decent European person who would like to go and live among coloureds. I am disappointed in this Bill. I am so disappointed that I feel one ought to do something to shake the Minister awake. He is busy dealing with this matter, and does the man not see what the position in the country is? I do not want to mention all the figures here again. The Minister has heard the figures repeatedly and ad nauseam. He knows what the housing distress in the country is, what to me is a little ray of light in connection with the matter, is that the Minister after all these years of pleas from this side of the House has now awakened and has come to the conclusion that it is the duty of the State to care for the housing of poor people, because the municipalities are not in a position to take upon themselves the responsibility for that work.

Some municipalities, but not all.

The smaller areas are something different. The point is simply this. I congratulated the Minister by way of an interjection that he had come to that conclusion, and then he replied that I had never asked for it. I want to say to the Minister that the first speech which I delivered in this House related to housing. I specifically raised this point. I delivered that speech on 28th July, 1939, and since that time I have raised the matter here year after year. I said to this House what I want to say again, and I cannot do it better than to repeat what I said on that occasion—

The following year I quoted letters which I had received from Smithfield where the position arose that the municipality had to pay the interest on houses, and they could not sell or let the houses. That sometimes happens on the Platteland. The poor people must be encouraged by the Government to acquire their own houses. It imparts a sense of responsibility to those people. If they own a house then they know that they have a stake in the country and they like to retain it. The Minister of Finance has often spoke about thrift. What does a man care if he has no furture? If he possesses nothing; if he has no prospects of possessing his own house, what does he then care, and what sort of an asset is such a man to the State? He simply spends his money. If a man has a house, then he saves his money first to pay the taxes and thereafter to redeem the bond, and if the house becomes his own then he feels he is a citizen of the country and that he has a stake in the country. He feels that if he owns his own house then he possess at least something. I say frankly, if we see the houses in which some people live then we cannot expect their children to grow up as decent citizens. There are some houses in which the people cannot even take a bath. If a man cannot even keep his body clean how can he keep his soul clean? The Minister must realise that the need is there, and he must realise in addition that the smaller municipalities are not in a position to lend money for housing. Why should this happen through the municipalities? The municipalities will be prepared to administer the matter for the Government and to give advice. They will be prepared to help with the erection of houses and in keeping supervision over the houses, but why cannot the State take upon itself the responsibility for the loans? In any case the Government gives the money to the municipalities to lend out; let the Government make the loans direct so that we can get better conditions. We have to look upon these chaotic conditions in the country today. It goes with houses as it sometimes goes with money. Money is plentiful, and then again one finds that money is scarce, and one does not know where it disappears to. In the same way we find that there are times when houses are scarce, and we do not know what became of the houses. But then again there are times when houses are plentiful, and when there is a surplus of houses. This is the difficulty with which municipalities are faced. They do not know how long the houses will remain let, and they do not know if a time will come when houses will stand empty and when the municipalities will not be able to sell them. On the other hand we have the position that people perpetually fear today that they will not have a roof over their heads tomorrow. The law has been framed in such a way that a house may not be let over their heads. But it may be sold over their heads, and the people are perpetually faced with that anxiety. What I feel is this, that every citizen in the country should be able to acquire a house. We have timber in South Africa, we have land and bricks, and we have the artisans to build the houses. Let us build the houses for these people of our own wood and materials, and give them a chance to pay for those houses. When one day they have paid them off, then they are an asset to the State, then those people will feel that they can push out their chests and look the world in the eye. The man then feels that he need not be afraid that his wife and children will be put out on the street some day. It gives him self-respect; it gives him a feeling of responsibility. The man feels that he has something to lose in the land if things go wrong, and that in turn gives him a feeling of responsibility. I feel really disappointed, for year after year we get bits and pieces, and only patchwork such as this is done. I feel that there should be a planned scheme. The Minister must submit a plan to us so that we can enable people to arrive at the position some day where they can say that their houses are their own. I want to congratulate the Minister on Clause 3 which he has inserted. I hope that it is the thin end of the wedge. We cannot allow white and coloured to live cheek by jowl. This will mean that the children grow up together and later intermarry, and bastardisation takes place. I am glad for that reason that there has now been incorporated in the law a provision that in such a European residential area a coloured person may not own property, and vice versa. We give the coloured people the same rights in their area as we give the Europeans in their area. The Europeans also have not the right to acquire property in the area of the coloureds. I think the country is more than ripe for such a step. I think that the election in Paarl was won on the basis of separate residential areas, and if the Government does not heed this cry then the Government will, as sure as I stand here, come to a fall on that point, and it will fall very far.

This matter of housing is obviously bound up intimately with the whole question of public health in South Africa. And, as with the subject of public health, there has been in recent times a sudden but very heartening growth of public opinion, demanding changes, sweeping changes, almost revolutionary changes. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), and other members who have spoken, that we have to build more houses than have been built in the past. I agree that there is a lamentable shortage of houses for all sections of the community. I have already said that I consider the Government itself should in the case of smaller municipalities, the less financially stable municipalities, assist in a larger measure than it has done in the past. But no Government can act ahead of public opinion. It is most interesting hearing these things now and most encouraging. The Public Health Department has been hammering at these things for years, but if public opinion had been awakened to the need for a new deal in public health, for hospitals, for housing—would public opinion ever have allowed this Parliament to pass Public Health Estimates amounting to £200,000 or £300,000 year after year. Yet that has been done calmly for many years gone by. Now-a-days public opinion is alive to these things. But in the past, when other Governments were in power, when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of the Interior and Minister of Public Health, there was no such demand. I am not trying to make party capital out of this.

But you always do.

Do not let my hon. friend’s conscience prick him. It is unfortunate that when any matter of national importance is discussed here there are always some members who try to bring the discussion down to the common denominator of party politics. I am not trying to make party politics out of the fact that these things have not been done in the past. I give hon. members these facts and I tell them that members of this House were prepared year after year to tolerate a Public Health Vote of £200,000 or £300,000.

You have been in this House since 1929.

Yes, I was here and I was just as guilty as any other member in allowing these estimates to pass through this House in the form in which they did pass through. But what I was saying is that if public opinion had been as strong as it is now, if public opinion had been as wide awake as it is now, members of Parliament would never have allowed these things to happen, but I say again that no Government can act in advance of public opinion.

That’s a very poor excuse.

It is not an excuse, it is a fact. But thanks to the health propaganda which we have seen carried on by the Public Health Department continually—thanks to the enthusiastic work by officials of the Public Health Department, the position has changed. The public conscience has become awakened to these needs, and the Department of Public Health and the Government are now taking advantage of this change of public opinion, and they are taking advantage of this period of transition from the old to a better social order, in order to seize the opportunity for the preparation of plans for the future. I would have thought that hon. members, instead of submitting merely carping criticism, would have welcomed the proposals which have been submitted to the Government in regard to housing. The hon. member for Fordsburg has once again asked: “What is the Government going to do about the shortage of housing?” The Government cannot wave a wand and immediately produce all the houses necessary. It is, however, going to have a national housing survey, and it has been decided that the Committee which will undertake this survey will consist of three or four persons well qualified to undertake that investigation, and one of the members of that Committee will be a woman.

How long will that take?

I do not think it will take more than three or four months.

Will it take the form of a Commission.

No, it will be a Committee which will travel round the country and make this investigation with the utmost speed. The members invited to act on this Committee have been told that it is expected that they will report with the utmost expedition.

Will they take evidence?

If the hon. member is interested he will have adequate opportunity of discussing the matter with me at any time in my office, or with the Secretary for Public Health.

The whole House is interested.

I am trying to explain the position, but I find it very difficult to do so when I am subjected to a running fire of cross examination. Of course, the hon. member is only interested in his own questions. He is not interested in the general subject. Let me say that this Committee will undertake this national housing survey. I anticipate that its findings will disclose a most serious state of affairs indeed. I believe that in Johannesburg and its environments alone it is estimated that there is a need for about 20,000 sub-economic houses.

10,000 in Cape Town.

That survey may show that there is a shortage in South Africa at present in the neighbourhood of 50,000 or 60,000 sub-economic houses. I have no doubt that the findings of the survey will startle the public, but I think hon. members should be grateful to the Government for facing up to that position, however unpalatable the facts may be.

Is this survey only going to be in regard to the need for sub-economic housing?

No, it will be a survey in regard to all housing needs. I think I have already told the House that it will not have regard to platteland needs, other than the needs of platteland towns and dorps.

How about the poor farmers?

This Committee will not be charged with going into the question of housing on farms. That is not within the scope of the Housing Board. This Committee will concern itself with the housing needs of all sections of the population in the large towns, and the small towns, and the villages of the platteland. I hope the announcement of the personnel of the Committee will be made shortly, and I am confident that that personnel will commend itself to the country. Now the hon. member has asked what we are going to do about the shortage. Well, I have told him that we have now appointed this Housing Survey Committee. In addition to that steps are being taken to reshape the Housing Board itself. The Housing Board consists of certain members who meet from time to time. Some are appointed for their technical qualifications but at present these technical members are engaged almost full time in working out technical details of schemes submitted to them. The Department of Public Health is in fact reshaping the whole Board by having a Board analagous to the National Roads Board, which will meet at regular intervals in order to shape policy, and it will have a full-time Chairman. It will have a staff of technical officials, who will do the technical side of the work, and leave the Board members free to shape and direct policy. But not only is the Government making these plans for the future. It has been enabling the local authorities to carry on with the work of bulling housing schemes, and in this Bill it is taking powers to press the local authorities to a greater extent than was done in the past. I think it is necessary that when we are able to map out a scheme on a national basis, something on which we may have to have the assistance of the Social and Economic Planning Council — when these plans are made the Government will probably have to subsidise to a much larger extent those local authorities which cannot bear their share — the Government may have to subsidise them to a much larger extent than is the case at present. I think that will have to be done if we are to face up to this housing problem in all its aspects. In the meantime the funds have been and are being provided. Now the hon. member for Fordsburg has asked me to give figures of European housing. In the last three years, that is up to the 30th June, 1942, I find that 74 houses have been built for European aged poor, 1,259 economic houses, and 708 sub-economic houses, making a total of 2,113.

That’s not very impressive.

If my hon. friend will wait and listen to all the figures, he may think differently. I find that apart from the building of houses, steady progress has been made in the ownership of houses. That is reflected in the Census of rents in 1942. During 1942 6,123 houses in sixteen different local authority areas which had been rented in 1941, were owned by the occupants. That is to say, those houses which in 1941 were rented, were owned by the occupants in 1942. I gave the figures up to the 30th June, 1942, and for the year 1942-’43 loan application totalling £1,748,896 involving the erection or the enlargement of 4,596 dwellings were approved.

They cannot be uitilised, there is no building material.

My hon. friend says they cannot be utilised. May I just say this. That the economic loans during 1942-’43 were £63,345, all in respect of European housing. The loans are granted to local authorities who apply for them. Under our present system it is the local authority which takes the initiative for action. The local authority is charged with the duty of clearing up slum areas and putting up houses. And let me further say this, that during the last three years great progress has been made in the building of sub-economic houses for the non-European section, and the majority of houses built, sub-economic houses, during this period, has been for non-Europeans. I have given figures to show that housing has also gone on apace in regard to the Europeans, and I think my hon. friend will agree that if we are to tackle this problem at all we must tackle it as a whole. It is no use just building houses for Europeans and not for non-Europeans. The figures show that considerable progress has been made. It is the local authority who has asked to build these non-European schemes. And they have done very excellent work in clearing up their slum areas. The hon. member has suggested that work has come to a standstill because of the lack of building materials. That is not correct in regard to sub-economic housing. The building controller has laid down the policy that he will not restrict the building of sub-economic houses. There have been difficulties in regard to the materials themselves but the Government at an early date expressed its positive wish that housing should not be held up and so the Housing Board at an early date, appreciating the difficulty, arranged for the construction of sub-economic and economic dwellings with a what is known as pre-cast single unit asphalted type of roofing. This type of construction, which has its origin in Southern Rhodesia, brought relief to a large number of local authorities, which through shortage of building materials, had despaired of being able to proceed with their housing schemes. Unfortunately this type of construction was brought to a standstill because the necessary elements, the asphalt sheeting, could not be obtained. The Housing Board was alive to the situation and was experimenting all the time anticipating that such difficulties might arise, and it arranged for an alternative type to be used. This design has been tried out and has proved to be entirely effective and suitable for both European and non-European economic and sub-economic types of dwellings, with or without ceilings. If ceilings are required they can be manufactured of South African cement. Steps were also adopted to erect dwellings with flat roofs constructed of asbestos and cement. This type is to take the place of other materials not obtainable. One of the merits of a concrete roof is that the roof and the ceiling are one whole. Then the obvious importance of using only South African products in this type of construction was not overlooked. Among the South African articles used were concrete, and cement and asbestos window frames, doors, sinks and so on. The problem of a suitable substitute for wood and asphalt sheeting will, it is hoped, be solved by using more asbestos, or pressed wood composition, with a bitumen suface. These experiments are meeting with excellent results. Hon. members have probably heard of the experiments that are being made on the Rand where we have now evolved a form of house made of South African materials, which can be used for all types of sub-economic houses.

Why don’t you induce the Minister of Defence to use that for Defence purposes?

One of our difficulties was that no sooner had we found a substitute for imported articles than the Defence Department stepped in and took over our local articles and froze the materials. That, however, has now ceased, and I can assure the hon. member, and I can assure the House, that there is no reason whatever for any local authority to contend that it is unable to carry on with sub-economic schemes because of lack of housing materials. In regard to Pretoria, recently a deputation saw me and they have been given authority to proceed at once with a sub-economic housing scheme for Europeans. They have been given authority to proceed with the building of 500 houses for Europeans. That is a very big scheme indeed, which will materially ease the position in Pretoria.

What about Cape Town?

The hon. member for Fordsburg has referred to the emergency regulations and he has suggested that they would not ease the position. I would refer him to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the administration of these regulations, which have been brought into effect not for the purpose of building houses, but for the purpose of dealing with the shortage. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has once again returned to Clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill does nothing more than give statutory sanction to the practice which has been in operation for many years. In actual fact local authorities have been setting aside townships, housing schemes, for one or other of the racial groups of the country. European, coloured, native and Indian housing schemes have been set out. It has been the intention of these local authorities that these housing schemes should be occupied only by members of one particular racial group. This provision in the Bill does no more, it goes no further than to regularise that position.

Does it not give power to alienate?

In the vast majority of these cases the owner of the property is the local authority itself.

Has it no power to alienate?

The idea, as I understand it, will be that there will be no power to alienate in the case of any new owner; presumably the local authority would not need that servitude because it is master of its own affairs. I have not gone into the specific case which the hon. member has raised. But whether or not it is so, this clause merely gives effect to what is actually being done now. It has been found, however, that there have been certain places where the precaution of having the servitude included has not been taken. My attention was recently drawn to the case of certain coloured persons in a settlement near Wellington, and certain members of the coloured community complained that Europeans were coming in and were buying their properties. This clause will have the effect of protecting those persons.

An occupational servitude would protect those persons.

I cannot see with the best will in the world any difference in principle between an occupational servitude and a servitude against alienation. If the hon. member is prepared to accept the one, then the same principle applies. What use will it be to have a servitude against occupation by another race, if you did not have a servitude against alienation? In actual fact, these questions of property right do not loom very large in relation to this question of sub-economic housing, and if I may be allowed to say so, with all due respect, my hon. friend’s argument is becoming a little doctrinaire. I do not believe that we are furthering the interests of the non-European community if we do not face up to the realities, and the reality of the situation is that these housing schemes are for the good of the non-European community, they are accepted by them, and this clause will not alter the practical position one iota, except to ensure that the intentions of these local authorities have a solid statutory backing. Take a township like Q Township which is mapped out near Cape Town for coloured people. Already coloured organisations are collecting funds to start co-operative stores there. They are very nervous of European commercial persons coming in and trading there. They are very anxious to trade themselves, and it is a very excellent thing. This clause will enable them to do so. I appeal to my hon. friend not to let her natural sentiments for the non-Europeans—not to let her heart overrule her head in these matters. Yes, I realise that I am on very delicate and dangerous ground now.

It is a very charming view indeed.

But I can assure the hon. member that this Government has no intention whatever of adopting a policy of compulsory separation—it proposes to carry on with the policy as laid down by the previous Government, and to arrange for separation along voluntary lines without giving offence to any section of the community. That is it’s fixed policy.

Is this as far as the Government intends going?

The statement made by the late Gen. Hertzog contemplated this legislation, and this legislation is here now.

It contemplated very much more than this legislation.

No, I do not agree with the hon. member, but I do not propose to allow myself to be dragged into a discussion which is not germane to the subject before the House. The Government has no intention of interfering with the existing political rights of the coloured community. That is all I want to say. I think I have now covered all the matters raised by hon. members, and I hope the hon. member for Cape Eastern will withdraw the objection she has to this clause. I am afraid I cannot drop it. I do not propose dropping it now, nor do I propose dropping it in the Senate. Nor do I propose going any further than the existing provisions.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This is a Bill into the preparation of which a very great deal of labour and study has gone. The importance of the subject, I think, merits all the work that has been done in regard to this measure. It was first introduced into this House after a good deal of preliminary work two years ago. Its introduction took place at a fairly late stage of the Session, and although the Bill was then referred to a Select Committee, that Select Committee could not complete the taking of evidence. It took a certain amount of evidence, and reported accordingly but it was not able to take the matter further at that stage. By that introduction, however, the Bill received a good deal of publicity and during the recess which followed the Session of 1941 various conferences took place, and specific points received further consideration. As a result of that the Bill was redrafted and submitted again last Session. But once again the introduction of the Bill was too late for the matter to be proceeded with then. It was, therefore, re-introduced at the commencement of the present Session and immediately sent to a Select Committee. That Select Committee has been at work on this Bill for a large part of the Session. It has, I think, done excellent work, and the draft Bill, as prepared by the Select Committee, containing a certain number of amendments to the original departmental draft, is now before us. We have in South Africa an Insurance Act. We have had an Insurance Act for the last twenty years. That Act is based on the principle of the English law. It is, however, only based on the English Law of 1909. Our Insurance legislation takes no account of amending Acts passed in England in 1933 and 1935 which to some extent modified the principles of the law of 1909. The basis of our legislation today, therefore, is still the oasis of the 1909 law not modified by subsequent legislation. The underlying principle is that of the minimum of interference with the maximum of publicity. That is the principle of our law today. The insurance companies are required to have actuarial investigations at least once in every five years. They have to submit annual returns to the Treasury. These returns are open to inspection by the public, and they are published by the Treasury in summarised form so that the public is assumed to be in a position to judge the financial conditions of the insurance companies. The companies, however, are allowed almost complete freedom—the widest possible freedom in the conduct of their business. The Treasury may apply to the courts for the cancellation of the registration of an insurance company, if it has failed to comply with some material provision of the Act. But otherwise the Treasury has no power whatever to safeguard the interests of the policy holder. I say again that we are today still on the basis of the Act of 1909 in Great Britain unmodified by subsequent legislation. In other parts of the British Commonwealth, as for instance Canada and India, more up date insurance legislation has been enacted, but we have not so far done that. The policy holder according to the conditions of our present law, has to protect, himself. The State merely assists him in protecting himself by providing information, by making information available, which it gets from the companies. That may be alright in theory, but I do not think we can continue to be content with that, as from the practical point of view policy holders really have no proper protection. These insurance company returns and the actuarial reports are all the policy holder has. There are very few policy holders who could get very much guidance and help from the returns of insurance companies as published by the Treasury today. Indeed I doubt if many policy holders ever look at these published returns. Moreover, if a company should get into difficulties, there is nothing the Treasury can do. We cannot intervene in the interest of the policy holders, we can only intervene if the company has failed to comply with a material condition of the Act. I think the House will agree with me that it is not desirable that that state of affairs should be allowed to continue. We have in recent years taken steps to protect the savings of the people in building societies, and banks and similar institutions. There is a very large amount of the savings of the people invested in insurance companies, and I think we would be failing in our duty if we did not take steps to protect these savings as well. It may be said that we have had the Insurance Act in operation since 1923, and that no serious incidents have taken place. That is quite true. But the country does not owe that to the operation of the law passed by Parliament twenty years ago. The country owes that happy fact solely to sheer good luck, and I do not think we can go on trusting to luck in this matter. Moreover, I think we must face the possibility at least of there being post-war difficulties. I think it will be accepted as most desirable, having regard to the possibility of such difficulties, that all companies operating in South Africa, should have a fully covered position. I say again we shall be failing in our duty if we dot not take steps to put the control of insurance companies on a sound basis. This Bill is designed to do that, and I believe, and hope, that it will be accepted as an up-to-date and effective measure from the point of view of the achievement of that particular end. The most important principle of the Bill is to be found, I think, in Section 17. That section lays it down in the words of the marginal note, that the value of the Insurer’s assets in the Union must equal his liabilities in respect of his business in the Union. In other words, under this Bill the insurer in the Union will in future have to have a fully covered position. Section 18 takes the matter a little further. The insurer must hold assets in the Union equal to his Union liability. But, of course, these need not all be Union assets, Union investments, and so Section 18 takes us a little further and says that of all these assets which make up the fully covered position, 75 per cent. must be Union investments. And then the clause goes on to say that of these Union investments 53⅓ per cent., which works out at 40 per cent. of the whole of the assets held in the Union, must be of a gilt edged nature, as specified in Sub-Section 3. The net result is then that a company will have to hold in the Union assets sufficient to cover its liabilities, of which 40 per cent. must be gilt edged Union investments, 35 per cent. may be other Union investments, and the remaining 25 per cent. may be non-Union investments—which must be in the Union.

What do you call gilt edged?

That is defined in Sub-Section 3. I am using that as a compendious description. In order to make it reasonably possible for companies who cannot comply with these requirements today, the same clause, namely Clause 18, lays down a period during which the requirements of the Bill in this particular respect will have to be met by various stages. I think I can say that it is to this particular part of the Bill that the greatest amount of study and thought was given and I am glad to note that the Select Committee has in effect endorsed, certainly as far as Section 18 is concerned, the proposals which were submitted by me when I first introduced this Bill this Session. In connection with the determination of the financial position of a company, in connection with the decision as to whether its position is fully covered or not, the method of calculating a company’s liabilities is necessarily of very great importance, and with that in view the minimum basis for such a calculation has been laid down in the Second Schedule of the Bill. This schedule has been based on the advice of the Government actuary, who is satisfied that the proposals therein contained are reasonable proposals, but at the same time commensurate with the safety of the policy holders’ interests. Actually I think there are some life companies today which adopt a more stringent basis of valuation than is contained in the schedule. But I would repeat, that taking the position as a whole, that basis is a reasonable basis and at the same time will give security to the policy holder. The next important point of principle in the Bill is the following. In some countries which have modernised their insurance legislation, there have been created insurance departments with pretty considerable powers of administration. Probably it is the United States of America that goes furthest in that regard. Now, sir, in this Bill we are not proposing to bureaucratise insurance to quite the same extent as has been done in those countries to which I have referred. We content ourselves in effect with the creation of the office of Registrar of Insurance, which is dealt with in some of the earlier clauses of the Bill. But while we are not going to administer the work of insurance companies in the same detail as is done in some other countries, we still regard it as essential that the accuracy of the statements of the companies should be ensured. We regard that, however, as being the task of the companies’ own auditors and actuaries. We propose to place on auditors and actuaries the responsibility for that part of the work, but in view of the responsibility which the auditors and actuaries will have to bear, we propose to lay it down that their appointment should be subject to approval, and we also propose to give the Registrar the power in exceptional cases, to insist on the appointment of a new auditor and actuary. Those provisions are laid down in Sections 9 and 10. You will see that in these respects the Registrar will have important powers, although nothing like as far-reaching as the head of the insurance department has in other countries. But the Registrar will exercise his power subject to control by the Minister, and we propose to lay it down in the Bill that an aggrieved party will be given the right of appeal to the Minister against the Registrar’s decision. Then I think I should draw attention to Section 4 Sub-Section (3) which deals with the entry into the business of insurance of a non-Union company in the future. At present the position is that any insurance company may come from outside the Union and may start writing life assurance in the Union, merely after having deposited the prescribed security of £10,000, and the filing of certain documents. Treasury has nothing to say in regard to the soundness or otherwise of that company. Section 4 (3) will now lay down certain requirements in that connection. It lays down that such a company will have to satisfy the Registrar that it has been carrying on insurance business for at least twenty years. It lays down further that the Registrar will have to be satisfied as to its financial soundness. The next important clause is Clause 24. That clause deals with insurance companies which are still in existence, but are no longer writing new business in the Union. They, however, have policies still in force in the Union, or possibly there may be cases of companies which may wish to discontinue the writing of new business in the future, while, of course, retaining their obligations to existing policy holders. We do not propose—I think it is unnecessary—to apply all the provisions of the law to these companies, but we wish to lay down that they have to submit returns to the Registrar, and he will have certain powers over them in order to protect policy holders. Then Sections 25 to 27 deal with amalgamation or transfer of insurance businesses, and then we have an important section in Section 29, which lays down that—

That is a power which we have not got today, but which I think we should definitely have if we are to do our duty to policy holders. That, I think will give the House some idea of the proposals in the first chapter of the Bill, Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, which is a short one, there are specific proposals dealing with the judicial management and winding up of insurance businesses. I do not think I need give the House details regarding them. Then in Chapter 3 we set forth certain provisions of a more detailed nature relating to different classes of insurance businesses. There are four sections to that chapter. The first deals with life insurance companies, and in that connection I think I should draw particular attention to the provisions of Sections 39 to 46, which deal with the protection of policies during the lifetime and in the event of the death of the policy holder, as, for instance, in the event of insolvency in relation to the administration of the estate. The second head of this chapter deals with industrial businesses, and for the most part is based merely on the application of certain of the provisions which are applicable in relation to life companies. Then we have a further section dealing with funeral businesses, burial societies. Hon. members will probably remember that in 1937 a Select Committee of this House sat in regard to burial societies, and legislation was then prepared. It would have been proceeded with before now, but it was felt that it had better stand over until it could be embodied in this more comprehensive insurance Bill. It was quite clear as the result of the investigations of that Select Committee that some of the smaller burial societies are not really in a sound actuarial position, and there again in order to protect the savings of the people, it is necessary for us to intervene and lay down certain canons of security which will have to be complied with in the future. The provisions of the Bill as drafted will give the societies a chance to establish themselves on a sound basis. The proposals, I think, are of a reasonable nature, and hold a due balance between the position of the societies, which might perhaps be put out of business if we acted too drastically, and the position of the investor who might be in danger of losing his money if action is not taken. The other sub-head of this particular chapter, sub-head D deals with sinking fund businesses and merely applies certain previous sections to business of that type. Then there is a fourth chapter in this Bill, which deals with the work of insurance by agents in South Africa, by brokers who act as agents for Lloyds’ underwriters. Under the present law such brokers, if they want to initiate business in the Union on behalf of Lloyds have to deposit security with the Treasury to the value of £2,000, whereas a company has to make a deposit of £10,000, which, of course, covers its branches. This Bill tightens up the provisions of the law in regard to companies by insisting on their having a fully covered position. That, however, is inapplicable in relation to these brokers because of the fact that they are merely acting as agents for Lloyds. We cannot therefore make that provision in their regard. But it does seem to be reasonable to tighten up the position in regard to Lloyds agents in other respects. The question of security is not really of any importance here. I do not think anybody need question the security of Lloyds, but the question is rather one of competition between the agents and the insurance companies. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that the scope of the business of an agent of this kind is not strictly comparable with the scope of the business of a company, and that therefore it would not be fair to require these agents to deposit as large an amount as the companies, namely £10,000. The Select Committee thought, however, that the amount should be more than £2,000, which is the figure today, and the proposal in this Bill is that the deposit should be £5,000. At the same time Lloyds itself will be required to deposit a lump sum of £30,000. It is further provided in Section 60 that Lloyds’ brokers, the agents for Lloyds, will have to pay 2½ per cent. of the aggregate on all premiums in respect of policies written by them. That is in consideration of the fact that the underwriters of Lloyds, for whom they are acting, escape our income tax on the profits they make on Union policies. I recognise that there may be a difference of opinion in regard to these proposals, but I think that on the whole the Select Committee has struck a fair balance in the suggestions which it has made, and which I therefore support. Then there is a final chapter in the Bill, Chapter 5, which deals with various supplementary provisions, mostly of a detailed character. I need not weary the House by enumerating those details. I would only draw attention to the most important clause in that chapter, Clause 62, which provides for various things. It provides for a period of grace for the payment of the premium on life policies. It provides for the issue of a paid-up policy on a basis not less generous than that laid down in the third schedule. It also provides in a new sub-section for notification to policy holders of the possibility of their policies lapsing. As I have said, I do not think I need delay the House by dealing with the other proposals in this chapter. They can be better considered in Committee if need be. I have contented myself with attempting to give the House a general picture of this Bill. As to the necessity of legislation of this type, I have no doubt whatever, and that, I am glad to note was the decision to which the Select Committee came, and I believe the House will agree with that, and therefore be prepared to accept the second reading of the Bill. I feel that the provisions of the Bill will be found to be fair and reasonable and adequately meeting the position. I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the second reading of the Bill today. I do not intend to rush the Committee stage. If the second reading is taken today, I shall put the Committee stage down for next Thursday, and I hope hon. members will take advantage of that fairly lengthy period by putting their amendments on the Order Paper so that they may receive proper consideration.

This Bill, as the Minister of Finance remarked in his speech, will be welcomed by all. It fills a very great need, and particularly since it makes thorough provision for the protection of the investor and the policy-holder it will, so far as this is concerned, be very acceptable. I am also glad to see that the Government is revealing an increased tendency to exercise more and greater State control over the economy of the country. It is a policy to which this side of the House subscribes and which this side of the House has repeatedly preached, and we can thus view with pleasure that the Government is busy preparing the way for us so that when we take over the Government it will not cause such a great revolution in the economy of the country. The Bill, as the Minister of Finance said, was dealt with by a Select Committee. Considerable evidence was taken, and so far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned there was, with one exception, complete unanimity. There is one provision, as I have said, however, on which the Committee did not agree, and it is a matter which I at least consider so important that I feel called upon to refer to it now at the second reading. It is a matter of principle, namely whether the interests of South Africa should be subservient to the interests of another country. Clause 60 of the Bill deals with the insurance company Lloyds, which is established in England. It is a foreign company with its head office and all its control activities in England. Here in South Africa it only has representatives, agents or brokers. Altogether there are eight representatives of Lloyds in South Africa. But these eight agents of Lloyds do considerable insurance business. Now Lloyds, as we know, is one of the best-known insurance companies in the world. They undertake all sorts of insurance. We find that they also undertake kinds of insurance work that are not usually undertaken by other companies. Lloyds would be quite prepared, for instance, to insure any hon. member of this House against the danger that his wife might have twins. I think that the Minister of Finance particularly will be a very good risk! But one thing which even Lloyds would not be pared to undertake would be to insure hon. members on the other side against the loss of their seats. If Lloyds now was restricted to that sort of insurance, namely the classes of insurance that are not undertaken by other companies, then there would have been no objection from this side against the provisions of Clause 60 of the Bill, for then we would have admitted immediately that Lloyds fills a certain need that exists in the country, namely that it is prepared to undertake insurance for which the other companies do not provide. That is so far as Lloyds is concerned. But the greatest part of their business is precisely the same sort of business as that which is undertaken by the local insurance companies, namely insurance against fire, maritime dangers, etc.—to a large extent the sort of business that is undertaken in South Africa, and business for which our local insurance companies do provide. I say that there are eight agents of Lloyds in South Africa, and although there are only eight agents they collect premiums and they do just as much of this kind of insurance work as all the other ocal insurance companies together. According to the figures that are available, they collect approximately £168,000 per annum in premiums. That is a premium amount that is more than the total amount collected by all the South African insurance companies for this sort of insurance business. That at any rate is the information which the Select Committee received. It will immediately be seen that our South African companies were considerably perturbed about the position. They felt: Look, here is a competitor, a foreign company, which pays no income tax in the Union, a company which does not have its head office in South Africa, which has none of its shareholders in South Africa; in other words a company that is exclusively an overseas company and which merely has its agents in the Union of South Africa. This company is such a strong competitor that it does as much of a certain kind of business in South Africa as all the other South African insurance companies put together That has been the case, and the result has been that the South African insurance companies have directed representations to the Government. They wanted protection against the competition of Lloyds, which is a foreign company and which has no actual interest in South Africa. The principle involved is this: Is it the policy of this House and this Government to make the interests of South Africa subservient to the interests of another country? If that is not the policy of the Government then it is the duty of the Government to protect the interests of South African undertakings against foreign competition. That, when all is said and done, is what the matter boils down to. If it is the policy of the Government to protect South African interests and to place these interests over and above those of any other country, then the Government must take all possible steps to protect South African undertakings against foreign competition. I repeat: Lloyds has no office in the Union, except its agent and brokers. Secondly, Lloyds pays no taxation to our Government. Provision has indeed now been made for the brokers to pay 2½ per cent. on the premiums which they collect. Thirdly, none of the profits which Lloyds makes as a result of the business it conducts in South Africa are spent in the Union. All the profits that are made go out of the country, and they are paid out to shareholders or to the members of Lloyds who are resident in England. In other words, the Union of South Africa derives no benefit as a result of the business that Lloyds does in South Africa. The profits go out of the country to investors overseas, and they pay no taxation to the Union, except in respect of the provision that is now made. As a result of the representations of the South African companies the Government has realised this to some extent, and in the original Bill the Government incorporated a provision which would have made it more difficult to increase the number of Lloyds agents in the Union. It was not the intention to eliminate the present agents and to make it impossible for them to conduct their business. But what the Minister did was to insert a provision in the original Bill that would have prevented an increase in the number of Lloyds’ agents in South Africa. The provision was that every broker of Lloyds—and there are only eight of them—had to deposit a sum of £10,000 with the Treasury as security against their Union connections. It was felt that this provision would prevent an increase in the number of agents, because every new agent would be compelled to make an immediate deposit of £10,000 with the Treasury, and it was accepted that no new agents would make their appearance in the Union. There was no talk that Lloyds as such had to provide any security for its connections in the Union although there was the provision that any other foreign company must keep sufficient assets in the Union to cover all its possible connections in the Union. Lloyds did not fall under that provision. It was rightly felt that there could be no question of Lloyds as such not being good security. That I also accept. Well, Lloyds sent two witnesses from Britain specially to come and submit this matter to the Select Committee. They were very concerned about this provision that every broker would have to deposit £10,000 with the Treasury, and they proposed that instead of every broker having to deposit £10,000 Lloyds as a whole would deposit from England a sum of £30,000 with the Treasury as security against connections. The Select Committee considered that evidence and arrived at a compromise by way of a majority of votes, namely that it should be demanded of Lloyds that they should deposit £30,000, but that every broker should deposit £5,000 with the Treasury instead of £10,000. That is where the important difference comes in — that every broker should be allowed to deposit £5,000, and then he could proceed with his business. I want to say immediately that it is not the intention of members of this side to compel any of the existing brokers of Lloyds to close their doors. The existing brokers in the Union who do Lloyds insurance business in the Union are all big undertakings, but that business is but a small subsidiary part of their activities. Their principal business is in another direction. If they themselves have to leave Lloyds business then they will still not be compelled to close their doors. Lloyds insurance business is a subsidiary part of their activities, and it was therefore not the intention and plan of this side of the House to compel those eight brokers to close their doors immediately as a result of this new provision in the Bill. But on the other hand we on this side feel that it is essential that all possible steps be taken to protect our South African companies against foreign competition. We felt that any departure even from the original provisions would simply be to the detriment of our own local companies. It simply means that our local companies will not be able to compete with Lloyds, a foreign company. This is an important matter to the local undertaking. We must do all in our power to build up and to encourage the South African undertakings. We must help them, and I think that it is the duty of the Government that it should also do everything in its power to protect South African interests. We view this matter as a serious matter, as a matter of principle, and I therefore request the Minister of Finance—he is not to blame for this, for it is the Select Committee who inserted the new provision—to give his serious consideration to this matter and to meet us in this matter. During the Committee stage we on this side will move that the sum of £10,000 be substituted for the sum of £5,000, and I trust that the Minister of Finance will give serious consideration to the matter so that he will be able to accept this amendment, and so that we can extend a greater measure of protection to the South African companies.

I find myself at a disadvantage in speaking on this Bill today, because the Bill was only issued to members late on Tuesday afternoon, and it was quite impossible for me, at any rate, to have made such a careful study of the Bill as a Bill of this kind deserves. It is also brought up in a much more difficult form, because usually when a Bill is referred to a Select Committee the Bill comes back, and it is marked, and those portions which are inserted or left out by the Select Committee are marked. In this case it is impossible for us to say at a glance which portion is the old Bill and which portion was put in by the Select Committee, so the time required to study this Bill is very much greater than would have been the case if the Bill had been marked in accordance with the old procedure. I think that it is a great pity that such a complicated measure of this kind, which consolidates the law, should be given to us at such short notice. One did not know until this morning that the Bill was so high up on the Order Paper. I find myself at very considerable disadvantage in dealing with this Bill, and I think it would have been better if the second reading had been postponed in order to give members an opportunity to study the Bill carefully. One’s difficulty is that the evidence given before the Select Committee is not before us, and that makes the position still more difficult. The hon. Minister has indicated that he wants the second reading taken today. I hope the Minister will reconsider that decision and give an opportunity to deal with this Bill as it deserves to be dealt with. It is a lengthy Bill, and I am afraid that unless members of Parliament have nothing else to do except to study this Bill, it will be quite impossible to give it the critical attention that this Bill deserves. What one would like to know is what has happened to the recommendations that were put before the Select Committee. Those who have given a hasty study to the measure inform me that the recommendations of the very representative body, representing all the life insurance companies in the Union, were almost entirely ignored. I cannot say whether that is correct or not, because I have not had time to compare the old Bill with this Bill, but that is the information given to me, that the recommendations made by the leading insurance bodies have been entirely ignored. If that is so, I think it is all the more reason for our being given more time to study this Bill very carefully. So far as I have been able to study the Bill, it appears to me that this Bill might be described as the Bill of the two R’s, the Registrar and the Regulations. The Registrar, right throughout the Bill, is given the most extraordinary powers, powers dealing not only with matters of form but with matters of substance, such as the appointment of officials. He has to be consulted in regard to the appointments. He may appoint someone else. These are extraordinary powers. It is true that there is an appeal to the Minister. But I submit that in matters of real moment and matters of extreme importance there should have been an appeal to an outside body; there should have been an appeal to the Court and not to the Minister who is overburdened with work, as it is. One knows that the Minister will give as much time to any appeals that may be made as he possibly can, but I am afraid that the decision of the Registrar will be upheld every time. The Registrar has supreme power in about 57 matters under this Bill. Some of these matters are of extreme importance, and I think there should be an appeal to the Court and not to the Minister in some of these matters. The hon. Minister has indicated that although he is taking the second reading today, he is prepared to leave the Committee stage over until next Thursday. There again I would urge that that is hardly sufficient time for all the various amendments to be made, in view of the fact that there is no evidence before us; there is no indication that the evidence will be before us by next Thursday. I would suggest to the Minister that he should at least give a clear week. We are already half-way through this Thursday, and I would suggest that the Committee stage should not be taken before Monday the 12th April. That would give us an opportunity of going into this Bill more carefully. And in this connection there is another point which I want to put to the Minister. It may be that the Bill will be able to go through more quickly if my suggestion is adopted, because many of our present difficulties may disappear when we come to study the Bill. But at the moment it appears that there are extraordinary powers to the Registrar, and that there is no proper appeal against hasty or wrong decisions. Then I do not know whether the Select Committee went into the question as to whether it would not be better to have one insurance Bill for life business and one Bill dealing with other branches of insurance. These two are entirely different; entirely different issues are involved. It may be that the Select Committee did consider that. But not having been given an opportunity of knowing what happened at the Select Committee, I cannot say whether that point was dealt with. I should like to know whether the Committee dealt with the question as to whether it would not have been better to have a simple Bill amending the old Act in those respects where it proved ineffective, giving the State more control, which I agree the State should have without the necessity of introducing this complicated Bill at this stage. Then I would like to know whether the Select Committee went into the question of lapses, especially where monthly payments of premiums are made. Then there is another point. It is usual, I think, in matters of this kind, where forms are of the greatest importance, to include the principal forms, at any rate, in one of the schedules of the Bill, and I think perhaps it would have been better if that had been done in the present instance too. Then there is one important omission I would like to refer to. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has dealt with the question of Lloyds generally. But I would like to refer to the question of the omission of a very important provision that existed under Act 37 of 1923. I cannot see any reason why there should not be a South African Lloyds. It is true that Lloyds is of world-wide repute, but we have institutions and societies and companies of very great magnitude in South Africa, and in 1923, at any rate, it was considered that the time had arrived to consider whether a South African Lloyds should not be erected. This question is referred to in the first section of the Act of 1923. After saying that this Act shall apply to various companies is says—

That has been left out of the present Bill, and I should like to know the reason for it. There again, I do not know; if one had the proceedings of the Select Committee before one, one would know whether it was a deliberate omission or whether it was just a per in curiam. Unless you put some similar provision in this Bill, it is no longer possible for a South African Lloyds to come into existence. I do not know why was this not done under Act 37 of 1923. There may have been various reasons for that. I am not in a position to say, but I do think that if an opportunity were given now, it is quite possible—I am told that it is not only possible but contemplated—that a similar organisation could and would be formed in South Africa. After all, why should Lloyds be given a monopoly in South Africa? The only people who can do Lloyds work under this Bill are people who act for Lloyds in London. Under the Act or 1923, we can do it in South Africa. And if it is maintained that it can be done in any case, then I hope there will be no objection to amending the Bill, but my information is that if this section in the Act of 1923 is left out, they will not be able to do it. If it is possible under the new Bill, I would like to know under what section it would be possible for an association to be formed in South Africa. If there is no objection in principle to the formation of a South African Lloyds, it should not be left out of the Act. If there is no objection to that, then an amendment should be brought forward, and I think the hon. Minister should agree to incorporate the provision which I have read from Section 1 of the existing Act. If you take that in conjunction with Sections 44 and 45 of that Act of 1923, it gives you an indication of what particular requirements had to be complied with by any agent or member of Lloyds. The words which I quoted just now again occur in Section 44 of the existing Act. If those words were put in again, this particular objection would be met. As I say, it is difficult to consider this Bill in the very short time that has been at our disposal, and without the evidence and without any of the memoranda that were actually put before the Committee. One has information about some of the things that were submitted, but it is impossible really to say how many of these suggestions were adopted by the Select Committee, and if it is the case that these recommendations were to a large extent ignored, then I think the matter should be given very much more critical attention during the Committee stage than would be possible if the Committee stage were taken as early as next Thursday.

I wish at the outset to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) in relation to Lloyds insurance. In the Draft Bill which was submitted to the Select Committee it was provided that brokers of Lloyds, carrying on business in South Africa, would each have to deposit securities to the extent of £10,000, and in addition to that provision, a tax of 2½ per cent. was levied on the aggregate of premiums collected by Lloyds’ brokers in South Africa. I understand that these provisions were inserted in the Draft Bill after consultation between the Treasury and the Union casualty companies. The Lloyds representatives, who appeared before the Select Committee, submitted certain counter-proposals to the suggestions contained in the Draft Bill. They showed us, in the first instance, that Lloyds was a unique body. It is not a corporation in the ordinary sense of the term. It is a conglomeration of underwriters who divide up any risk amongst themselves. It was also shown in evidence that as far as their security and stability was concerned, there could be no question about that, because in addition to complying with certain stringent provisions of the 1909 British Insurance Act, they also had a fund which they had created by taxing themselves, of over £1,000,000, which was set aside to meet claims and for other purposes. So, I think, we might say that the Select Committee was perfectly satisfied as to the stability and security of Lloyds. There was no question or doubt about that and the point therefore of a covered position in South Africa never arose. By that I mean that not a single member of the Committee suggested that we would have to apply the provisions of Clause 17 of the Bill to Lloyds. Clause 17, as hon. members know, sets out what the covered position of all insurance companies in South Africa should be. That is to say that their liabilities must be covered by Union assets. I say, therefore, that as far as that aspect of the case was concerned, we were all perfectly satisfied that there was no question about the stability and security of Lloyds.

Have you got to go to England to sue them?

No, we have made provision in the Bill that you can sue Lloyds in South Africa, if any claim is disputed.

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

When business was suspended, I was dealing with the position of Lloyds, and I indicated that there was no question about the stability and security of Lloyds. The representatives of Lloyds submitted certain counter-proposals to those contained in the Draft Bill. In those counterproposals they suggested that the present security of £2,000 should be allowed to stand, and in addition they would deposit with the Treasury a sum of £30,000 in securities. They based their figure of £30,000 on the amount laid down in the Bill for transacting all classes of insurance. If hon. members will refer to Schedule 1 they will see that the amount required in respect of all classes of insurance is £30,000, and Lloyds suggested that they would deposit £30,000 and in addition to that each broker would deposit £2,000. They also suggested that instead of paying 2½ per cent. on the aggregate premiums, they would be prepared to pay 1¾ per cent., and they demonstrated to the Committee how they arrived at 1¾ per cent. They took an arbitrary figure of 10 per cent. profit on premiums and worked that out on a company’s tax of 3s. 6d. The Committee considered these proposals very carefully and it was unanimous in rejecting the plea for a reduction of the tax from 2½ per cent. to 1¾ per cent., because, apart from other factors, the company’s tax had been increased from 3s. 6d. to 4s. The Committee felt that it was only fair and reasonable that Lloyds should pay some taxation in the Union of South Africa. In regard to the proposal of £2,000, it was pointed out that if the Committee insisted on the original amount provided in the Bill, if £10,000 was allowed to stand, it could easily be evaded by the brokers being reduced to one, and then he would only be required to deposit £10,000. The others would then simply act as agents and sub-agents to the one broker. I think the House will agree with me that the Committee was faced with the position that Lloyds proposals in regard to the deposit of £30,000 was eminently fair and reasonable, and it was only a question of how much each individual broker should deposit. In considering that question, the Committee were motivated by the fact that they did not want to entrench the existing brokers to the exclusion of all other brokers; in other words, they did not want to create a monopoly, and they thought in their wisdom that a fair compromise would be £5,000. I would like the House to understand that we did not wish to discourage Lloyds from doing business in South Africa, because, in our opinion, Lloyds fulfills a very useful function. Our principal reason for retaining Lloyds was that Lloyds initiates and transacts classes of business in South Africa and elsewhere which no insurance company will touch, and I am reminded very forcibly of that, as a matter of fact, when I look at my hon. friend, the member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward). He recently purchased a very valuable bull. No, it was a ram.

Do you know the difference?

Well, the idea is the same. The only company that would carry the insurance was Lloyds. I give that as an example. I feel certain that my farming friends on both sides of the House will agree with me that Lloyds company is the only company that will undertake livestock insurance, and if we are going to discourage them, if we are going to introduce restrictions which are going to hamper their activities to any great extent, it would be a great pity. It would be a great pity to put Lloyds out of business or to restrict them, because apart from the facts I have mentioned, the competition of Lloyds as against tariff companies is a good thing. The result of competition on the part of Lloyds is that the charges of tariff companies have to be brought down in order to enable them to compete with Lloyds. The Minister of Finance has raised a point that I was going to touch on; he says: “as long as you make sure that their office is in South Africa.” We have stipulated in the Bill that not only must Lloyds be subject to the jurisdiction of our courts in South Africa, but they must also have an office in South Africa which will be their registered office. I think the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) rather brought the House under a wrong impression, quite unintentionally, as far as Lloyds insurance business in South Africa is concerned. He stated that they collect in premiums a total amount of £168,000 per annum, which is more than all other classes of insurance, or other insurance transacted by South African companies. What the hon. member meant to convey by that was this, that Lloyds collected more in premiums in that particular class of business—that is casualty business—than the South African companies. Lloyds only transact casualty and indemnity business. They do not transact life business.

I said that.

As long as the House is clear on that. That sum represents casualty business only. I say, Mr. Speaker, we as a Committee felt that we were prepared to discriminate in favour of the Union companies. I think that was, generally, the feeling of the Committee, but, at the same time, we felt that we had to be fair and reasonable as far as Lloyds were concerned. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) in his criticism of Lloyds, raised three questions. The first was that they had no office in South Africa. That point has been met, and it is provided for in the Bill. Secondly, he said that they paid no taxation in South Africa. We have provided for that; in future they will pay 2½ per cent. on all premiums collected in South Africa. Thirdly, he said that they did not spend their profits in the Union. Well, I do not think that is a criticism which can be levelled at Lloyds only. It applies to every non-Union insurance company, and is of general application to all of them, and, therefore, I do not think it should be levelled at Lloyds in particular. Before I leave Lloyds, I would like to say that during the luncheon interval I had an opportunity of considering the points raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), and I think there is some substance in the point that he made when he pointed out that in the Bill now before the House, the right has been taken away from persons in South Africa, to form a Lloyds if they wished to do so. In other words, it appears that his contention that Lloyds had been granted a monopoly in South Africa is correct. I have referred to the 1923 Act which he mentioned, and I have compared it with the Bill now before us, and it is obvious that there has been an omission. This matter was never placed before the Select Committee. This is the first intimation we have had of it, and I am sure the Minister will consider the point. I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that it is not the intention of the House that Lloyds should enjoy a monopoly of this class of business in South Africa. In other words, if any other company of persons wished to start a business similar to Lloyds in South Africa, there is no reason why they should not do so. There appears to be an error in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will see that it is put right, and that the provision which was contained in the 1923 Act will be incorporated in the Bill before us. Very voluminous evidence was placed before the Committee on all aspects of this Bill. The principal evidence was led by the Life Offices Association and they took up quite a lot of time in trying to convince the Committee that this legislation was not necessary. They pointed to the fact that the 1923 Act had been in operation for many years, and that it had worked very well. The Committee considered this matter very carefully, and it felt that the 1923 Act was purely negative in its character. It had been founded on the English Act of 1909 and when it came to the question of enforcing certain provisions of the 1923 Act in regard to the rendering of returns by companies, the Treasury found they had not the power to do so, and the result was that their control became practically ineffective. I think we can all agree with the Minister that we are thankful there have been no major disasters in South Africa since 1923 that might have been averted by legislation such as you now have before you. I would like to refer shortly to some evidence that was put in which I consider to have a very important bearing on this question as to whether we should have legislation now or not, particularly in view of the fact that the evidence of the Committee is not now before the House. I should like to quote a passage from a report of 1927 known as the Clauson Report. This Committee in Britain was constituted for the specific purpose of overhauling the insurance laws in Britain and, after exhaustive enquiry, they brought out a most interesting report. On this question as to whether we should have legislation or not at this stage, dealing with insurance companies, I would like to quote from page 21 of the memo, by the Board of Trade which is contained in this Clauson Report—

I do not think there can be any doubt but that this legislation is necessary and is due, and the Committee, therefore unanimously decided that the Bill now before us should be placed before the House. It was suggested that there should be different pieces of legislation dealing with different classes of insurance. For instance, it was pointed out that life insurance is entirely different from fire, industrial, funeral benefits insurance and so on. Well, the Committee realised that there might be something in that contention, but we felt that there was a certain amount of overlapping, because there were companies operating in the Union conducting all classes of insurance, life, fire, industrial and so on. We came to the conclusion that any further enquiry should be postponed for two or three years until all the insurance companies had been properly domciled under this Bill and controlled, and after some years of experiment, the Government might well consider introducing legislation dealing separately with these different branches of insurance. I am sure that the Government will cosely watch this Act when it is in operation, so that if important changes take place in the industrial and funeral society business, they will take steps to have further legislation introduced. The point was made by my hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Castle that the Registrar, under this Bill, has very wide powers. I think one of his complaints was that he had not had very much time to study the Bill, but he was able to tell the House that there were 57 points in the Bill which placed certain plenary powers in the hands of the Registrar. I suggest that indicates a very close study of the Bill. Well, this question was considered very carefully by the Committee, and we felt that unless the Government were in a position to appoint a superintendent of insurance, unless the Government could establish a big insurance department and themselves keep a watch on the activities of insurance companies, unless they could do that then it is absolutely essential for the proper administration of the insurance laws that a Registrar should be appointed, and once you concede the principle that a Registrar has to be appointed, then I think hon. members will agree with me that you must give him fairly wide powers. We felt that provided we circumscribed those powers to the extent of making his acts subject to the approval of the Minister and subject to appeal to the Minister, that would meet the objection raised. I feel the House will agree with me when I say that no responsible Minister is going to confirm, approve or uphold the actions of the Registrar unless they are fair and reasonable, because we in Parliament can criticise that Minister, he is open to the criticism of the House, and I think it is idle to suggest that any Minister will allow a Registrar such as the Registrar of Insurance, to be a dictator of insurance in South Africa. The Minister has said this Bill is one of a series of Bills dealing with trust companies. The House last year, for instance, passed a Banking Bill and similar powers were given to the Registrar of Banking, and I heard no criticism of that. The Select Committee which sat on the Banking Bill considered very carefully the extent of the powers which were granted to the Registrar, and there we also made provision that those powers would be subject to the control of and appeal to the Minister. What objection can there be to the Registrar, for instance, calling for returns from insurance companies; what objection can there be to framing regulations to ensure that the Registrar gets proper returns. What are these returns? They are simply accounts, balance sheets, valuations and returns of particulars of assets, and of the business conducted by the company. I say, what reputable insurance company would be afraid to make these returns to the Registrar. I may point out that in the 1923 Act, which has been in operation for 20 years, similar provisions were contained—the Governor-General-in-Council had power to make regulations for certain purposes. As I stated, it was found that when the Treasury wanted to enforce the rendering of these returns, it was found they had not the power to do so. A great point was made before the Select Committee by the Life Offices Association that this legislation discriminated against non-Union companies. That was one of their chief points, and it was pointed out by the Committee that we were not discriminating against non-Union companies, but what we were doing was that we were discriminating in favour of Union companies, which, I submit, we are perfectly entitled to do. We are legitimately entitled to encourage our own companies.

Quite right.

We are entitled to place restrictions on non-Union companies which come into the Union to conduct their business. Personally, I can see no substance in that criticism. There are one or two points which were not touched on in this Bill, which I would like to discuss, because I regard them as of very great importance. One thing which is of very great importance is the question of re-insurance. That subject was not touched on in the Bill, and it was never discussed. I have come in contact with certain schools of thought in South Africa which seems to point to the fact that the bulk of our re-insurance business goes out of the country overseas. I think that is a position which the Government will have to watch very carefully if they want to encourage our Union insurance companies to transact their business here and do their re-insurance in South Africa. I should think it may be possible for the Government to encourage some company in South Africa, or if not they can do it themselves, to transact re-insurance business, and I would very strongly urge on the Minister after a year or two when the Government has had experience of the working of this particular Bill, that they should consider this question of re-insurance, because it is one which bulks very largely in the insurance world, and is of supreme importance to the Union of South Africa. These are shortly the observations which I wish to make on the Bill. We had very great difficulty with certain sections. Section 17 which is the pillar of the Bill, makes provision for what is known as the covered position of insurance companies, that is to say, that their assets must be equal to their liabilities in the Union. We also had very great difficulty with Section 62, which deals with the question of lapsed policies, and hon. members will see that we have made provision whereby the insured is to have every opportunity before his policy is cancelled, or is to lapse; we have made provision that certain notices have to be given in addition to the ordinary notices which insurance companies now give. We have laid it down as an obligation upon insurance companies that they have to give at least 30 days notice before a policy lapses. We want to ensure that the policy holder has had every opportunity of paying his arrears, and of complying with the provisions of the policy before it is finally cancelled. These were some of the difficulties we had. Then I just want to say a word or two about the two classes of insurance which affect the poorer classes. Industrial insurance is conducted now by only two companies in South Africa, the African Life and the African Homes Trust. Certain representations were made to us by the South African Trades and Labour Council. They stated that there has been an undue percentage of industrial policies lapsing, and they pointed to that as being a bad feature of industrial insurance. Well, we heard some evidence on that, and we took some evidence from Dr. Louw of the African Homes Trust, and we found that the position was not as bad as we had thought it was. Nevertheless we think the time will come in the near future when we shall have to have some other legislation dealing with industrial insurance. They found in Britain in 1923, that they had to introduce a special industrial Bill to deal with that kind of insurance. The position is not so bad in South Africa.

It is pretty bad.

The policy of industrial companies is to keep the policy alive. Their policy is not to cancel these policies. Still, I think this is an aspect that the Government will have to consider.

They pay their agents very badly.

Their agents are paid on a commission basis. Then there is the question of funeral insurance. We have incorporated certain provisions in this Bill which were recommended by the 1937 Select Committee, but it was felt that this matter of funeral insurance is becoming unwieldy in certain quarters, is becoming weak, and we have placed certain restrictions on these companies. We feel that as the result of certain latitude which we have allowed in the present Bill it will enable these companies to put their house in order. If there are any failures of these companies, then the Government will have to consider taking further steps at a later date. I say that the Bill which the House has before it is a workable Bill, one may call it a pioneer Bill in the insurance world, and we feel that after an experimental stage of three or four years, the weaknesses of the Bill will become apparent and the Government will then be able, in its wisdom, to come back to the House to combat these weaknesses and strengthen the Bill in order to protect what, after all, is really the object of the Bill, to protect and secure the small policy holder, and even the big policy holder, and in the matter of industrial insurance particularly to protect the poorer classes.

I have listened with very great interest and much admiration to the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) who, as we know, was Chairman of the Select Committee on this Bill. There is one point, however, on which I cannot agree with him. He said there was very little risk in connection with the large discretion given to the Registrar under this Bill, that there was very little risk of the Registrar being able to impose his will on the Minister. Well, I wish that was true. I do not think that with our present Minister of Finance there is very much risk of his will being overridden by the Registrar. We all know he is a man of great force of character, and great stubbornness.

Hear, hear.

But our present Minister of Finance, unfortunately, may not always be Minister of Finance, and I doubt very much whether it is always the case, as the hon. member for Brakpan implied, that Ministers are able to resist the pressure of their heads of departments. I think one of the weaknesses of our democratic system today is the increasing power of heads of departments, who are very often people who ride roughshod over their Ministers, and who become practical dictators in their own departments. We are very fortunate in our Minister of Finance at this moment, because we have a Minister about whom that cannot be said. I am not, of course, referring to my hon. friend who sits on my right (Mr. Madeley). He has also a very dictatorial streak in his composition. But that is rather beside the point. My point is that Parliament really has not had sufficient time to give proper consideration to this Bill, and will not have sufficient opportunity before the end of this Session. The hon. member for Brakpan himself blurted out the fact that even the Select Committee had hardly the time to do its work properly. It took a large amount of evidence, but that evidence is not before this House, and how are we ordinary members, on a complicated Bill of this kind, in regard to which our only guide must be the evidence given before the Committee—how can we be competent to consider a Bill like this in the few days that remain before this Parliament descends into its honoured grave? I do hope that the hon. Minister will not insist on having this Bill thrust through Parliament at this stage. I am sure many hon. members in this House will agree with me that the tendency in this Parliament to put important Bills on the Order Paper, as now, during the last days of the Session when it is quite impossible for ordinary members to give proper consideration to them, that that tendency has been lamentable, and it is a tendency which has greatly increased during the life of this Parliament. Here is a very conspicuous instance of that, so conspicuous that I hope the hon. Minister will not insist on shoving this Bill through. I do not prentend myself to have any real knowledge of this Bill, and it has been impossible, as I say in the absence of evidence given before the Committee, for any member to acquire since the Bill was printed, and put on our desks, a proper knowledge of the Bill. I am told by representatives of the insurance companies who gave evidence, that they are extremely discontented with the result of their evidence as exhibited in the Bill. They say that they brought a large number of important points before the Select Committee, and that of those important points only a very small minimum have been incorporated in the Bill. They say that if they were given a chance they could bring very powerful arguments against this Bill this Session. They argue that it is not fair to them that hon. members of the House, when they are asked to consider this Bill and to pass it so quickly, should not have that evidence before them before they make up their minds about the Bill. I am bound to say I agree with that point of view. I do not for a moment stand here as a champion of insurance companies. I think if I were put to the test I should be a very severe critic of insurance companies. But I do say that it is only fair to them, before we pass the Bill this Session, that their point of view as given in their evidence before the committee, should be available for the proper study of the House. The hon. Minister argued that there was a real need for this Bill before this Parliament comes to its end. He said there had been no amendments of the insurance laws since 1923, and that the fact that in those twenty years there had been no major scandal connected with insurance was sheer luck. He argued that even in the interval between the end of this Parliament and the assembly of the next, we could not be sure that sheer luck would continue, and therefore it was necessary for us to pass this Bill before the end of the Session. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister went rather far in suggesting that though the 1923 Act has proved sufficient for twenty years, the short interval between this Parliament and the arrival of its successor, would be liable to be met by one of those scandals in the insurance world which we have hitherto avoided. And I do not think really the Minister was very fair to the Insurance Companies in saying that it was sheer luck that we had escaped any major scandal since the 1923 Act was passed. Surely he might attribute some of that immunity from scandal to the good conduct of the companies themselves. It is a little hard to suggest that in the insurance world, which has subsisted since the passing of the 1923 Act, the complete absence of any major scandal is not due to their carefulness, integrity and good management—to suggest that it is not that which has avoided anything of that kind. If this has been sufficient to safeguard our country against one of these scandals to which the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) has referred, for 20 years, surely we are entitled to conclude that for the few months which will be necessary for a new Parliament to succeed the present one, we might place some reliance on the continuance of that favourable state of affairs which is due to the careful management of the Insurance Companies. So I would urge on the Minister, if I may, very humbly, that in his zeal for this legislation he should not ask Parliament to do a thing which is really inconsistent with his duty in passing this measure. It is entirely wrong in my opinion that a major measure of this kind should be forced through the House by the application of the Party Whip merely because the Minister wants to get it through before this Session ends. I suggest that it is impossible for the ordinary member in the absence of the evidence given before the Select Committee, to give proper consideration to this Bill, and I would almost suggest—though I don’t want to go too far in this matter—that the Minister’s action in wanting to put this Bill through almost amounts to contempt of Parliament. It is really an example of the bureaucratic tendency which has taken such a hold on our Institutions. It is a very flagrant example, if I may say so, of the way in which the Departments think that anything they can put before us can just be swallowed practically without examination, and I would beg the Minister, who I know is a real democrat, and has a proper respect for the dignity and duty of Parliament, not to finish his career as Minister of Finance in this Parliament by trenching so nearly on what I might call contempt of Parliament.

If I had actually not known the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) so well, and if I had not known that he is sober in the services he renders, then I would almost have said that he has been asleep since he has come into this House in connection with the subject of insurance. In 1937 there was a Select Committee who sat for weeks and weeks in connection with the matter of funeral insurance. Thereafter the House had a few revelations — I remember well how the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) took a prominent part at the time in shaking this House awake in connection with the dangers that existed and the practices that already prevailed in the insurance world, and which could not be approved. We also remember the disclosures made by Prof. Arndt. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Gardens if he knows nothing about these things, that he should now come here and level the accusation that legislation is being introduced that brings the matter to the attention of the House of Assembly for the first time for five years.

The Bill is already three years old.

But evidently the hon. member for Gardens knows nothing of what is going on. The hon. member must not take it amiss of us if we really feel that if he had studied and followed the Blue Books that have been issued and the reports of the Commission that have been submitted, and all the discussions that have gone on, then the onus is on him to prove why he did not do his duty in those three years in connection with this important matter. It has become very clear that it is necessary to adopt legislation. The hon. member for Gardens says that this Parliament has almost come to the end of its period of office, and he wants a new Parliament to begin with it. If it has to be postponed until the next Parliament how long will it take that Parliament, if they adopt an attitude such as that displayed by the hon. member for Gardens, before legislation will one day pass on to the Statute Book? Will the new Parliament not also require five years to study the legislation if we have to proceed at the pace indicated by the hon. member for Gardens in his speech. This legislation, after the painstaking study that it has had from all who take an interest in insurance, is highly essential, and it is necessary that it should be adopted before the end of this Session. If it was necessary to protect the investors who invest their money in the banks by means of legislation that was adopted last year, then it is equally necessary to protect also the small investor who does not leave money lying in the bank but who tries to insure his life through the medium of insurance premiums, in order thereby to secure the future so far as his family is concerned. I want to address myself particularly to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), in respect of his remark in connection with Clause 60 which deals with the requirements which agents of Lloyds must fulfil. The hon. member has made an allegation here that members of the Select Committee who voted for the new Clause which has been inserted shamefully neglected their duty and did not take into consideration the interest of our internal insurance companies. The hon. member for Fordsburg practically gave us to understand that he was the only patron in the Select Committee of the interests of internal insurance companies. I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that to my mind he has not given proper consideration to the Clause, that he has not taken proper notice of the evidence and the discussion in Committee that was given on the day before the voting on this Clause took place. He did not attend the meeting and evidently did not acquaint himself with the state of affairs.

I voted on the Clause.

Yes, on the day of the voting the hon. member was there, but the previous day when the Clause was comprehensively discussed by the Committee he was not there.

I was there.

Not on the day preceding the voting. The hon. member now wants to pose as the only patron in the Select Committee of internal companies and wants to give this House to understand that we as a Select Committee have given Lloyds preference. The hon. member has never taken the trouble of acquainting himself of the position. Before we amended the Clause Lloyds could simply send one of its brokers here and pay £10,000, and then they could write all the insurance they wished.

You are confusing the two. It has nothing to do with security.

The hon. member for Fordsburg still does not understand the Clause. Lloyds brokers could deposit £10,000. That was all that was necessary to set his business going in South Africa. If the broker fails, then there is only £10,000 against the demand. Instead of that Lloyds makes a proposal of depositing £30,000 as security. The Select Committee has decided to impose another £5,000 on the broker’s licence, so that the pool that is created becomes available to persons who must have coverage in the event of losses being suffered. There is thus £35,000 security as against £10,000 in the past. Let the hon. member say if he really does not want overseas companies to be permitted here. Then we can delete the section in connection with Lloyds. But he admits that he is not opposed to Lloyds operating here. What prevents an internal company which pays £30,000 to take out a licence in connection with a special part of insurance and to operate in competition with Lloyds? There is no limitation in the Bill, nor in the existing laws. The hon. member for Fordsburg has compromised his Party by saying that he wants the Clause amended. Before he does that, he should rather consider whether he will not place his Party in a wrong position by proposing such an amendment.

I should like to say at once that I entirely agree with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) when he says that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) has selected a singularly unhappy example on which to base the case he endeavoured to convey to the House. This Bill has been on the Stocks for at least three years to my certain knowledge, it has been brought before this House from time to time, and faced two Select Committees and there has been every opportunity for everyone to find out what the position was—and they must have had a pretty shrewd idea of what the subject matter of this Bill was likely to be. But while I agree with the hon. member for Heilbron on this particular point, I do agree with the hon. member for Gardens that it is unfortunate that the evidence produced before the Select Committee was not available to the House before this Bill was brought up for consideration. I think it is a great pity, and I think so for a variety of reasons. First of all it would have given the House some indication of the very voluminous evidence that was given and it would give the House an idea of the very careful way the Select Committee handled that evidence, and it would have served to do away with much of the criticism of this Bill, which is obviously based on a complete lack of knowledge of what the evidence before the Committee was. It must obviously stand to reason that merely because evidence is laid before a Select Committee it does not necessarily follow that that evidence is either germane or convincing, or must necessarily be adopted, or must even be acceptable. The hon. member for Gardens has rather given the impression that because many of the points raised by the life offices were not included in this Draft Bill, they were not given sufficient consideration, or that fair consideration was not given to them. Well, now, the two great points made by the life offices were firstly that no Bill was necessary at all, and secondly if a Bill was considered necessary, it was asked that they should have a Bill dealing purely with life insurance business and nothing else. Let me tell the House that before the Committee considered any other points, before they even considered any portions of the Bill at all, they sat on judgment on these two points. We had exhaustive discussions on these points and it was felt that there was no doubt that public opinion was definitely alarmed and had been alarmed at the lack of control over insurance business in this country and that there was undoubtedly a case for revision and for recasting of the insurance law. The Committee was entirely unanimous that it was essential that this legislation should be tackled. That disposes of the first point, that no consideration was given to the evidence of the life companies. And the other point was that they should have a Bill to themselves, or no Bill at all. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) has dealt with that aspect, and the Committee came to the conclusion that the present time was not opportune to do anything, but to bring in a comprehensive Bill to deal with insurance business as a whole. The matter was considered at length, and the view of the Committee was that the whole of the procedure of insurance companies should be brought under the aegis of one Bill. That disposes of that point, that no consideration was given to these two major issues brought up on the Administrative side by the Life Companies. Now let me point out this, that the matters brought up for consideration of the Select Committee must be divided into two halves. The one half dealt with administrative matters and the second part was the actuarial side. As regards the second part I don’t think there was anyone on the Select Committee who was competent to deal with that question, and I don’t think it would be possible to select a Select Committee from this House which would be able to do justice to that side. On that side one must be guided by the best actuarial advice one can get, and I suggest that the best actuarial advice was forthcoming in guiding us in that matter. It may be that the actuarial advice which we had did not coincide with the idea of the life societies, but I think I am perfectly safe in saying that we must be guided in regard to actuarial matters by the advice given by our experts even where it was in conflict with the ideas of the life societies. But apart from that, hon. members will find that there are a great number of matters which the life societies put before us and where it was obvious that they had reason on their side, where it was obvious that they could produce cogent arguments, we endeavoured to fall in with their suggestions. Of course, one could not agree with every one of their contentions, but wherever it was possible to meet them, we did so. Now, they say that we only met them on minor matters. There were three matters. Two of them I have dealt with. There was another one where they took objection, and that has also been raised by the hon. member for Gardens, and there I am in agreement with him, and that is on this question of regulations. There is no one who is more averse to Government by regulation than I am. I think it is creeping more and more into our general method of legislation and I regard it not only as dangerous but as most undesirable. But in a Bill of this nature obviously regulations have to be laid down to begin with. These regulations were submitted to the societies who, I understand, agreed in the main with their provisions. As far as the actuarial side was concerned, I cannot express an opinion on that, but the regulations were more or less agreed to, and they are incorporated in this Bill. Now, it may become necessary, in fact it will be extraordinary if it does not become necessary in the effluxion of time, that there may be conditions requiring the amendment of the regulations. It was suggested that no regulations should be made without coming to Parliament. There, they are dealing with a question in which I am in sympathy with them, but in a Bill of this nature, such a suggestion would be impracticable. What we did suggest, although one could not put it in the Bill, was to give more or less an undertaking that no alteration of regulations would take place without the societies having a chance of seeing and considering them. That meets one of the greatest objections of the life societies, and that goes a long way towards proving the bona tides of the Select Committee to meet them wherever possible. But it stands to reason that we could not meet them in all cases, although I think we went as far as we could everywhere to meet their views. Now the question of Lloyds has been brought before this House very extensively, and I do not want to go into that very much further, except to say that I think everyone will agree, as the hon. member for Brakpan has pointed out, that the standing and the financial stability of Lloyds is undoubted, and therefore, bearing in mind the class of business which they do—which as has been pointed out is a casual business—contracts which may be renewed from year to year—it stands to reason that the amount of cover required is different from the class of cover in the case of ordinary life insurance business which deals with contracts lasting for years and years. The hon. member for Fordsburg seems to think that there is discrimination in favour of Lloyds. There is nothing of the sort. As the hon. member for Heilbron has pointed out—the whole aspect of the Select Committee was to see that the security of the policy holder was safeguarded. Now there is one aspect of this Lloyds business which I want to touch upon. It was raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander). Owing to the omission of certain clauses which were in the previous Bill it would appear that it would not be possible for any combination of people in this country to start what might be termed a South African Lloyds. I cannot see why it should be impossible for any combination who subscribe to the provisions laid down in the Act, to start anything of the sort if they want to. But there is this vital aspect. One has to bear in mind that Lloyds is a concern of world wide reputation, an institution the financial integrity of which is beyond all possible question, and if it is suggested to set up a local replica of Lloyds, I am not at all certain that the safeguards to be put into force would not have to be increased, in other words the safeguards which are laid down to cover Lloyds would be adequate in the case of the London concern, but to cover an institution of that sort, starting in this country, that is a different question. I would suggest to the Minister to consider whether if people started an institution of that kind here, it would not be necessary to have much more stringent conditions than are laid down for Lloyds of London. Another question was that of the powers of the Registrar. On that there was a multiplicity of evidence. It stands to reason that if you are going to have a Registrar to administer the Act, he must have the necessary powers. If you have not got a man who is able and competent to do the job, you may have all sorts of difficulties. We should have liked to have had a competent actuary as a man to administer this Act, but it was pointed out what globular salaries these people could command, and there was not the slightest hope of our being able to obtain such a man at a salary we could afford to pay. Of course, a great deal will depend on the selection of the man who is to do the job. He must have wide powers if he is to administer this Act properly. We have endeavoured in certain respects to restrict his powers by making his powers in certain cases subject to review by the Minister. It was suggested that we should go further and have an appeal to court. I doubt whether that would be practicable but I do suggest that the Minister should exercise a very wise discretion in the appointment he makes to this post, because by the nature of the post the man would have to have very far-reaching and extensive powers indeed. There is only one other question I want to touch upon, and that is the whole question of the Bill itself. This is a Bill which has been asked for very definitely by the public. It is a Bill which is required by the public, for the control of the insurance business—a control which has been definitely lacking in the past. I don’t think it is sufficient to say that we have never had any major disasters, and that we have never had a major crisis. It is not proper to leave the position as it is. I think there is need for this Bill and I think it will be a great pity if this Bill is not passed this Session, but in all fairness to the Select Committee I think the evidence given before that Select Committee should be placed before the House, so that the House can judge of the magnitude of the task with which the Select Committee was confronted. I think if that evidence is made available to the House so that members may study it and really understand the implications of it, then I see no reason why at a respectable interval, this Bill should not be carried on with this Session.

We on this side welcome the Bill for the protection of the spare pennies of the people. We are glad that now for the first time provision is made, particularly in respect of insurance companies, that they should have proper coverage in South Africa when they do business here. I am sorry that the Minister has placed members of this House in the position of exercising the criticism that is now being expressed. I wonder if the Minister will not consider publishing and making available to members the evidence before the Select Committee before the Committee stage of this measure is reached?

We are doing our best.

It is clear that hon. members do not understand the whole scope of this Bill. It is a very technical Bill. We had to do with technical men who appeared before us, and we do not blame hon. members if they do not think that the Minister does right in bringing this Bill before the House in this manner, where they are in the dark about the details of the Bill. There is such an important matter, for instance, as industrial insurance, and policies in connection with industrial insurance, to which the Minister of Labour attaches so much value. Here we have had a very good report from one of the persons who gave evidence before us. It was from Dr. Louw, and when we consider the details in connection with the surrender of industrial policies then we find that it is not so tremendously great. After eighteen weeks there is no longer such a great surrender of policies. It was only during the first fourteen weeks that there was a great lapse, and after the eighteenth week we no longer find it because they give four weeks in addition. We find that after that period the policies are maintained fairly systematically. There are various facts that should have been brought to the attention of the House. Then I just want to say to the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Long) that members of the Select Committee have had the opportunity of hearing the representatives of the biggest life insurance companies. They submitted a bulky memorandum to us. That memorandum was dealt with point by point, and I can give the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens the assurance that this was done throughout except in respect of a few subsidiary points, but the most of their recommendations, if not all of them, were adopted. We did not look upon this matter as a little matter, but as a national matter. May I say to the Minister that there was a great measure of unanimity in the Select Committee on this matter. We feel that the Minister should put through this Bill during the present Session. We feel that international circumstances are developing so tremendously that if we delay in having this Bill adopted then it will quite possibly be the spare pennies of a large portion of the people that will be endangered. I think it is the duty of this House to ensure that the people are made safe, and therefore we on this side are very anxious that this Bill should be adopted. There is just one matter in respect of which we differ from the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) and that is in connection with Lloyds. We have no quarrel about the coverage. The coverage that Lloyds gives is entirely good, but we go out from the standpoint that in this sphere it is a foreign company that collects £168,000 per annum in premiums in our country. To point out how important Lloyds considers this matter I want to say that they sent a delegation from London to appear before us and to give evidence. They had with them the original Bill. They say what we demanded from them, and yet they were willing, without any quibbling, to give more than we asked in that Bill. They suggested that they would be willing to deposit £30,000, just as the other companies. That is a proof to us that it is a paying business for Lloyds. They do not want to go off the South African market as regards accident insurance. They are afraid that we shall harm them by drastic legislation. Our standpoint is simply this, that we have our own companies which deal with accident insurance, and we want to protect those companies. That is the standpoint from which we go out. There is no other. We want Lloyds, where it has its underwriters in this country to be in the position that every underwriter must deposit £10,000. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) has said that it can now happen that this company may deposit £30,000 and on the other hand there may be only one underwriter who is in a position to deposit £10,000, and then he has a monopoly. We argue quite differently. We say, let those people deposit £10,000, and then it may be that some of them will go out of the market and South African companies will then come and they will enter that market to do business. We as a people, particularly at this stage of our development, would like to see our own companies participating in the business that Lloyds now does. We have not the least objection to Lloyds. It is a great and powerful company. It offered even more than we asked.

It did not offer more.

But it is said that so far as the underwriters are concerned we must be satisfied with £5,000 for each. If they are not in a position to deposit that amount then they will disappear, and the South African undertakings will then enter that market. I want to bring it to the attention of the House once again that Lloyds thought it essential, in order to retain this business, to send a delegation from London to try to protect this business. There is nothing to it except that we feel for our own interests and our own people. As I have already said, there are in our country today numbers of our companies who do accident insurance and who are busy finding their way into that sphere. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) will agree that those companies are keen that Lloyds should be curtailed a bit in our country. There were representations before the Select Committee from these companies, and one of the things which they said was this, that they are subject to provisions to which the underwriters of Lloyds are not subject. Now we have this Bill which partially lays more burdens on them, but nevertheless our people are under greater obligations towards the State than the underwriters of Lloyds, and we on this side merely feel that this is discrimination, and that if there should be discrimination then we feel that that discrimination should be in favour of our own companies.

As a member of the Select Committee which considered this Bill, I should like to say a few words. In the first place, I would like to pay a compliment to the Chairman of the Committee for the manner in which he carried through this complicated measure. I do not know whether it is usual to pay compliments to chairmen of committees, but I think the hon. member deserves some word of praise for the manner in which he mastered the task. I support the Bill in its general principles, but there are one or two points about which I am not very happy, although I do not say for a moment that I am going to oppose the Bill because of those points. The first is the dictatorial powers which are conceded to the Registrar of insurance companies. We have already one dictator in this country, I refer to the hon. Minister of Labour, and by the powers that have been given to the Registrar of insurance companies, I think we shall have another. One thing I objected to was empowering the Registrar to make regulations. I endeavoured to persuade the Committee to have the regulations subject to the approval of Parliament, but I am afraid I was overruled. That is not the only point. We were told at the Select Committee that the Treasury had agreed that before any new regulations were promulgated, the insurance companies would be consulted. I want to put that on record, sir, and I hope that when the hon. Minister of Finance replies to the second reading debate, he will give us the assurance that that will be carried out; that any new regulations not in the Bill before being promulgated, will be submitted to the insurance companies for their consideration. Another matter which I am not happy about is the wording of Clause 38. This clause which is very long and complicated purports to give some advantage to members of the air force and naval units who are restricted by insurance companies. I have read through this clause and I find it very difficult to discover what benefit these two services are going to receive by reason of this clause. For instance, one section states that any naval man who meets with his death outside the Union will be treated in a certain way. How the Minister expects any naval units to meet their deaths inside the Union I do not know; when they go to war they will be fighting outside the Union, unless the words of the song “Pretoria rules the waves” has any bearing on this particular clause. At the Committee stage I hope to be able to place an amended clause before the House, so that this matter may be cleared up. With regard to the clause, in relation to forfeiture, which the hon. member for Brakpan has already referred to, I am very glad to see that clause introduced into the Bill. I know of one glaring case—there may be thousands of glaring cases which we are not aware of—but I do know of one where a policy holder had his policy cancelled and was not given a fair opportunity of renewing it, although he applied for it to be reinstated. I think that this is a very necessary clause in this new Bill. That is all I have to say on the subject. I hope the Bill, in view of all the trouble that has been taken by the Select Committee to make it a useful piece of legislation, will be allowed to go through this Session.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) that as a general rule of practice where a matter has been referred to a Select Committee, hon. members should not be asked to consider the Bill concerned until they have an opportunity of reading the evidence, and being able to judge upon that evidence the grounds upon which the Committee based their judgment. Today I am in the fortunate position of being a member of the Select Committee. I saw the memoranda submitted and heard the evidence, and I was able to take part in the deliberations. Tomorrow I am put at a disadvantage if I am not a member of the Select Committee which brings forward an amended Bill, and therefore, sir, I think for myself I would like to see this accepted as a definite rule of procedure, that where Bills are brought back from Select Committee, the evidence and the documents upon which that Select Committee based its judgment, should be placed before each hon. member so that he may form his own judgment. There are one or two things I would like to make clear as they appear to me as a member of the Committee. I realise that this is really an experimental Bill, or may I say at an experimental stage. I have no doubt that when this Bill has been in operation for three or four years the result of experience will be that further legislation will be needed, and it may well be that we shall then have a separate Bill for each separate class of insurance. We may then have legislation for life offices, another for industrial and burial insurance. This is a comprehensive measure to give an opportunity to the country to see how, in actual practice, these matters can be regulated. Experience may show that further provision is needed, because there may be a complete change in one direction or another under the various headings under which insurance falls. I want to say one thing, and that is that I do not think there is a single member of the Committee who likes the wide powers that are given to the Registrar, nor is there a single member of the Committee who likes legislation by regulation. Those of us who have to deal with this subject in our everyday life, realise the difficulty of referring to an Act and then finding that you have to refer to a host of regulations which have to be amended from time to time. But the Committee had to look at this from a practical point of view, and whichever way we looked at the matter we found that there had to be one person who must have authority in regard to the administration of the Bill. And we went to the length of saying that when any question arose in which the Registrar has exercised his powers, those powers should be subject to appeal to the Minister responsible. I unhesitatingly give that power to the Registrar so long as I know that there is that power of appeal to the responsible Minister. Therefore in regard to that I have no fear, I don’t like it, but from a purely practical point of view it seemed to me the only way was to give this power to an official, coupled with the power of appeal. Nor is this the first time we have done this. In regard to regulations, I want hon. members to understand that we did not come to a decision hapharzard or without due deliberation. We fully and carefully considered it, and I want to say that these matters were considered with a full sense of responsibility by every member. We came to the conclusion that these regulations could, after all, be mentioned on the floor of the House if any injustice or hardship was apparent. Moreover, the assurance was given by the last hon. member who spoke, that even in so far as these regulations are concerned, the insurance companies will be consulted before they are actually put into force, so as to give them an opportunity of making any representations they wish. The final judgment will be with the Regisrar, and through him to the Minister in charge. There are one or two other things I want to say. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) is perfectly correct, and again I want to say that one must look at these matters in a practical sense. You are not going to drive Lloyds out of the insurance world by the fact that they have got to deposit an amount either large or small. They are an institution in the insurance world, and while I would welcome any association of underwriters in our own country doing that business, and the position may arise sooner than we think wherein it might be highly desirable that an association of that kind should be brought into being—I think the necessary provision should be made in this Bill by which that can be brought into existence—I say that the question of whether £2,000 or £5,000 is to be deposited in respect of agents does not affect Lloyds. It might very easily be that you would drive the business of Lloyds into one or two channels. We have accepted the suggestion of Lloyds in regard to the deposit of £30,000, being the same as other companies, and we have increased the amount of £2,000 to £5,000„ which is accepted by Lloyds to ensure the bona fides of their own agents. So I think we can forget the idea of driving Lloyds out of existence. We do not want to drive them out of existence, although we perhaps would welcome an organisation of the same type in so far as the business in our own country is concerned. I think if we realise that this Bill has been introduced to give the necessary control which will ensure security to the insurer, that the Registrar is subject to appeal to the Minister, and that the regulations will be submitted to those affected by them, I think the major objection which has been raised will disappear, and I hope that the measure will get on the Statute Book as early as possible.

The hon. member who has just spoken and other hon. members, have made it clear that even the Select Committee considered they did not have enough time to consider this Bill as it should be considered. We gather that the Committee has put in extremely valuable work, but we gather at the same time that the Select Committee felt their time was really much too limited, and moreover, it has been admitted even by the Chairman that it would have been better to have had Bills for each class of insurance.

Not at this stage.

Well, let it be an experimental measure, and after the experiment has been tried for some years, let us then have separate Bills if necessary. I am one of those who, not for a year or two years but for the last fourteen or fifteen years have felt that a large amount of control is necessary with regard to the activities of certain companies, and for that reason I welcome the possibility of a certain amount of control. But I say that where the Committee has only just finished its work and where it has not been possible to put the evidence in the hands of members of the House, members who after all have to Vote on this measure, I feel that the time at our disposal is really much too limited to proceed to make a final decision on all these intricate matters. If it must go on, then at least we require weeks of time before we can approach the Committee stage of this Bill, where every single clause had to be carefully considered. There are clauses here which don’t quite make sense. There is a clause which says that notices must be given a month before the premium is due, a month before the policy is due to lapse, and in the self-same clause or rather a sub-clause of the same section, it says that a month before the policy lapses a registered letter must be sent to the party who has to pay the premium. Now, Mr. Speaker, a clause like that shows that the practical side of the matter was never considered at all. That is only a matter of detail, but it shows that it was not possible for the Select Committee to consider the details of an important clause like that. It is quite unnecessary, I think, for a company to send out registered letters, which in postage alone will amount to about £6,000 a year, a month before the policy is due to lapse. If it were imperative to send out a registered letter to say that the policy has lapsed, that is a different matter; but to say that a registered letter must be sent a month before the policy is due to lapse is to me only an indication that it has not been possible fully to consider this Bill. It is very difficult from a casual study of the provisions with regard to the Registrar to make up one’s mind as to the full implications of the powers vested in the Registrar. Surely that matter must first of all be thoroughly gone into, and the companies concerned must first have an opportunity of ascertaining the full implication of the powers which have been given to the Registrar, and if it then finds it necessary to make certain representations to hon. members in this House, they must have an opportunity at a later stage to move such amendments as are calculated to make the Bill workable. That cannot happen if in the course of the next two or three weeks the Committee stage of this Bill is taken. The evidence of the Select Committee will not be available to members for another eight or ten days. That brings us to the middle of April, and it really seems to me to be impossible to carry on with this important measure in this way. I repeat again that I am very strongly in favour of control or supervision, which may be distasteful to some companies, but it won’t be distasteful to companies which have done their business satisfactorily to all concerned. I feel that we should have the fullest opportunity for the consideration of every detail in this Bill, and that cannot possibly be done unless we have sufficient time, and I hope the Minister will give us the necessary time.

I agree very largely with those who deplore the haste with which we are proceeding with this Bill, without giving members an opportunity of reading the evidence that has been laid before the Select Committee. We ought to be the judges as to whether that evidence is complete in its necessary facts. There are many of us who will not be satisfied with that evidence if it does not disclose the methods adopted by certain societies to increase turnover in the insurance business, and the methods they have adopted from time to time to evade their responsibilities. There is no doubt that to legislate for people of deep designs, you want to know what has been going on, and this House will only be able to provide against the eventualities when it knows more about them. But if the evidence produced has simply been evidence of the rectitude of the societies concerned, then I for one will be very far from satisfied with its effect upon the public mind. The longer one lives, the less faith one has in the universal righteousness of mankind, and I consider that our duty is to legislate against the thieves. It is desirable to be on our guard against that very numerous and undeserving class of the community. I know, sir, of a number of cases in which men have gone on active service believing that their families were protected under their policies after their deaths. I notice that in Section 38 of the Bill there is an effort to provide in general that the lives of such persons shall be protected in the future, but I should like the people who have repudiated any obligations to make good their default. Whether it was a legal default or not, I should like to see that no person is allowed to escape an obligation which was implied up to the time the man laid down his life. I know of quite a revival of business that occurred through the outbreak of war. Quite a number of policies were issued by certain companies to men on active service. Fairly subtle methods were followed in order to discard those policies. I myself have had great pains to try and saddle the right person with the responsibility for the nonpayment of the premium on the due date, because that seems to be the most convenient method adopted by some of these companies. But it has been a most difficult matter. With an Army Pay Department that has not been too wonderful in its work and a company that is ruthless in the requirement of payment of premiums by the due date, the wretched fellow who has been insured and found towards the end of his service that his policy has lapsed, has been in a bad way. The result is that a man has had the experience of paying for a policy through the nose for a certain number of months, only to find that the policy itself has gone west and that he himself is no better off. I am sorry that in regard to funeral societies the hall-mark of respectability has been placed on these rather shady concerns. There is scarcely a man who lives below the breadline who has not been inveigled into some sort of obligation through a burial society. He is supposed to be assured of a respectable burial and that is about all he has to look forward to.

It is one of the first charges on family income.

It is one of the few things the poor wretches have to look forward to and they are sometimes cheated out of that. I have a fairly extensive experience, I won’t say a very satisfactory experience, of the woes of those who have contributed to these burial societies, and I am sorry to say that if they are to be put on a level with the insurance societies, some of which enjoy quite a respectable reputation, it will be more than they deserve. I should imagine that the ordinary insurance society would shudder to its very marrow to be classed alongside some of the burial societies that exist today. I see that the Act even goes so far as to give the burial societies a sort of easy entrance into the respectable community dealt with under the Bill, by saying that the Registrar can let them in as coming within the Act, even though they do not provide security of the proportions laid down by Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. That seems to me an act of kindness which is scarcely necessary in the circumstances. I should be grateful for a very drastic discipline to be exercised over these burial societies, and I should prefer a very good, healthy overhauling of their doings beforehand, so that those who have sinned against the Light should be dealt with accordingly. To my mind a separate Act should be provided to deal with the peculiar methods that a vast number of these societies are following. In regard to Section 38 of the Bill—I know this is not the time to go into detail—Section 38 of the Bill sets out to protect in general those who have died while on military or naval service, and I suggest that that section is too full of stipulations, that it is too full of provisos. A person who goes to the front and imagines that in general his life is protected by insurance, will find or rather his relatives will find that he is far from protected. By one stipulation or another the society will be let out from its obligations, and the dependants of men who have given their lives for the country will be left without the protection which they thought they would enjoy. I should like a very plain and simple statement to be embodied in the Act as to the obligations of insurance companies to men on active service. Let us protect these men, so that if any man goes forward on military or naval service, he is fully safeguarded in his rights under the Act. There are many of these societies who are proud of the fact that their policies are unchallengeable. Let us not hear of these cases in which men who have gone on active service have been killed and their dependants have found that the terms of the policy of insurance and of Acts of Parliament have enabled the societies to evade their responsibilities.

I had hoped that the Minister would say that he would not take the second reading of this Bill. After he had listened to the speeches, I hoped that he would say that he would take the matter into review and would change his attitude, and that he would not let the second reading pass this afternoon. He has listened to arguments from both sides of the House as to why the second reading should in any case not be taken this afternoon. The Minister will realise that we must have an opportunity of studying the Bill. It is not correct that this Bill in its present form has been before the House for a number of years. Amendments have been brought about every time, perhaps not big amendments, but yet amendments that made it necessary for the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee. Otherwise the Bill would not have been sent to a Select Committee again this year. In what position is the Minister placing the House? The Bill was sent to a Select Committee which had certain evidence before it, but without us having seen anything of that evidence we have to vote for the second reading. Surely it is a ridiculous position in which we are being placed. The haste with which the Minister wants to put this Bill through the second reading leaves an unsavoury taste. I simply do not comprehend it. Here we have one of the most intricate Bills that we shall have before the House. One would like to hear the opinions of the various companies who are concerned in the matter to see whether new light has been thrown on the various aspects of the Bill in Select Committee. The Minister has now heard the opinion of hon. members on this side and also on the other side, that if the second reading is accepted a number of other amendments will have to be made. The Bill in fact has been before the House only for a matter of hours in its amended form, and it was placed in the hands of hon. members only yesterday. That is the position so far as our members are concerned. What is the position of people outside who are concerned with it? It is clear that nobody is opposed to the principle of control of our insurance system. The Minister also has said that this is not a point of objection. In this respect the Bill as such is acceptable, but it demands study. The people must have an opportunity of going into it. The amendments that have been incorporated must be studied. We want to know for instance why the evidence of the life insurance companies was entirely ignored.

That is not true.

I hear this complaint, and reasons are being given for the complaint. We require more information. We are not opposed to control, but we cannot accept anything. There are for instance the provisions in Clause 60 as regards Lloyds. I do not know why the Minister, who alleges that he has the interests of South Africa also at heart, should come sidelong and incorporate such a measure. I cannot understand how the Select Committee can propose it. What are the facts in connection with the matter, so far as I could ascertain them in the short time I have had? It comes down to this, that the Act of 1923 is being radically amended. In the Act of 1923 the provisions in connection with underwriters are laid down. There it is not only stipulated that there may be underwriters such as Lloyds, but also other underwriters can come forward and ask for a licence to act as individual underwriters in South Africa. It has also happened in other countries as in South Africa, in the United States of America, for instance, and in France. There are other underwriters who handle the matter. Now it is said that here in South Africa no one else appears. I do not know if this is correct. It is said that Lloyds alone has come forward during the past 20 years, and that it alone can obtain a monopoly of underwriting, and as I understand the Bill the provisions of the Act of 1923, which made it possible for individual underwriters in South Africa to promote their affairs on the basis of Lloyds, disappear entirely. Lloyds is given a monopoly. The name of this Bill is wrong. It should have been called the “Lloyds Monopoly Bill”. The Minister wants us to swallow a good thing in the form of better control over insurance companies, but in addition he comes with a bitter pill in connection with Lloyds, which leaves an unpleasant aftertaste in one’s mouth. The opportunity that existed of building up other underwriter’s associations is removed by one stroke of the pen. As I understand the provisions of the Bill, individual underwriters will no longer be able to apply for a licence no matter what deposit they want to provide. During the last few months opposition has developed that makes it even more undesirable. We have enormously expanded our import from South America to the benefit of our country. It has developed in such a way that Lloyds is overwritten. The big merchants who want to import from South America cannot get any more accommodation from Lloyds. As a result of that they cannot get credit from the banks. As the Bill now stands individual underwriters cannot combine and also ask for a licence to act as underwriters. I understand that a number of big financial men in South Africa are busy working up South African underwriting, and I learn that they have got to the stage of drafting the statutes. If this Bill is accepted they will come to a dead end will not be able to get a licence. Lloyds will have the monopoly. We shall no longer be able to get the commodities from South America which we would otherwise have been able to get. If I am wrong in my conception I shall be glad if the Minister will put me right, but it appears incomprehensible to me that the Minister on the strength of the argument that nobody in the past twenty years made use of the right that is given by Act No. 37 of 1923, to build up our own underwriting in South Africa, should want to delete the provision and give Lloyds a monopoly.

Read 60 (e).

I understand that there are also other companies, such as the Prudential for instance, who perhaps also can come into consideration for a monopoly. Clause 60 forms an integral part of the Bill. It is not an independent clause that can be altered in Committee, but it touches the old principle of the Bill. For if Clause 60 is deleted, the Minister must bring about a whole change in the Bill as regards the definition of “underwriting”. I therefore make an appeal to the Minister not to be in too great a hurry, and not to accept the second reading now.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) dealt so ably and effectively with the speeches which preceded his, and by anticipation with the speeches which followed his, that there is really very little left for me to say. There are, however, one or two points on which I think I should touch. In the first place I would like to express my regret that hon. members have not available at this stage of the discussion of the Bill the report of the Select Committee and the evidence taken by it. But I can assure hon. members that the Committee stage will not be taken until that report is in their hands. I believe—and what I have heard here confirms my belief—that this House wants this Bill, and wants this Bill this Session, and that being so, in order to give ample time between the second reading stage and the Committee stage which, as I said at the outset, I was anxious to do, it was necessary to take the second reading stage on this early date. Of course, sir, there are those who do not want this Bill this Session. The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Long) is one of them. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) and the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) who has just sat down, also do not want this Bill this Session, but I do not think that that is the attitude of the House as a whole. The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, even went so far as to accuse me of something approaching contempt of Parliament. I will come to that in a moment. But let me state succinctly why I believe that this Bill is necessary this Session, and why I believe that the House wants the Bill this Session. This Bill contemplates a 5½ year period before its provisions will be fully effective. I refer hon. members to Section 18. Now, sir, it is already two years since this Bill was introduced. The Bill is therefore overdue. If this Bill is not passed this Session, it does not mean a delay of a few months. It means a delay of another year; it means that 8½ years will have elapsed before this Bill is fully effective from the time this legislation was first introduced. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) was perfectly correct when in this connection he referred to the dangers of the post-war situation. I referred to that myself when I introduced the Bill, and I say that this House would be failing in its duty if it did not do all it could to ensure that this further delay is prevented. The hon. member for Gardens talked about the bureaucratic tendency and a contempt of Parliament. Does not the hon. member know that this Bill was introduced two years ago, that it was discussed in the fullest possible way with the insurance companies? There were conferences one after the other; there were deputations; there were long discussions. Is that bureaucracy? When the Bill was introduced again this Session it was sent to a Select Committee. Is that bureaucracy? No, sir, if the hon. member does not know these things then I am afraid he is rather like Rip van Winkle. But if he does know these things, he was certainly doing us less than justice in levelling this accusation against us in regard to this particular Bill. There have been very few Bills introduced into this House where there have been fuller opportunities for the interested parties to state their case, and where there has been a longer period during which the various issues could be more fully discussed and canvassed. The House will have the evidence before it, before the Committee stage. The principle of this Bill has been before this House for three years. Surely the House is at this stage able to express its view. The question is this, does the House want to protect the policy holder? Of course it does. And then I say again we cannot brook any further delay of even one year such as the hon. member for Gardens asks for. Then there has been a good deal of discussion in regard to the position of the Registrar. We have heard about his extraordinary powers and his dictatorial powers. I would repeat, as has been said before, that these powers will be subject to appeal to the Minister. It is immaterial who the Minister is. The whole point is that the Minister is responsible to Parliament, and ultimately, therefore, in the exercise of these powers the Registrar will be responsible to Parliament through the Minister. There is that safeguard and the importance of that must not be overlooked. If we are to have effective control, we must exercise that control in one of two ways. We must either do it in the way they do it in Canada or the United States, where they have a Department of Insurance with very much fuller powers than given to the Registrar, or we must take the line of this Bill. There is no other way. And the only alternative to which the hon. member for Gardens and others have objected is a system under which the bureaucratic powers will be far greater than those embodied in this Bill. You cannot have it both ways. If you want to have control, you must have some means of exercising that control, and this, in relation to the legislation in other countries, is by no means bureaucratic.

What about your regulations?

If the hon. member will permit me I shall come to those in a minute. I shall repeat again that in the powers which we have given the Registrar we have followed the precedent laid down on previous occasions, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) was the first to raise this question of the extraordinary powers of the Registrar. Well, I am going to appeal from the hon. member for Castle to the hon. member for Cape Town Castle in this matter. I won’t say that I appeal from Phillip Drunk to Phillip Sober, but I appeal from the hon. member for Cape Town Castle as a critic of these powers, to the hon. member for Cape Town Castle, as a member of the Select Committee which drew up the Banking Act last year. In that case the powers of the Registrar are wider than they are in this Bill, and the hon. member for Cape Town Castle was a member of that Select Committee which drew up that legislation. Now, we have heard a good deal about regulations. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) talks about the Registrar’s power to make regulations. Where has he the power to make regulations? If he has, perhaps the hon. member will make an amendment in the Committee stage. It is the Governor General who makes regulations, not the Registrar. Where has the Registrar the power to make regulations? I may not have read the Bill as carefully as the hon. member for Stamford Hill has done—I don’t know of anyone having the power to make regulations other than the Governor General. Now, the hon. member for Castle also took up this question of the power to make regulations. He thought that we should not have any power at all to make regulations, we should specify everything in the Bill. At the same time the hon. member appealed for a simpler Bill. How can you have it both ways? How can you have a simpler Bill and at the same time include everything which should be done by regulation? These cliches come so easily. Hon. members want all these things, but they forget that you cannot have all these things at the same time. I don’t think I need say much about Lloyds. That particular point has been argued out from both sides. The protagonists of Lloyds have put their views on the Select Committee and I must say that the view of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) appears to me to be the correct one. It is not a question of security.

We also say so.

Yes, quite so. It is a question whether the competition is fair or not. That is the real point. Now, is it necessary where your company with all its branches has to put up a deposit of £10,000, is it necessary to require as large a deposit from a Lloyd’s Agent.

Merely on the basis of discrimination.

The scope of business is much bigger in the case of a company.

It is a question of discrimination between people from outside and inside.

No, I am putting it on the basis of whether the competition on the lines suggested by the Select Committee would be fair or not, and I think, taking everything into consideration, the proposal is fair. There seems to have been some misunderstanding about the point raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg about the amount of business done by Lloyds. I think as he put his figures—I am sure he did so unintentionally—a wrong impression was created. The actual premium received by brokers in the Union in respect of Lloyds is £166,000. The actual premium received by all Union Companies is over £6,500,000, and by non-Union companies £6,600,000, so that the total premiums represent about £13,000,000. The actual amount in premiums received by Lloyds is £166,000. My hon. friend was comparing these premiums received by Lloyds with premiums received not by all companies, but only by Union companies in those lines of business in which Lloyds is merely operative. Then his figure is correct, but I don’t think his figure as he stated it was correct. I think the hon. member should see the position in its true perspective. The amount of business done by Lloyds is £166,000. That is only a relatively small fraction of the whole insurance business. The other point raised was the question of the establishment of a South African Association of Underwriters, and in that connection reference was made to the fact that under the existing law, the law of 1923, provision is made for certain parts of that law to apply, not only to agents of Lloyds, but also to members of similar associations of underwriters. It has been said, I think by the hon. member for Brakpan, that that has never been given effect to, never been made use of. One reason I think is that it would be extremely difficult to know what exactly qualifies an association to be regarded as an association similar to Lloyds. Lloyds is a very peculiar association. It is the creature of a century of tradition, and it will be extremely difficult to create an association similar to Lloyds. I doubt very much whether it would be much use repeating this provision in the law in this particular form. I am prepared, if hon. members wish to move an amendment, to consider its insertion in some other form, but at any rate there is no question of a monopoly. If the people for whom the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) spoke, want to start in this business, there is nothing to stop them from starting. Lloyds have no monopoly. There is no business which Lloyds are doing here which cannot be done by any other insurer.

The only thing which is taken away is that clause which talks of “a similar association”.

Specially approved of by the Minister.

We have never had an application for such an association to be approved of, and I doubt very much whether it would be possible to form an association similar to Lloyds. It would not help my friends to repeat that provision in its present form. If they desire to introduce something similar in the Bill, I shall be prepared to consider it, but the terms will have to be gone into very carefully. I think there is only one other point to which I need refer, and that is the point raised by the hon. member for Stamford Hill which I had some difficulty in following. He referred to the position of soldiers under Section 38 (3). All we do is to apply the provisions of the law passed by this Parliament in the interests of the soldiers, not in the interest of insurance companies, three years ago. And there is no discrimination in this clause between airmen and naval men. There is simply special reference to the person who suffers death anywhere in an aircraft, in flight, or in an attempt at flight, because that would not necessarily be covered by the words “outside the Union”. My hon. friend need not be axious about any wrong interpretation being given to this clause. It seems we are simply carrying on the provision which was made consciously and unanimously by Parliament three years ago.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House go into Committee on the Bill on 8th April.

I said what I had to say on this Clause at the second reading of the Bill, and I am going to try to do what I consider it is my duty to do, namely to propose the following amendment—

This clause deals with cheques that are stolen or lost. I want to be honest and say that I do not know why a thing that is lost should give rights to another person before it is found. I do not know what “true owner” means. There is no difinition of this expression in the original Act. Is the man who signed the cheque the “payor” or the “drawer”, as he is called, the “true owner”, or the man to whom the cheque is sent? What is the “true owner” more than the ordinary “owner”. It appears to me that this has to be defined so that we can see clearly what is meant by it. The best would be to give a definition of “true owner”. I take it that the Minister means that the “true owner” is the man to whom the cheque or order is sent.; the man who receives it and who lost it, or the man from whom it was stolen. While the cheque is lost or stolen the position is that the man in whose favour it is made out is the “true owner”. I do not know why the law refers to “owner” and “true owner”. If we have a definition in the law then we shall understand the position better. I would like the Minister to understand that he is busy here assisting neglectful people. The man who lost the cheque or put it away in such a way that it can be stolen is protected no matter how neglectful he may have been. I feel that this conflicts with the common law. The principle in our common law is this: If a person steals a cow and it is sold to two or three parties in between without them knowing that it was stolen, then one cannot institute any claim against those persons in between. One can only institute a claim against the thief or against the person who has the cow. According to the authorities I have quoted, it appears to me that Clause 80 was unnecessary because in England the system is quite different. There the system is that if I steal a cow and I give it to someone else, and he again gives the cow to the next person, then the person from whom the cow was stolen can claim the value from any of the persons in between. But in our country we cannot do this. We can only claim it from the thief or from the person who is in possession of it. Our common law goes still further. Where money is stolen and spent it cannot be claimed back. Now the position is that the Government issues cheques and those cheques get lost. Well, if those cheques get lost before they come to the man to whom they are made out, then it is the Government’s loss. If the cheque reaches the man, however, and he loses it subsequently, then it is his loss and not the loss of the Government. The difficulty exists merely when the cheque gets lost before it reaches the person to whom it is made out. If I lose a cheque or if it is stolen from me, and someone gets it and is able to draw the money from the bank, then it is my loss. That is in accordance with the law. What the Minister is now busy doing is to prostitute our common law by introducing the “doctrine of conversion” into our country. In other words, if I send a cheque to someone and it gets lost because the Government was neglectful in the transfer of that cheque, or because my clerks were neglectful and someone gets that cheque or order, and signs the name of the person to whom it was made out, and he gets the money, and the cheque has perhaps gone to B, C and D, then the Minister provides now that the person who sent the cheque and who was probably neglectful, shall have the right to claim damage from any one of those persons. Then we come to another point. The fact that a cheque is crossed is yet not a protection to the person who made it out, because the judicial system in our country is so, and he now wants to protect those people. The bank is entirely protected if it pays out. The bank is always protected. The result now is that a person perhaps obtains that cheque unwittingly and completely in good faith, and then compensation can be claimed from him if the cheque is lost or stolen. For that reason I propose my amendment, that if someone obtains the cheque bona fide and after proper investigation then he should be exempted. Now take this case. The Provincial Administration sends a crossed cheque to a native teacher in the Transkei. The teacher has no banking account and he therefore goes to a shopkeeper or to the owner of the hotel with whom he deals. They give him the money, and he gives them the cheque so that it can be paid into the banking account. The hotel owner or the shopkeeper do this purely to help the man, because he has no banking account and it is a crossed cheque. I have also done this very often in my business to help people. Assuming now that this cheque was stolen or lost, even through the neglect of the person who sent it, then damage can be claimed from that shopkeeper or hotel owner. The result will be that these people simply cannot be assisted in future. We are going to place many people in a terribly difficult position. Then I come to another point, and that is that this Bill provides that the cheque shall be both crossed and marked “non-negotiable”. The crossing means that the cheque must be paid into a banking account. If it is marked “non-negotiable” then it means that it is a personal cheque. I think that the Government is incorporating both these provisions to protect itself. Why is it not sufficient if the cheque is either crossed or marked “non-negotiable.” [Time limit.]

I think it is desirable that at the discussion of a Bill such as this we should have the amendments before us. For that reason I waited a good few weeks—a whole month—before the Committee stage of the Bill, in the expectation that hon. members would place their amendments on the Order Paper. Now my hon. friend comes forward with an amendment that is not on the Order Paper. I am now prepared to move that progress be reported, and then his amendment can appear on the Order Paper. But then I want to ask other hon. members who also want to move amendments to place those amendments on the Order Paper. It is not fair to consider a Bill of this nature unless we have the amendments before us. In order to give my hon. friend the opportunity of doing this, I now move—

I ask other hon. members who want to move amendments to place their amendments on the Order Paper.

I am sorry that I could not put my amendment on the Order Paper. I have not a staff here, and the work is plentiful. As soon as I had the amendment drafted I submitted it to the Minister.

Yes, but it was only this afternoon.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 2nd April.

I want to complete the picture for the delectation of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and for the Committee in general of this school feeding scheme. I have advised the hon. member privately, but it is just as well for the House to know that the £50,000 which has been estimated, as the first contribution to the scheme, is not all—that is in addition to the £150,000. That makes it £200,000, and it is only in the first stage.

The £150,000 is for the milk and butter scheme.

Does the milk and butter scheme disappear?

No, it remains but is is absorbed in this scheme.

So the children have to get in at 11 o’clock to get that meal.

The question of time is a matter of arrangement; the Provincial authorities have to arrange the scheme. The £200,000 is the total amount, let us concentrate on the £50,000. But £50,000 is only the beginning of the scheme, whilst we are getting it into shape. In addition to that, of course, the central authority, as represented by myself, will be contributing 50 per cent. of the capital cost, which will be non-recurrent, the capital cost of the equipment necessary such as kitchens and what not, that will be required for the actual preparation. Now my hon. friend said that he visualises this amount ultimately reaching £1,000,000, Well, he is rather conservative, as a matter of fact we assume …

I said £2,500,000 at the rate of 3d. per meal, as stated by one hon. member.

Is my friend not mixing up the figures? However, it does not matter; all we want is the facts. We anticipate that the State’s contribution will be in the neighbourhood of £1,650,000.

Per year.

Per year.

And not perhaps.

Not perhaps, actually; to which must be added the Provincial authorities’ contribution, and that means another £800,000 odd. So that will reach the figure my hon. friend has just mentioned of £2,500,000.

That is what was said at first.

My hon. friend has shown remarkable prescience, our estimate then is roughly the same; you say it will be £2,500,000 and I say it will be £2,500,000. I have never known such unanimity to occur in Committee before. All right then, £2,500,000 is what we expect we shall have to pay for this school-feeding scheme. Again I say it is an unfortunate circumstance that we have got to do this. But I find myself within the limitations imposed upon me, and I am admittedly putting ointment on the sore. But we have got to do it, and I suppose we shall do it. Then the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) drew my attention to the position of special guards on Railways. I do not know what the position is there, and I am glad my hon. friend has brought it to me.

I said warders.

Well, whatever they are, I know what the hon. member is driving at. I am causing enquiries to be made, and I want to confer with the Minister of Railways to see if we cannot alter that state of affairs. I quite agree that we should provide for our workers in the country having regular holidays, and amongst other things, overtime rates when they work overtime. I propose to look into that matter. If my hon. friend will leave it to me I will do my very best. I am calling a comprehensive conference of everybody concerned, including the principals of industrial schools, trade schools, technical colleges, trades unions and employers, with a view to hammering out a measure which will make it possible for us to fit in everybody that is receiving training or semi-training in the course of this war, and I hope my hon. friends will be satisfied with that. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) asked me what is being done with regard to wages in the Transkei. Well, I am advised that the vast majority of the natives in the Transkei are employed in agricultural pursuits, and as a consequence we are debarred by legislation from interfering with the wages there. More is the pity. Nevertheless it is true, and I have to bow to the inevitable. He says that the Transkeian Territories General Council are employers of labour there, and I am informed that the wages that they pay are inordinately low. Well, I am afraid I cannot promise him at once an investigation into the conditions there, and in trading stores, hotels and what not. I cannot promise him an investigation immediately or in the near future because our Wage Board is engaged in investigations of very much larger matters than the Transkeian employment position. But as soon as I can I will, and I do want to tell him this, that I think the time is rapidly approaching when the cost of living allowances will have to be extended by regulation over the whole Union. With that I hope the hon. member will rest reasonably satisfied. I must now draw attention to a very unpleasant interlude that occurred during the Budget debate. Owing to the restricted time imposed upon members of the House, I did not feel inclined to intrude myself at that time, but I think this is an appropriate moment to do so. I refer to the very vicious attack that was made by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) upon the inspectors of labour, the charge being that these inspectors of labour, some of them, not all of them, were engaged in sabotaging the effort that is being made to place returned soldiers in reasonable work. I resent not so much the drawing attention to it, but the manner of doing so. I am very sorry the hon. member is not in his seat, but I must now review what he said. He took the only time left to him in the Budget debate to make this charge against officials who are honestly trying to do their duty in the best possible way. Now, sir, had the hon. member been desirous of having the thing rectified, surely it was reasonable for me to expect, and reasonable for him to come to me and tell me this was going on. Nothing of the sort; he seized the opportunity to make what I can call nothing less than a vicious attack upon these officials, who are honestly and honourably endeavouring to do their duty in the best possible way. The reason I am referring to the matter in this fashion lies in the remarkably different attitude that he adopted in more minor things. I very much fear that this has got something to do with his attack, that his own business was involved. Inspectors had had to pull him up with a round term.

[Inaudible.]

Not fair? When a man deliberately attacks in public fashion men who cannot answer for themselves? He could have come to me and asked me for an interview.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

That is not wrong at all. I am surprised at my hon. friend springing to attention in defence of the hon. member for Rosettenville.

We have become used to it in the last few weeks.

Another squabble over there.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to rulings which have been frequently given to the effort that members must not continue the Budget debate when the House is in Committee of Supply. I am sorry I cannot allow the Minister to continue the Budget debate; the hon. Minister will have to take some other opportunity.

I do not know what other opportunity I shall have. It is my Vote, sir, and the Labour Department is being passed under review this afternoon. It has come to my notice that an attack has been made upon officials in my department.

Order. The hon. Minister must observe that that attack was not made during the course of the discussion in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister what the policy of his Department is with regard to labour inspectors and their activities? I think that will give the hon. Minister the opportunity he desires.

The activities of inspectors in the Labour Department are many various and diverse, and amongsts other things—I thank my hon. friend for this opportunity—and among the activities assigned to them is this question of placing returned soldiers in work. These charges have been levelled against them, these charges of sabotaging the efforts we are making to get these men employed.

You must give us a statement on that.

Yes, and I feel perfectly certain my hon. friend would be satisfied with that statement.

I hope other members will be too.

I think the majority will be satisfied, with the possible exception of one hon. member. Now, I make the complaint that no opportunity was given to me to investigate the charge or charges, and to inflict punishment if punishment were needed, no opportunity was given me.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is like a small boy with a stone which he throws at a window, because he likes to hear the ping. That seems to have been the hon. member’s chief occupation all through this Session. Well, sir, my Department immediately the charge was brought to our notice, asked for cases, and no reply has been received, no reply at all of a specific case. On the contrary, I desire to read to the Committee, for its information, certain letters that I have received. This one says “I notice in the ‘Rand Daily Mail’—

If the letter refers to a debate during this Session, the hon. Minister cannot read it.

Well, sir, this is the strongest deprecation of certain remarks that have been made, and is signed by D. J. Opperman, Secretary of the United Party in Pretoria. He refers with great pleasure to the co-operation and good feeling existing between his office and the Labour Department in connection with this matter.

Is there collaboration between the United Party and the Labour Department?

Yes, and there would be with the Nationalist Party if they were prepared to place hundreds of these soldiers in employment. We collaborate and co-operate with the Springbok Legion, and we collaborate with any other organisation that are willing and anxious to place returned soldiers.

And other people, apart from returned soldiers?

Oh yes, emphatically so, we do not confine our activities in that regard to returned soldiers, but we have a special charge upon our consciences, a special responsibility devolving upon us to find employment for returned soldiers, and I propose to fulfil that responsibility. There is also a letter from a returned soldier expressing great and deep regret at the references that have been made to inspectors, and at the same time expressing his gratitude to the Labour Department and its officials concerned in placing returned soldiers in employment, for the manner in which they are doing it. Sir, in view of the restrictions that have been placed upon me, I cannot be more explicit, but I think I have removed now in retrospect any misunderstanding that may have entered the minds of hon. members of this House as the result of the unfortunate incident that occurred during the Budget debate. Then my hon. friend the members for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) urges upon me that I should go in for a five-year plan. This five-year plan which emanated from Russia seems to have caught the imagination of a great many people. I am glad that is happening in regard to the outlook for the future. Well, Sir, that is what we got the Planning Council together for. I believe they are going along well, they are taking their job very seriously indeed, and we can hope as the result of their investigations and planning, that we shall have a plan first of all for five years with the option of another five years. Then the hon. member drew attention to the disparity between the invalidity pensions and old age pensions. Neither of them is sufficiently high, and that is a matter which is having the serious consideration of the Government at present. Now with regard to this bugbear, the question of the wasting of fruit. That is a matter which has caused me a tremendous amount of concern. It seems to me to be a terrible thing that fruit which should be used to feed the people should be wasted and destroyed. My Department is busy endeavouring to formulate a plan so that we shall not waste one single apple, pear, banana or anything else. We want to bring the fruit to the mouths of the people, and we propose to do that. My hon. friend wants to know if we will announce what the scheme is. I know he would like to hear my voice over the wireless. I don’t like speaking to the microphone, I like to see animated countenances before me. I like to see receptivity. It seems so like talking into vacancy. Perhaps that is the same today. But I will overcome all my repugnance in order to announce to the South African world a plan which the Social Welfare Department is formulating. I think, Sir, I have now replied to all the points, and I hope everybody is satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of Labour has a way with him of always managing to amuse the House, and I am sure that if the electors of Benoni, decide that the hon. Minister should not come back we will miss him at least on that account. The hon. Minister stated yesterday that my speech was the same year after year. Now I admit, Mr. Chairman, that in some respects my speech was the same as last year, but surely, sir, the cause of that is that the misdeeds of the Minister are the same year after year, and if the Minister had not committed so very many misdeeds there would be no necessity as he asserts to repeat my speech year after year. The hon. Minister is also very indignant at the charge that he is not carrying out the principles for which he stood in the past. He told the House he was in this Government to win the war, and that he came into the Government with no conditions whatever. In the first Session after the outbreak of war, the Minister proclaimed that he entered the Cabinet unconditionally. Mr. Chairman, can we still apply that “unconditionally” to the present day? I recollect that only a few months ago the hon. Minister suddenly decided that he was going to place certain conditions on his continued support of the Government. Unconditional in the beginning and now after three years, the hon. Minister has decided to place certain conditions before the Prime Minister, on which his continued support of the Government will be based. Those conditions were that the Government should adopt two parts of the Labour Party’s policy. The Minister, in his reply yesterday, said he was delighted with his association with the Government, and also that his negotiations with the Government were very fruitful. The negotiations with the Government in regard to seats were very fruitful indeed. These were evidently some of the conditions that the Minister laid down for his continued support of the Government. The Minister has also replied to my charge that when the Factories Act and the Workmen’s Compensation were before the House, he consistently refused all amendments from this side, designed to improve the benefits to the workers. The Minister stated that we were out to obstruct the passage of the Bill, but at the same time he admitted that our amendments were designed to improve the Bill, and that they were amendments which he was fully in agreement with. He stated that he was afraid the majority of the House would not agree. The Minister was well aware of the fact that these Bills had considerable limitations, and that considerably increased benefits could have been conferred on the worker, and that it was his duty as a Labour protagonist to accept these additional benefits. The Minister states he is still in favour of a 35-hour week, but the furthest he has gone during the past three and a half years is to legislate for a 46-hour week in the Factories Act. The Minister agrees that conditions are terrible in the country, that there is poverty and want, that wages are low, and he agrees that instead of giving the children one warm meal per day, the wages of their parents should be increased. All the criticisms that are made he fully agrees with, but at the same time while agreeing with the criticisms he raises his hands helplessly, and is absolutely unable to do anything. The position of course is that the Minister cannot do anything on his own account, he has to go hat in hand to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and beg for small concessions. If the Minister had taken his courage into his hands from the beginning, put his foot down and told the Government he wanted improvements in regard to social and economic conditions, and also told the Government that the party support would only be given on the condition that these things were agreed to, very much more would have been done. One sees how quickly the Government knuckled down when the Labour Party negotiated with them in regard to seats. The Government was quite prepared to give them additional seats because they want the continued support of the Labour Party. How much more would the Prime Minister not have been prepared to accede if the Minister had put his foot down from the beginning. On the contrary, he was satisfied merely with the crumbs that fell from the Prime Minister’s table. If this continues, the workers can expect very little in the future. The workers cannot expect much from a Labour protagonist who sits on the same benches as the representatives of the Capitalists of this country. But he uses as an argument as to why nothing is done, that all these evils are due to the profit-making system. The hon. Minister has done absolutely nothing in the direction of ultimately abolishing this profit-making system. In regard to the proposal to feed school children, I do not consider that as something to boast about; I consider it to be a blot on the career of the hon. Minister of Labour, that after 3½ years he should tacitly admit that the wages of the people are so disgracefully low that it is necessary for the Government to feed the children of the people. I say that it will be regarded as a blot on the career of the Minister that the wages of these people are so low that the Government is now compelled to vote money so that these children can receive one hot meal a day. And, sir, the House is completely misled in regard to that matter. When this scheme was announced everyone expected that all the children would get one hot meal a day. £150,000 was voted in connection with the milk and butter scheme. Now they have voted an additional £50,000. But that total sum of £200,000 will not be sufficient to give one-fifth of the children of this country one hot meal a day. Then too, no provision is made for those children who are not of school-going age and who do not attend school. [Time limit.]

I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the Minister of Labour, from the time when he as a member of the Opposition made a promise that he would commence all unskilled labourers with a wage of 10s. per day. I have always waited for the time to arrive for him to pay all the unskilled labourers a commencing wage of 10s. per day. If he does that, then it will not be necessary for him to give a meal each day to school children. Their parents will then be prepared and will have enough to feed the children themselves. When we speak of officials who work in the Department of Labour then I must say that I cannot do otherwise than express praise for them. There is one person who has indeed been a trial to them, and who has bothered them almost daily, then it is I, because in my constituency there are many unemployed. I know for that reason I have always received assistance from those officials; where I required assistance I got it. But what I want to say is that the truth of the matter is that our soldiers who return from the North cannot get work. There is no work for them. It is not the fault of the officials. I have taken soldiers to them and I also obtained work for some of them at the Labour Office. But they cannot assist them all with work. I have already said in this House that a statement has been made that in Johannesburg approximately 500 soldiers are walking the streets without work. We see them there. What I have against the Labour Office—not against the officials, because this is really something that stands to the account of the Government—is that they have laid down the policy that unless a person is medically unfit to go to the war he cannot get any work. It is said that this war is being conducted with volunteers, but it is not so, because if we go with people to the Labour Office to obtain work for them then the first question put to them is whether they can show a certificate showing that they are medically unfit to go and fight. No matter how poor a person is, he must first of all prove that he is medically unfit before he can obtain work.

A few weeks ago I put a question to the hon. Minister as to the labour employed in the munition factory in Kimberley, which is conducted by the Mint. In reply to me he stated that coloured girls who had passed Standard VI were employed there on semi-skilled work on a wage of 32s. per week, that what natives were employed were employed as labourers at 20s. a week. I asked the Minister as to whether a native girl who has the same qualifications as a coloured girl, could not be employed in the factory. He replied: “No”. Now I want to appeal to the hon. Minister to reconsider this matter. If there are native girls locally who are capable of doing this work, why should they not be employed? On the efficiency basis there is presumably no reason to suppose that they would not do this work as well as the coloured girls, and I may tell the Minister from my experience that in Kimberley the coloured and native people are not used to discrimination between them. The wage determination and industrial agreements that they have in force in Kimberley, lay down wages for certain grades of work irrespective of the race of the worker. I have been told actually that coloured female labour has been brought into Kimberley. They have not only employed local labour, but coloured female labour has been brought into Kimberley to do this work, when there is native labour available locally. I do ask the hon. Minister to reconsider this matter. There is no precedent, as far as I know for this kind of thing in private employment, and I may tell him that it is causing bitterness among the non-European population in Kimberley, between the native and coloured population, that there is this discrimination. They feel very strongly about it, and I am quite certain that the Minister would not wish this discrimination to take place. If a young native girl is capable of doing this work, surely there is no harm in her being employed rather than bringing in other coloured labour. Another matter I want to raise with the Minister also concerns Kimberley. There is, as he knows, a fairly comprehensive unskilled wage determination in force, and that determination is administered by his Department, as all these determinations are. Moreover, the native and coloured population at Kimberley is more or less a stable one. One does not find many natives coming in from the rural areas and going back again. The population there is more or less stable. They have asked me to request the Minister to establish a labour exchange in Kimberley which shall include the native workers. In this particular case in Kimberley, there is no reason why the activities of the labour exchange should not cover all unskilled workers, and I hope that the Minister will go into this question.

What do you mean by a labour exchange?

I was using the English term. I refer to the employment bureau which is at present run by the Department for European and coloured workers.

Do you include the natives?

No, I am asking for the inclusion of the natives, having regard to the conditions in Kimberley which I have explained. The Minister stated last night that he intended to call a conference of all interested in the question of the recognition of native trade unions, and in view of that statement I am not going to deal with the matter now except to say that I would like such a conference to include the representatives of the native and of native trade unions. I am not saying anything more on this issue now, in view of the Minister’s statement, except that I must make it clear that it is because of that statement that we are not saying anything more at this stage, because the promulgation of War Measure 145 has caused us the gravest concern—not because we want strikes in wartime or indeed at any time—but the reason why we view it with concern is this: The provision of compulsory arbitration which is welcomed in itself, needs in our belief, to make it effective, recognition of the workers’ organisation which will be in a position to bring cases to the notice of the Minister and to set the arbitration machinery in motion. The Minister may say that in fact that is the position at the present time. The difficulty is that the employers, in fact, very often deny that a particular organisation of a particular industry is represented. I do not say that the Minister’s Department always accepts that, but that is the difficulty. I do not want to say anything more on this issue. I welcome the Minister’s statement of a conference, and I hope that it will be held as soon as possible.

The Minister of Labour became eloquent yesterday about the low-paid officials, and he felt so happy because since he became Minister of Labour the low-paid officials had landed in a new heaven. This afternoon we have to hear that he puts his hand into the one pocket and takes out from there to put into another pocket. We have had the system of cheese and milk for children at school. We considered that the meal was something additional. Now we must hear that the meal takes the place of the cheese and milk. I wonder if the Minister of Labour agrees with the Minister of Native Affairs on what was said in this House that this meal for the school children works out at 3d. per meal per child. I would now like to know, in these expensive times, what sort of a meal that will contain all the necessary constituents for the building up of the child can be provided to the school children at 3d. per meal. And then I want to ask the Minister of Labour; when for all those years he sat on this side of the House and said that as soon as the State comes forward with subsidies and with schemes to provide the children with milk and cheese, then it proves that the people are not getting enough wages—I want to ask him: Does he still agree with that statement? If he still agrees with it, then why does he stand up here and quarrel with us on this side? He says yes and amen to what we propose on this side but, he says, the House does not agree with him. It means that that side of the House does not agree with him. Yet the poor Minister quarrels the whole day with us on this side. He quarrels with us while the other side does not agree with him. Nevertheless he found something against the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth), and I am glad that he came out with it, because it showed the grudge in his heart against those members on the other side. The Minister of the Interior said the other day that it was totally unknown to him that there were people in Government service who got 4s. per day. I pleaded for an increase in the cost of living allowances. He said that he did not know that there were such people in the Government service. The Minister of Labour knows that there are such people. As recently as January 1942 he replied here that on subsidised works, such as for instance the eradication of noxious weeds, erosion works, and municipal works, the people get a minimum wage of 4s. per day with a maximum of 5s. 6d. That is what the Minister of Labour replied, and it is so. I do not want to tarry at this, but I want to come to the non-subsidised works and the wage scales paid by the Government. The Department of Agriculture and Forestry pays 5s. 4d. per day minimum and 6s. 4d. maximum; the Department of the Interior pays £96 per annum minimum—which is something more than 6s. per day—with a maximum of £132. The Department of Irrigation pays a minimum of 6s. per day and a maximum of 8s., while on the schemes the minimum is 3s. 6d. and the maximum 7s. per day. The Department of Lands pays 3s. 6d. minimum and 7s. 6d. maximum. The Department of Public Works pays 9d. to 1s. per hour in the cities and from 7½d. to 9d. per hour on the Platteland. That comes to about 6s. per day. The Provincial Administration pays 4s. minimum and 5s. maximum. If I had to sit on the other side with that Minister, whom I know feels in his heart as I do about this matter, then I would understand that he sometimes throws up his hands in despair. But we find that the Minister tries to fight with us and to glorify what he has done. Let me say that I think he should sleep restlessly at night. He should feel ashamed that those poor people should get a starvation wage. Now he says that a change has been brought about. What is that change? There is a little concession regarding extra holiday, but no increase of wages in these very difficult times. The Minister’s conscience should prick him in respect of the condition in which these people find themselves. What is the number of those people. They are not one or two. No, they are 4,555.

Do they get no holiday?

No, I have said that they have received a concession as regards holiday. But they have not received higher wages. Now I want to put this question to the Minister. I did it on the other Votes, and I want to ask him here if he will apply to the Minister of the Interior for an increased cost of living allowance for these people, and that it shall be paid on the basis of the number of children in a family, because these people with families have a bitterly hard time to come out on their meagre salaries. I do not think I am asking for something impossible. I brought the matter up the other day on the Vote of the Minister of the Interior. To him it was merely a joke. He merely laughed at the difficult position and the starvation wages that those people with big families receive. I have worked out that a man with six children who gets 6s. per day has to feed and clothe each member of his family for 6d. per day. How in heaven’s name can he do this; how in heaven’s name can those children be fed?

How did they do it under previous Governments?

That does not matter. It does not matter what they got in those days. Two wrongs do not make a right. All I know is that the cost of living has risen enormously and it is not possible for those people to live as decent white people. All Governments have made mistakes, but there sits the Minister of Labour who is the leader of a Labour Party. If he is worth his salt and really has any feeling for those people then he will shake up the Cabinet, or he will leave it. He must not tell me that he is there to see the war through. These people are also waging war—a war against starvation that stares them in the face. Wage this war together with them, and do not only wage war on behalf of the Capitalists on the other side who make large sums of money out of the war. Help to wage the war of those people who are fighting against hunger, and then I will believe in you. I want to say this to the Minister of Labour. I think in his heart he feels with us. But it does not bring anything into the pockets of those people if he merely says that he sympathises with the member who is speaking. Persuade the Cabinet to give those people a higher wage, and to pay an allowance for cost of living per child to the people who get a meagre wage, and then alone the working classes will believe in you. If you do not do that, then they and I will not believe in you.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and one does feel that it is only since the war started that he has been converted to the needs and wants of the working classes and the unemployed of this country, because, Sir, he sat in the United Party Government under the late Gen. Hertzog.

Not in the Government.

Well, a supporter of the Government, the same as I am.

I was just a humble back-bencher.

And for several Sessions he was in this House and made a number of speeches, and then he was the champion of the railways, and he was eulogising what was being done on the railways. He did not indulge in very much adverse criticism of the administration of the railways at that time.

Surely, you did not read my speeches.

As a matter of fact, I got out Hansard last week, and I looked up the speeches of the hon. member for Fordsburg, not to see what he had to say with regard to the railways, because one knew that that was his particular hobby, but I looked them up in order to see what he had to say about labour and the need for the Government to take drastic measures to deal with the conditions which were prevailing in this country as far as low wages, starvation, malnutrition and things of that sort were concerned; and I did not find a single word on the subject. I cannot help thinking, Sir, that the hon. member is a Daniel come to judgment. He has come rather late, and I hope he will get his sentence in the near future. I was very interested in his remarks and his attempt to castigate the Minister of Labour. Of course, one realises that when one wants to catch birds with salt, one has to put it on their tails very quickly, or one does not catch them, and the hon. member for Fordsburg will have to throw a whole lot of salt before he can catch the Minister of Labour.

But he has not got a tail.

The Minister of Labour and we on this side saw the light as to the needs of our working classes, our unemployed, I suppose long before the hon. member for Fordsburg knew that there were working classes, and I suppose that he will tell us that we have not got much to show for our efforts. But on the other hand if the hon. member for Fordsburg had to work under the conditions that both the Minister of Labour and I worked under more than 40 years ago, he would do as we do, and that is to pat ourselves on the back because of what has taken place between then and now. And I want to say, Sir, that a very great improvement has taken place. But certainly not nearly sufficient, and I have no objection to the hon. member for Fordsburg asking for more to be done. But when he decries the efforts of the Minister of Labour in the manner that he was doing this afternoon, well, I do not think the hon. member can understand the term “play cricket”. Take his remarks, or shall I say his version of the remarks made by the Minister of Labour yesterday afternoon when he said that Labour associations with the United Party had been very fruitful and had got results which were beyond anticipations to the hon. Minister. Well, that is a plain result which was beyond the anticipation of many of us; I mean with regard to legislation which is beneficial to the working classes. But he hon. Minister of Labour was not for one moment attempting to refer to anything pertaining to the forthcoming election. He was dealing with the past and not the future. But my hon. friend very ingeniously attempted to turn it round, that the Minister of Labour was referring to the future only. While that may be fairly good electioneering tactics, it is very poor tactics to employ in this House amongst a number of members who are just as experienced in the game as the hon. member for Fordsburg himself. Then he goes on to jeer at the Minister of Labour because he attained so little from the connection of the Labour Party with the Government. He goes on to say that conditions are bad, that wages are poor; and that the whole fact of the matter is that the Minister of Labour has obtained so little because his hands are tied. Well, Sir, I can quite understand with what delight the hon. member for Fordsburg and his colleagues would have viewed an attempt on the part of the Minister of Labour to force the hands of the Government by saying: “If you are not going to give us all we want, we are going to cross over to the other side and co Hades with your war.” I can quite understand that they would have delighted in that attitude, but unfortunately during a war period such as that we are now going through, one has to temper justice with mercy, or shall we say, to transpose it a little bit. One has to use a good deal of discretion and be very thankful what can be got which is of benefit, rather than jeopardise the whole position of this country. And I myself commend the Minister and his Party for their attitude during this very trying period since the war started in 1939. And I am very pleased myself because I have a lot of sympathy with the Labour Movement—I classify myself as having the interests of the working classes and of the poor as much at heart as even the hon. member for Fordsburg, and even as much as members of the Labour Party. Although we do not quite see eye to eye in everything. But one can admire their efforts and one can admire their loyalty to the obligation they undertook when they entered the Government and decided to see the war through, and I am sure the country in the coming Elections will give them credit for that. The hon. member said that this scheme of school feeding would be a blot on the Minister because there was only an addition of £50,000 provided for the scheme. Well, one would have liked to have seen more, and I would suggest that the hon. member for Fordsburg and any other hon. members if they are interested in this scheme should go across to the Department and have a chat with the Secretary for Social Welfare, and I am quite sure he would be able to tell them many things which would be valuable information to them, and also would prove of great assistance to them, and would probably eliminate many misconceptions, and make them realise the magnitude of the scheme which apparently they do not understand at present. And one has to realise that it is going to take some time to get a scheme of this nature into working order. It is going to entail an enormous amount of organisation, and when one hears the explanation given, one can quite understand that it is possible that even the money available will not be entirely spent. But what one can also understand is that the Minister will have to make much larger provision for next year and the year after than he has made this year.

I just want to associate myself with the plea made yesterday by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) in connection with the position of boys in trade schools. I want to mention a specific case. In my constituency there is a trade school at Jacobsdal where there are regularly 100 boys in the school. So far as I know all the boys have passed Standard VI.

It is an industrial school?

I understand that it is a course of three years. They remain there more or less for three years and at the end of that period they reach a standard equivalent to Junior Matric. Possibly they may remain a year longer at the school. But what is the position then? After the boys have completed the course, and have received thorough vocational training, they must leave the school and try to be absorbed in some vocation or other. But in consequence of the study of two to four years in the trade school the boys may have passed the age of 18½ years and cannot then be taken up as an apprentice who has received preparatory apprenticeship training. The maximum age is 18½ years and the boys are older than that. They have had thorough vocational training, but now they have to find work and cannot be taken on as apprentices. They find their way to the Railways, or on to the roads or the irrigation works, and their whole vocational training is then valueless to them. They have to start on the same basis as boys who have had no training. I want to make a particular plea for the boys in the trade school at Jacobsdal. I want to invite the Minister to go there and see what they are achieving there. The Minister will be astonished to see what sort of work the boys can do after a year or two of training. The trade school has various branches, engineering, motor mechanics, woodwork, leather work—I think the Minister will be proud to wear a pair of shoes made by the children there. They receive instruction in the making of shoes and harness, tailoring, nearly all the branches of trade, and after they have spent their time there, and the parents have spent their money, the boys are in precisely the same position as the other boys who have had no training. It may happen that employers take the boys into employ for a probationary period of three months because the boys are useful, but after three months they have to receive a higher wage and then the employer says: You may go, we shall take in someone else. In this way their vocational training means nothing to them, even though it is thorough training. I want to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the matter and to ensure that proper employment circles are created for those boys. The Minister admits that the position is untenable. Something must be done for those boys so that they may be taken up in a trade. Now I want to come to something else. The Minister has painted a little picture in connection with the allotment of one meal per day. The admission of the Minister yesterday was another charge against him, and indeed against the whole Government. The Minister said that the measure was an emergency measure. There is distress. People are starving. Therefore from the goodness of his heart he gives them a meal. My plea was and is still today what his plea was for years and years when he sat on this side of the House. We can still hear his voice resounding from those days: We are pleading for a living wage.

Evidently those pleas of mine have had their effect.

Yesterday the Minister asked: “What do you consider a living wage?”

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

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 2nd April.