I move as an unopposed motion—

The unexpected death of our friend, Willie Collins, affects the Government deeply. It is a blow which affects not only the Government but also this House and the whole country. Willie Collins was an exemplary member of the Government. During the past seven years we, as his colleagues, had experience of his faithfulness, his loyalty towards his colleagues, and his friendship and his self - sacrificing work in a post which was one of great difficulty and which demanded a great deal of him, both mentally and physically. Although it was a heavy burden, he served the country in days of great difficulty; he carried out duties which in themselves were important and difficult, and he exerted his utmost energies in the public interest. His colleagues in the Government who knew him intimately and who could observe his work closely, can testify to his exemplary conduct, his keen devotion to duty and the manner in which he acquitted himself of his tasks. We feel the blow tremendously. But it also affects this House. For many years, since 1916, he was a member of this House, and I think I can say with full justification that there was no member in this House who enjoyed greater general confidence and general respect than Willie Collins. He was sincere; he was frank; he expressed his opinion without any hesitation, but at the same time he never gave offence and always made the impression that he looked upon his fellow human beings, his fellow members, with every possible respect as citizens on an equal footing with him. Everyone liked him; everyone respected him. Today we feel the tremendous blow which we, as a House, have suffered through his sudden and unexpected death. The blow also affects the country. Willie Collins was one of the older members of this House. He was one of the “die-hards” of years ago in the history of South Africa. I knew him in his younger years, even in the years before the South African war, when I was State Attorney and he was a member of my staff. Even at that time I had the highest expectations, not only of his capability but of his character, and of the great qualities of which he later furnished such outstanding proof. He entered the Second War of Independence and fought in it from the first to the last day and performed his duty in a manner which was a credit to him and to his nation and his country. Thereafter he took part in the rebuilding of the country, in the public activities which again put this country on its feet, and placed the nation of South Africa on a new basis. He took part in all this work and proved what he could do and contribute. And so he carried on when he became a member of this House. He was a member of the old Transvaal Parliament and came to this House in 1916. Throughout these years he proved his devotion to duty and his public-spiritedness. We shall cherish his memory for a long time. We shall not forget what he did as patriot, as member of the House and as member of the Government. We shall not forget the services which he rendered, the example which he set. He will be remembered, and the memory of his clean noble character will live on. Our sympathies go out to his family in the great loss which they have suffered, together with the country and the House and the Government. We shall only have the consolation that he made his contribution to the building up of our country, to the building up of the best traditions of South Africa. His memory will live on amongst our people.

It is an honour to me to second this motion of the Prime Minister, and to associate myself with the remarks which he made in connection therewith. The deceased Minister occupied a singular position as Minister and as member of Parliament. He was for many years a member of this House, and as such he not only had his personal circle of friends, but he was a person who was in contact with a very wide circle in the country. For that reason his unexpected death will be a shock not only to this House, but throughout the country. I believe that Col. Collins was a member of this House for 28 years. There is no longer a large number, but there are still a few members of this House who sat with him in this House throughout that time, or the greatest portion of that time, and I think that those who belong to that circle feel it very deeply when one member of the circle is taken away by death. Notwithstanding the fact that there is political difference between the one side and the other side of the House, those members who sat in this House with one another for a long time, do feel to a certain extent that they belong together, that they are members of one circle, and if one member disappears from that circle, he is missed. That is undoubtedly so in his case too. The work which he had to perform, especially as Minister, was, as the Prime Minister remarked, particularly difficult work. There is a great responsibility attached to every Department, but I think it is generally realised that from the nature of things, in view of the variey of his work, in view of the difficult problems with which he deals, the Minister of Agriculture bears perhaps a heavier burden than any other member. When his health deterioriated—it was generally known—no one expected that he, at any rate as long as his poor state of health continued, would return to Parliament, and again take up this burden—at any rate not during that time. But he came back at the beginning of the Session, and until a short while ago he still took upon himself the onerous duties of Minister of Agriculture. This goes to show how seriously he took his work and with what devotion he applied himself to his work. As the Prime Minister remarked, he was a person—and we can all testify to it—who in all his actions as Minister and as member of Parliament and as politician, could express his convictions with moderation and reserve. He maintained his balance, which in the political struggle one can so easily lose. He gave no offence. He was accessible to all. It was possible for him to have his friends on both sides of the House. He had his friends on all sides and will be missed by all of us.

I, too, feel that I must say a few words in support of the motion moved by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. With the passing of William Collins, has passed away not only a notable figure in the history of South Africa, but a very distinguished and noble character, and one who made, wherever he got into contact with people, real and personal friends. It is with a sense of personal loss that I address this House this morning upon this sad subject. Collins is, it is hard to say was, a friend of mine, and in friendship he excelled. He was straight, he was staunch, he was direct and he was loyal. He was essentially a fighting man and the fact that he passed away holding the office of Minister of Agriculture shows that until his last days he was, what he essentially excelled in, a fighting man, for he struggled in that office in the midst of many and peculiar difficulties as every hon. member in this House realises and fully understands. He and I met—we became associated, if we did not actually meet, in the South African War—I said “met” because the word rises to one’s lips almost instinctively because I have ever found that association in that great episode, if it was association in fighting against each other, led as almost a necessary consequence to friendship thereafter, and in his case it was no exception. And the wheels went round, and we became associated very intimately in public events in this country. And again the wheels have gone round and we became associated as members of the same Cabinet. Yes, he was a fighting man and essentially so throughout his life, and in almost the last words which we had together we discussed the question of loyalty, and I think his remarks on that occasion were very happy. If there was one characteristic which distinguished him more than another it was his loyalty—his loyalty to his country, to his faith, and to his friends. Requiescat in pace.

I should like to endorse what has already been said by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Mines. This House is deeply shocked at the news of the death of the Minister of Agriculture. Not only is his death a great loss to his relatives, but it must also be a great shock and loss to the Prime Minister and his colleagues. As far as we members of this House are concerned, I personally always regarded him not only as an old veteran and faithful warrior, but also as someone who struck me as a person who, even in the midst of great dangers and difficulties, managed to retain a smile. When others sometimes allowed their troubles to be reflected in their faces, he was one of those who controlled himself and who retained a smile even under the greatest difficulties. He possessed a firm character, he was a man who knew what he was doing in life, and which course he was taking. As we knew him, he was a man of whose loyalty there could never be any doubt. As faithful as he was as warrior, so loyal he was in every respect. It was therefore a great shock to us and a great shock to the country and to the Cabinet. I should like, therefore, to contribute our share in expressing our sympathy towards his relatives, and also towards his colleagues, especially the Prime Minister.

I feel that I knew Col. Collins, the late Minister of Agriculture, perhaps longer than any member of this House, and I want to associate myself whole-heartedly therefore, with what has been said by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and other members. I knew the late Minister Collins from the days when we went to school—he to one school and I to another. I went to school in the old Gymnasium. He went to a different school, but we often came into contact with each other. As the Prime Minister correctly said, he was a friend to all of us. In the Second War of Independence he went to the front and was on the staff of the late Gen. Botha, and he remained there until the end of the war and did his duty. The deceased became a member of this House in 1916, and remained a member throughout all these years. Although we differed from him, we were never angry with one another. When one differed from him, he never suspected one. One learns to know one’s fellow human beings when one experiences the greatest need and misery. Some years ago I also underwent an operation, and when I felt utterly miserable, when I lost my wife at that time, there was no one who showed greater sympathy and rendered greater assistance to me in those trying times than the Minister and Mrs. Collins. In those sad days Mrs. Collins stayed with us until the very last. For that reason, even though we differed from him, I shall never find it in my heart to bear ill will towards Willie Collins. We knew him as a great friend. I knew him in this House and also as a family friend up to the time he died, and I shall always remember him as a true friend, as one who stood by us in times of difficulty and stress. The number of people who, like the late Minister Collins, participated in the Second War of Independence is gradually becoming smaller. When we look round this House, we see no more than half a dozen, and it will not be long before this Parliament will look back on them as a generation of the past, and a generation which did its duty, which served its country. We differed very much from the late Minister Collins, but we never reproached one another. He did not bear malice, and he did his duty as he saw it. We deplore his death very deeply. It will be difficult for the Government to appoint a man to that important and difficult portfolio, a man as patient as the late Col. Collins. Our sympathies go out to his wife in the great loss which she has suffered. We heartily support this motion.

Motion agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 11.30 a.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Before giving particulars of the financial position, I should like to deal briefly with certain outstanding features of our Railway activities which may be of interest to hon. members.

The House has now had an opportunity of hearing both Ministers, and both Ministers adopted a very self-complacent attitude. They patted themselves on the back and told the country what good Ministers they were, how everything flourished under their control, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours came here with a lovely picture of the future which he holds out to the country. I would just like to say that there are few people in commerce and industry today who share with the Ministers the good opinion which they have of themselves and of their management of State finances. Behind the glittering side which the Minister has held out to the country there is another side, and that is a sombre and dark side. The people who today bear the economic structure in South Africa, are deeply concerned at the future of this country, and they are especially concerned about the exhaustion of the reserve power which there is in the commerce and industry of our country, and their opinion is that South Africa needs something more than just the self-complacency and the conceit of the two Ministers, in order to tide the country over the difficult years which lie ahead. I now move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 2nd March.

I move—

The object of this motion is to take Fridays, after questions have been disposed of, for Government business, as from Friday the 17th March. This is being done earlier than usual, but I think that in the circumstances such a step is justified. In the first place, there is not much private work before us. There are two private Bills, one of which has already been accepted, namely, the Bill in connection with the Rand Water Board, and the other is the Bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) in connection with the establishment of municipal savings banks, etc. That Bill has not, however, passed the second reading, and after the debate which has taken place and the reception given to the Bill, it is clear that there is very little prospect of putting it through Parliament this Session. What then remains, as far as legislation is concerned, does not make it necessary to give up Fridays. As far as motions before the House are concerned, there is a motion, introduced by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), in regard to the language medium in schools, and that is on the Order Paper for discussion on the 10th. I have been informed that possibly it will not be disposed of on the 10th, and if that is the case the Government will be prepared to allow further time for it. The other motion of importance which is before it is that of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the establishment of a republic and other allied subjects. That has already been discussed fairly fully, more than once in this House, and I do not think that there is any great necessity to give up very much more time for the discussion of this subject in view of the time which has already been devoted to it. Taking everything into consideration, therefore, I think that it would not be wrong and that it would not be inconvenient if, as from Friday, 17th March, we take private members’ time for Government business. If that happens, then it would seem possible to finish the Session perhaps at the end of April or the beginning of May. As far as Government business is concerned, there is not much on the Order Paper. There are certain Bills before the House, and some of them are being dealt with in Select Committee at present. For the rest, what we intend bringing before the House, are the usual financial measures and Bills in connection with re-employment of Government servants who are on active service, a Bill to consolidate the Reserve Bank legislation, and a Bill which aims at the establishment of a Standards Bureau. In view of the rapid industrial development, that is a necessary measure. There may be one or a few other Bills which will still come before us, but they will be of less importance and probably not of a contentious nature.

What about the Apprenticeship Bill?

That is on the Order Paper. It will be seen, therefore, that the programme of legislation and Government business which is before the House, or will still be brought before the House, is not extensive, and if we do not waste time with unnecessary debate, we might possibly dispose of our business by the end of April or the beginning of May. It is important that we should terminate the business as soon as possible, and in view of that it is desirable that this time should now be given up to the Government.

I second.

The outstanding fact in connection with this motion is that the Prime Minister is seeking to take away a concession which is given to members by the Standing Rules and Orders. The Standing Rules and Orders lay down that the Government can take private members’ days only after the 51st Session day. That is a right which private members have under the Standing Rules and Orders. It is now sought to take away private members’ days after the 41st day. It makes a difference of ten days, and the question is whether it is justified. This is not the first occasion on which the Prime Minister has come to the House with such a request. It seems to me that it has become a regular annual practice. If that is the case, it would be a pity. If it becomes an annual practice, what is the use of the Standing Rules and Orders with regard to this matter? There are two private members’ days under the Standing Rules and Orders, namely, Tuesdays and Fridays. Year after year the Prime Minister has taken away, first Fridays, and later in the Session Tuesdays. Now I should like to have the assurance from him that if he takes away Fridays—there may be justification for it, in his opinion, at any rate—that he will then leave Tuesdays until the very end of the Session perhaps, because there are quite a few motions which members have not withdrawn and which are important, and which could then be discussed on Tuesdays. If the Prime Minister gives us the assurance that he will not lightly take away the one remaining private members’ day it will make us more inclined to accede to his request in this case. With regard to motions which are immediately affected, we can more or less judge the position when we look at the Order Paper for Friday, 3rd March. The first on the Order Paper is the second reading of the Natal Bill. There has been a dog fight in this House for quite a few years in regard to that Bill, and I assume that it will still continue for quite a few years. But in any event, it can be assumed that the whole of Friday, the 3rd March, will be taken up by this Bill under the existing circumstances. The subjects placed on the Order Paper for that day will therefore probably not be discussed, and the two motions which follow for that Friday are motions of great importance, at any rate to this side of the House. One concerns the question of price control, and the other is the motion of the Opposition party, which was moved by me at the beginning of the Session. It means, therefore, that they will not be discussed on the 3rd March, nor is it possible to put them down for discussion on the 10th March, because the subject of dual medium education will then be discussed, and since that is a matter of the utmost importance, I assume that Friday, the 10th, will be taken up by that motion. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has given the assurance that if the motion is not disposed of on that day he will make further Government time available for it. But the two motions which I have mentioned will not come up for discussion on the 10th March, and there will be little prospect of discussing them if the 17th March and the following Fridays are taken away from private members. I hope that in the circumstances Mr. Speaker will rule that since these motions cannot be disposed of on private members’ days, the fullest opportunity should be given for the discussion of these matters when we are in Committee of Ways and Means. With regard to the Party motion in connection with international affairs, I think the Prime Minister is wrong in saying that it is generally thought that enough has been said on that subject, and that we need not discuss it any further.

He was not in the House at all.

All I can say is this. The whole House certainly does not share that view, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity under the vote of the Prime Minister, to celebrate with him! I hope that the same can be said with regard to the question of price control, that the fullest opportunity will be given to discuss that subject. With this reservation we shall not oppose the motion of the Prime Minister. As far as other information is concerned, the information has already been given on a previous occasion in regard to what we want to know concerning the Easter Holidays, and we take it that it will only be the week-end. The Prime Minister has now stated more definitely what has already been said on a previous occasion by the Minister of Finance, that they hope that the Session will be concluded at the end of April or the first week in May. With regard to legislation, all I can say on that subject is that this side of the House expect it to be a slender programme. Everything which he has now said as far as progress in this sphere is concerned, indicates that we can expect precious little from this Government and precious little during this Session. In any event we now have the information, and I hope that later on there will be no surprises and that no legislation will be introduced of which we had no notice or no proper notice.

I should like to confirm what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said in connection with the possibility of taking away Tuesdays. I support what he said for two reasons. In the first instance, there are still 20 private motions which have not been given a place on the Order Paper, which will guarantee their discussion, and all hon. members who have private motions on the Order Paper are anxious to have the opportunity to discuss those motions. But there is a further reason, and that is that the Government has made a very clever move in connection with the arrangement of hours in connection with new members. In the old days, whenever the House wanted to do so, it could sit an extra hour or longer, but the Government has now clipped our wings. At 4.15 p.m., whether the House wants to do so or not, the Government goes on with Government business. Private motions are now interrupted in the middle of the debate, and for that reason we hope that the Government will be a little more helpful by not taking away Tuesdays from private members. You will know that previously the Government was never able to do any work on Tuesdays, and now the Government gets from 4.15 p.m. to 6.45 p.m., and for that reason I support this request of the Prime Minister.

In view of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement that it is hoped that the Session will end by the end of April or early in May and that therefore there is a comparatively limited time for the legislative programme, I would be glad if he would give us some information in regard to the Government’s intention in connection with the Nursing Bill. This is a measure for which there is widespread public support, and we shall be glad to have some statement from the Prime Minister on this matter.

I think that the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is entirely reasonable, and I am sure that every possible facility will be accorded for discussion on the subjects in which he is interested. If it is desired to have a further debate in connection with the estimates on the subjects that he has mentioned, then I hope that every facility will be granted for that, and that we shall be able to do so. I trust that there will be no difficulty, when these motions are taken off the Order Paper, in discussing them further during the budget debate. In regard to Tuesdays, it may be accepted that the Government will not lightly deprive private members of Tuesdays. Naturally, it will happen, as usual, in the closing stages of the Session. But it is not proposed to do this soon, and I hope that there will remain a considerable period for private members to discuss, on Tuesdays, matters in which they are interested. We have no intention of making any early alteration in regard to Tuesdays.

With regard to what the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) said in regard to the Nursing Bill, the matter has rather escaped my attention. I shall go into this matter and see what can be done. It is a private measure which the Government has been asked to father. I must have notice of that; I shall consider the point raised by the hon. member and see what can be done. I am sorry to say that so far it has escaped my attention.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This is the first occasion on which Parliament has been asked to amend the Mental Disorders Act of 1916. This fact, I think, is an indication that the machinery then established to deal with mentally disordered or defective persons was based on sound foundations. But in the course of the past 28 years, as might only be expected, certain defects have become apparent in the Act and in the working of the Act, in the procedures under the Act, and it is to remove these defects and difficulties that the present amending legislation is being placed before the House. The Bill consists of a number of clauses, but, with the possible exception of Clause 23 which introduces a new Chapter 7 into the Act, there is nothing controversial in the Bill itself; and even in regard to the new Clause 23 which introduces an entirely new procedure, I hope that so far from this new procedure being controversial, it will meet with the approval and goodwill of hon. members. In view of the fact that the majority of the amendments concern procedure and the clearing up of ambiguities, I do not intend, in introducing the second reading, to go fully into all these clauses which have been inserted merely for the purpose of clarification and the removal of anomalies. I think it will be more appropriate to deal with these matter when the House goes into Committee. At this stage it will be sufficient merely to give the House some indication of the more important changes which are being made as the result of experience gained during the past 28 years. Take Clause 5 of the Bill, for instance. Under the existing Section 10, Sub-section 2, of the Act the Physician Superintendent of any Mental Institution is bound, upon the request of a policeman, to detain any person brought to his institution. This Sub-section states—

In other words, the Superintendent of an Institution is bound upon the request of a policeman to accept such a person so brought to the Institution. Cases have arisen where policemen have brought persons found by them in the street, generally late at night, who have not been mentally disordered but who were apparently merely suffering from some form of alcoholic intoxication, or from some other condition superficially resembling mental disorder. Such persons, in the opinion of experts, ought not to be admitted to a mental institution and it is desirable in the public interests that the procedure in this regard should be altered. As a result of the proposed amendment in Clause 5 of the Bill it will now be obligatory upon a member of the Police Force, who desires to have such a person detained, to apply the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, namely the provisions dealing with cases of urgency. I hope that hon. members will agree with me that in these matters we must have the opinion of experts. You must have the diagnosis of experts to decide whether or not a person is mentally disordered or defective, and while our policemen may have very wide experience, I think hon. members will agree with me that a policeman is not entirely competent to judge whether or not a person is mentally disordered or defective, and he should therefore not be legally authorised to endeavour to make such a judgment. Then let me refer to Clause 9 of the Bill which can be read in conjunction with Clause 3 (c). Section 21 of the existing Act makes it necessary for a medical practitioner to complete and date his certificate after an examination of a patient, or rather to date the certificate after he has made the examination of a patient on the day on which he made such examination. Obviously it is the date of the examination which is relevant in these matters and not the date upon which he writes out the certificate, but in terms of the existing Act the medical practitioner is obliged to act in that way. In country districts for instance, it is not always practicable to have the prescribed medical certificate available; it is not always available to the examining practitioner on the date he makes his examination. He will in that event have to date the certificate on the day on which he completes it, and it has been found that judges have refused to accept such certificates and the proceedings have had to be taken de novo. It is in order to obviate that difficulty that the provisions of Clause 9 of the Bill and Clause 3 (c) have been inserted. Then I should like to refer hon. members to Clause 12 of the Bill which deals with the existing Section 27 of the Act. At present, in terms of Section 27 of the Act as at present worded, the magistrate cannot proceed to have a medical examination of a person in custody unless the jailer reports to him that in his opinion the patient appears to be mentally disordered or defective. In terms of the procedure laid down the magistrate must wait for that report before he can ask for a proper examination of the patient. The jailer may fail to make such a report because he is not competent to judge, whether, in fact, such an examination is necessary. It is felt by the experts that the Attorney-General should have the right to ask that an accused person in custody be immediately examined in regard to his mental condition. Under our existing law our Attorney-Generals in the various Provinces have no such right. Recently a case occurred in Natal where the Attorney-General had very good grounds indeed for suspecting that a person awaiting trial was mentally disordered or defective, but the magistrate who was asked to have the examination carried out took no action because the jailer in whose custody the particular person was at the time, had made no such report to the magistrate, and so far as taking action was concerned, the Attorney-General was impotent; his hands were tied; he could not set the machinery in motion under the Mental Disorders Act. The effect of this Sub-clause will be to remedy this, and will be to give the Attorney-General the right to ask that such an examination will be carried out in a case which he thinks appropriate. Clause 12 (c) is a necessary corollary. That provides certain new sub-sections which have been framed with a view to detailing the procedure to be followed in deciding whether or not a person is mentally disordered or defective. If, in fact, the result of the examination is to the effect that the person is mentally disordered or defective, then naturally one has to have the correct procedure followed thereafter, and the new Subsections revised by Clause (c) provide for the necessary machinery. Then it has been found that judges and magistrates and others have commented from time to time on the fact that where persons have been found in the course of trial to be mentally disordered or defective, they have not the right to commit them direct to a mental institution. They have to be admitted to a jail or a similar place of custody. If hon. members will refer to Clause 13 of the Bill, Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c), they will find that the proposed amendments contained in those Clauses, will enable the presiding judge or magistrate or judicial officer to commit the person direct to an institution instead of a jail, pending the signification of the Governor General’s decision. As I have said, in certain cases judges have expressed the opinion that they should have this discretion, but in the existing Act, it does not rest with them. Then an amendment to Clause 28 (3) of the Act and also the new Sections (4) and (5) of Section 28 indicate the procedure that will be followed where such action is taken by the judicial officer concerned. Clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill provide for a new Section 32. This new Clause indicates more clearly the procedure to be followed in the case of a convicted person who is mentally disordered or defective. Sub-section (4) of the new Section 32 makes provision for sending a convicted person to an institution for observation in cases where there is a doubt whether the person is mentally disordered or defective. Cases have arisen where the prison authorities themselves have experienced difficulties because of the absence of any such provision. There is a doubt whether the person concerned is mentally disordered or defective and no provision exists under the present Act enabling that person to be sent to an institution for observation. Then Clause 17 of the Bill provides for a new Section 32 (bis), which details the procedure to be followed when a convicted person is sent for observation under Sub-section (4) of the new Clause 32. Clause 24 of the Bill makes provision to remedy a gap in the existing Act. There is no provision under the Mental Disorders Act for the appointment of a Deputy-Commissioner of Mentally Disordered or Defective Persons. If the Commissioner is absent on leave or through illness, we have no provision whereby a deputy can be appointed, and it was felt advisable that steps should be taken to remedy that omission. Similarly, in the provisions dealing with the appointment of members of Mental Hospital Boards, no steps have been taken previously to allow substitutes to be appointed. In Clause 25 of the Bill the necessary provision to effect this has been inserted. Then Clause 29 deals with the question of the maintenance of patients who are detained in Mental Hospitals. In terms of Section 79 of the Act, the relatives of patients are obliged to contribute towards their maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 79 reads as follows—

But experience has shown that difficulty is frequently found in obtaining accurate information as to the ability of relatives of mental patients to contribute to their maintenance. The onus is at present on the State to show that the relatives can pay, and it is considered that that onus should be shifted and that it should be obligatory on the relatives to show that they are not in a position to contribute. In terms of the new Subsection (3) which is inserted by virtue of Clause 29 of the Bill, magistrates will be required when committing a person to an institution to furnish a report as to whether any of the relatives of the patient can pay maintenance. The Clause reads as follows—

There is a scale of charges which was laid down; it is at the rate of 4s. per day, and those charges will be levied against the relatives. Hon. members need not fear that hardship will result from this provision. There have been cases where in actual fact the Department has remitted the payment of fees by relatives, even though the relatives may have been in a position to pay. But because of the peculiar position the Commissioner for Disabled Persons always deals with these matters upon a humanitarian basis and in the light of the circumstances of the whole case. Then there is another minor amendment, but one which I think will serve a useful purpose, and that is in Clause 32 (b) of the Bill. That Clause 32 (b) amends the definition of “Court.” The word “Court” is defined in the Act, and it is defined in such a way as to constitute the “Court.” as the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, with the exception of Kimberley and the Eastern Districts Local Division, which are specifically mentioned. Through some lapse the Witwatersrand Local Division was not mentioned. The Transvaal Provincial Division is located in Pretoria and the Local Division of the Supreme Court is situated in Johannesburg. It has been found that where patients have been sent from the Witwatersrand to be detained in an Institution, that thereafter it is necessary to apply to the Court in Pretoria, and that has in some cases occasioned additional costs. The definition of “Court.” has now been altered so as to enable the persons applying to approach the Supreme Court in Johannesburg. I have dealt now with what I might term the more important changes, minor though they are relatively, in the respective procedure, and I come finally to deal with the major change in procedure, which is effected in Clause 23 of the Bill. If hon. members will turn to Clause 23 they will see that Chapter 7 of the Act is to be repealed and a new Chapter 7 inserted by virtue of Clause 23. The new Chapter 7 will contain three clauses—49, 50 and 51. The object aimed at by this amendment is to meet the interests of potential patients themselves. The existing Chapter 7 of the Act makes provision for persons being sent to General Hospitals for treatment for mental disorders, the idea being to obviate the certification of such persons as being mentally defective. One might put it this way, that an attempt was made in the old Chapter 7 to apply mental hygiene procedure to general hospitals. Under the new Chapter 7 an attempt will be made to apply the general hospital procedure to mental hospitals—to reverse the procedure. In actual fact it has been found that Chapter 7 is virtually a dead letter. The general hospitals are not able to make adequate provision for mental patients. They have neither the staff nor the equipment nor possibly the experts. The idea, of course, was to enable these persons to avoid having to go to a mental hospital where they would be certified as being mentally disordered or defective. In actual fact where persons have been sent to hospitals, persons in general hospitals who have been found to be mentally defective, the general practice has been for them to be removed to a mental hospital, and they could only be detained in a mental hospital after being certified under the procedure in the Act. There is provision, of course, under the existing Act, for persons to be admitted to a mental hospital as voluntary patients. That avoids certification, but there are many persons who are not competent to exercise that act of discretion in asking to be so admitted, and the view of the experts is that we should make no distinction between those who are incompetent to deal with themselves, because they are suffering from some physical ailment, and those who may be incompetent because they are suffering from some mental disablement. A man has a motor accident, is rendered unconscious—he breaks his spine. His relatives or friends see that he is taken to hospital and gets the necessary treatment—he himself is not in the position to ask for such treatment. Similarly, it is felt that if persons are suffering from mental disablement which is curable, which needs institutional treatment to be cured, they should not have to go through the procedure of having to be certified as insane when one might use all the expert machinery available at mental hospitals to cure the patient when admitted as a voluntary patient. So the procedure laid down in Chapter 7 is this, that on the application, on the written application to the Physician Superintendent of a Mental Institution, the Superintendent may admit to that institution a person who is alleged to be suffering from mental disorder, provided in his opinion that person is likely, if treated in the institution, to recover within twelve months. If in the opinion of the Superintendent Physician the patient sought to be admitted is likely to recover within twelve months, then in terms of the new Section 49 he may be admitted. But obviously if we are to establish a new procedure it is desirable to have the necessary safeguards. It is desirable not only in the public interests but also in the interest of the institutions themselves. It is not enough to say that in these modern days physician superintendents—persons in those positions—act with responsibility. Of course they do, but one has to go further and show from the public point of view that they have no opportunity of abusing their powers even if they wish to do so, and so one has to ring these measures round with a certain number of safeguards. Now, if hon. members will turn to Clause 23 of the Bill they will see that there are various safeguards laid down. There is to be a written application to the Physician Superintendent. That application has to be accompanied by certain forms filled in under oath by persons making the application. The application must also be accompanied by a statement or statements by two medical practitioners, one of whom shall be the medical attendant of the person to whom the application relates. There are persons who cannot make such statements. This clause refers to statements and not to certificates. Certain statements have to be made under oath and on the strength of these statements the Physician Superintendent may admit a patient to a mental hospital. The cardinal principle behind this chapter is that the new procedure does not involve an order of lunacy by the magistrate. These people cannot go as voluntary boarders because they cannot decide whether it is in their interest to go or not. But they are taken by their friends or relatives, and they can have the treatment necessary for them. Once the Physician Superintendent has received such a person into his institution certain duties devolve upon him. Within three days of the reception of the patient he must notify the Commissioner. Before he may receive the patient he has to have certain documents presented to him. When he has received the patient he has to bring the Commissioner into the picture. Within three days he has to notify the Commissioner of the reception and to submit a copy of the reception application. Within seven days he must submit to the Commissioner a report on the mental condition of the patient, giving his views of the mental condition and of the general chances of recovery. The facts are then before the Commissioner who has now the information to review the particular case. He is in a position to review the case and he can interfere if he thinks it is necessary to do so. The first admission is for a period of not more than six months. If the Physician Superintendent is prepared to receive him he may keep him there for a period of six months. If before the expiration of six months it is felt that it is in the interest of the patient to retain him for a further period, he may once again on the written application by a person competent to make such application be detained for a further period of three months, and then again for a further period of three months—two further periods of three months. He may never be detained for a period longer than twelve months under this procedure. Apparently the chances of recovery during the first twelve months are high if cases are taken in time. But after twelve months the rate of recovery goes down. And it is felt that if a person is to be detained for longer than twelve months, then application under the ordinary provisions of the Act will have to be made. I have referred to the safeguards. Section 51 completes the picture in regard to safeguards. The new Section 51 provides that the Physician Superintendent shall discharge any person detained therein if (a) the Physician Superintendent certifies that he is fit to be discharged; and (d) the husband or wife of such person or the person on whose application he is detained, requests in writing that he be discharged. If the man in charge, the Physician Superintendent, declares the man fit to be discharged, he may be discharged. There may be persons who are detained in licensed institutions where the Superintendent is not a licensed medical practitioner. The Commissioner also has the right to order that a person shall be discharged. And then the other provision to which I draw attention is that under (d) where the husband or wife of such a person, or the person on whose application he is detained, requests in writing that he be discharged. In other words, if the husband or wife makes application for the person to be discharged, then the Superintendent must discharge that person. There is no question—he has no discretion left—it becomes obligatory on the Superintendent to discharge that patient. I may add that in the committee stage I propose to add the word “guardian,” so that we shall give that right to the guardian also to ask that a person shall be released. Now, here we have a distinction between the existing procedure and what is proposed. If under the existing procedure the husband or the wife or the guardian were to ask for the release of a patient, no action would be taken, but here they have the right to ask for the release. These provisions contained in the new chapter are almost completely similar to the provisions of the Act of Southern Rhodesia of 1936 with this exception, that we go further. The Southern Rhodesia Act has taken over the provisions of an English Act relating to this system of voluntary admissions to mental hospitals, but in the Southern Rhodesia Act there is no provision for the relatives to ask for the release of patients. We propose to go further. In order to make it quite clear to the public that adequate safeguards are provided and that no one need have any fear that the public interest will be abused, these safeguards are laid down. Now, this procedure has worked exceedingly well in Southern Rhodesia and in England. For a long time there has been a similar procedure in Scotland. For the past eighty years it has been possible under schedule “G” of the Scottish Lunacy Act for a patient in Scotland to be placed under detention for a period not exceeding six months on the written application of a medical practitioner. And I am told that considerable use has been made of this, and indeed, before the passing of the English Act, that is the English Mental Treatment Act, English patients were frequently taken to Scotland in order that suitable treatment might be given to them without their having to be certified. And so I would commend this provision to the House, and I hope that hon. members will see in this an attempt to bring our own code up to date in conformity with modern ideas and in line with what experience has proved so acceptable and practicable in other parts of the world.

As the hon. the Minister has rightly said, the keystone of this amended Bill is to be found in Section 23. I am anxious that the House should realise that a new principle is being introduced here as far as South Africa is concerned, a principle that assumes that mental defects are capable of treatment scientifically, that they are not what the ordinary layman’s conception of them is, namely, something really incurable; and that in a number of cases mental disorder is in fact merely the symptom of another ailment or condition from which the patient is suffering. I am anxious that it should be realised that an effort is being made here to differentiate between those cases where mental disorder is a symptom and those cases where the mental disorder is something more permanent, and constitutes a greater menace to society and to the patient. I think that throughout the length and breadth of the country, amongst people who have had to deal with such patients, where there are family connections of persons who have had to be placed in an institution, there will be a feeling of relief and a feeling of thankfulness that in the future it will be appreciated by the Administration that in those cases where the mental disorder is merely a symptom, the persons affected will be treated as temporary patients, just in the same way as if they had been sent to a hospital. This presupposes that our institutions will, in a large measure, have to be revolutionised. That must entail the drafting of new regulations for these institutions, so that the patients who are being given temporary treatment can be treated apart and appropriately. I consider that this measure represents an advance in our conception in this country of mental disorder, and that it represents a greater reform in regard to these matters than has ever before been registered in our history. While we are now engaged in legislation of this nature, I should like, at the same time, to direct the attention of the Government to the fact that comprehensive alteration in the institution itself will be necessitated; that there must be enlarged provision for patients of this sort; and that there must be further provision for the various classes of patients who suffer from mental disorders. We know that in numbers of cases there is after child birth a temporary disturbance in which mental disorder manifests itself. There has never been a more tragic sequence of cases in this country than where such persons have been compelled to enter such institutions, and, although the treatment will not be different, they have had to be admitted as certified patients. Under Clause 23 it will be possible to receive these patients as temporary patients, and the manner in which this may be done has already been explained by the Minister. Written application will have to be made. Notice will have to be given to the Commissioner through the Superintendent, and after seven days the Superintendent must inform the Commissioner what progress has been made. He must also have the certificate of the two medical practitioners. We must immediately clear ourselves of the suspicion, which still exists in certain circles, that there is so to say a sort of conspiracy between the doctors and family connections and others to hold such a patient in an institution of this type. Compared with South Africa there is no country in the world where the risk is so slender of the illegal or wrongful detention of a patient in such an institution. We shall hear of cases—there have been hard cases in the past—but I am convinced that those hard cases in which possibly irregularities were perpetrated, are fewer under the conditions in South Africa than in any other country in the world. And the reason is to be found in this, that our institutions are almost exclusively institutions which are controlled by the Government through its Department of Internal Affairs, and through the Commissioner of Mentally Disordered or Defective Persons. That being the case, I would also like to recommend to the House, that while we criticise the measures for temporary patients as fully as possible, and while we endeavour to discover methods for precautionary provisions, let us remember this, that this means that the patient can be admitted without having been certified as mentally deranged. He is received on the declaration of the doctor and with his own assent, if his condition is such that he is able to give his assent voluntarily. But if he is in such a mental state that he himself cannot realise what his position is, then he may be detained on the application of parent, husband, wife or guardian. Consequently, I maintain that this is such a great improvement on the practice of the past that while we may wish to criticise this measure as fully as possible in this connection with a view to improving it wherever possible, we should not run away with the idea that there is something here which is inimical to the liberty of people in our country. There is the important precaution which is laid down in the clause, which explains to us how a person who is thus detained temporarily, may leave the institution; namely, the superintendent may himself discharge this person when he thinks that he has recovered, or that he is no longer dangerous, or that he perhaps may recover outside just as inside the institution itself. He may be discharged through the medical practitioner who has treated him, provided it is in an institution other than a Government institution. The commissioner may give an order for his discharge. This provision is perhaps not so important because the commissioner is not an official who is compelled to be permanently in office in one part of the Union, and who can only deal with matters by correspondence. But the important provision is that the husband or wife of the patient—and the Minister is now going to add the guardian—can ask for the discharge of the patient. Where there was difficulty in the past it may perhaps be possible to expand the scope of this provision. I want to suggest that we should insert a further provision so that cases which are not given 100 per cent. coverage by the existing provisions may also be included. The husband or the wife or the guardian are mentioned. But there may be other persons who do not stand in any legal relationship of that sort towards the patient, and the Minister may well consider whether a simple procedure could not be devised whereunder an application may be forwarded to the magistrate of the district where the person is being treated.

An application by whom?

By the person himself. We assume that such a person is in possession of his senses. He thinks that he is being illegally detained. [Quorum.] There is present already in the minds of persons a tendency to be dissatisfied. They sometimes imagine that they are being persecuted. So let us take this precaution, that the patient himself—perhaps he has not got a wife or a guardian—that the patient will have the right to apply to the magistrate of the area in which he is situated, so that the magistrate can investigate his case. We know that the magistrate will naturally act in consultation with the experts. He ought to do this. But it will nevertheless reassure the patient in the institution that his case will not be closed in one way or the other with the result that he would not be entitled to leave the institution when he actually has so far recovered that his discharge is justified. I think that that is the only precaution that may still be added in order to afford every possible opportunity to such a patient to feel that he is neither being persecuted nor illegally detained. The important aspect is, of course, not in the Act. That is that provision must be made for funds for the treatment of our present mental defectives. I mean that the accommodation in the institution should be extended, and that adequate provision should be made for an enforcement of this Act so that it will not remain a dead letter, and so that it can really be put into effect. Seeing that we are dealing here with an amending Bill, I should like to deal shortly with this point. In Clause 3 of the Act of 1916, the various classes of mentally disordered persons are mentioned for the purposes of that Act. Then we come to Clause 7 in that section, which refers to epileptic persons, and an epileptic person is defined as follows—

This is a class that is mentioned under the Act. In the past we have done precious little for these people. Epileptics are just as much a type of sufferer who may derive great benefit from treatment; and as steps are now being taken to care for these people through benevolent agencies, and as they fall under the Act, and as moreover they also come under the purview of the Commissioner for Mentally Disordered or Defective Persons, I think that better care must be provided for them. I think that we should no longer allow the Act to remain a dead letter in this respect, but that we must make provision for these people. I mention this because in the past they have been admitted when they have also been mental cases in other respects. Where they fall under the law and under the Department, I consider that proper provision should be made for them, and that it should not be left entirely to charity. The Government contributes on the £ for £ basis, but while these people fall under the law it is only right that provision should be made for them. Then I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that all those cases which have been quoted in the past as instances where people have been irregularly detained in one institution or another, will be carefully investigated, as also the reasons that have been submitted for their illegal detention, and that all the defects in the law which gave rise to these cases shall be removed. We should like to know from the Minister whether all these defects will be eliminated from the law, and that, where it is humanly possible to prevent it, no person shall for any reason be unlawfully detained in an institution for mental defectives, and that care is taken that those defects shall be removed from the law. I have investigated the matter to a certain extent, but I have not got those cases available. I personally cannot put my finger on any special section of the Act and say that it must be revised in this way or that to ensure that no person shall be illegally detained. We should like to have the assurance that any person who is detained in such an institution will be accorded as soon as possible the opportunity to show that he ought not to be there, and it should be possible for him to do this without incurring any expense. It should not be necessary for the matter to be taken to court. But there is a commission already in existence. I believe that there is such a commission, and it ought to be made possible for a person to prove to such a commission that he should not be detained in the institution. It is alleged that there are certain further dangers, and that in certain circumstances people may still be detained, because all the circumstances are used against them, and that such a person would find it difficult to leave such an institution. Personally, as I have said, I cannot indicate where we should insert such a precaution, but I should like to have the assurance of the Minister before the Bill goes through, that he will investigate all these cases, and ascertain whether we can amend the Bill in any way in favour of the person who thinks that he is being illegally detained, so that he can have every opportunity to prove that it is not right that he should be in the institution. That is unfortunately all that I can ask. I cannot myself propose an amendment. I cannot myself produce the evidence. But I do know that from time to time—fortunately very seldom in South Africa—it has been alleged by one person or another that he has been unjustly and irregularly detained in one of our institutions. Consequently I ask for this assurance from the Minister. Possibly the Minister may later, when he replies to the debate, say that he is convinced, or that his officials are convinced, that we cannot strengthen the law for the protection of people who are possibly detained in an irregular manner in an institution, and then he may be able to satisfy us in that respect. As far as regard the minor amendments, I am in agreement with what the Minister has said that they merely simplify the application of the law. It is necessary that the powers of the gaol warders should be reduced where they have authority, whether a prisoner is suffering from a mental disorder or not. There must be professional authority. There is just a small amendment that hon. members may perhaps wish to discuss, and that is where the onus is now transferred from the Government to the patient, or to his family connections, to prove whether they can pay or not. I think that if a person can pay he should pay, but when the Minister, as he now does, places the onus on the man’s relations, I can foresee great difficulty. Remember that in the past the people also paid. The Government says: “We have instituted an enquiry; you can pay so much”, and the position in so far as the enquiry is concerned, remains just the same. I am not opposed to the magistrate having the power to call upon the relations to make a deposition under oath. I have nothing against that. But that relatives should just receive accounts for an undefined sum—I do not think it will be so terribly high because we always, try to keep it down—that, I think, will create a difficult position. What happens? I know what happens in practice. A person comes along en says: “Doctor, you must operate on me”. I do that and send him my account, and then he comes along and says: “I know your fee is such-and-such, but I cannot pay”. Then the same sort of thing is going to happen here. The Government will present an account. Possibly the person concerned has some means, but what, is going to happen? People without means are going to receive accounts, people who perhaps have only small possessions or a little money, and amongst them will be those who feel under an obligation to pay. I can foresee that there will be cases where people will go without clothes and fall behind with their rent, because they feel that they have to pay these accounts. The State will then be responsible for these people suffering want. Naturally, there will be a more numerous section who will say: “The Government is holding this person in the institution, and I am not going to pay”. I realise this, that there will be cases where people feel that there is an obligation on them to bear the cost in respect of a member of their family. They will even go short themselves in order to be able to pay. Is it not then better to leave the matter so that an enquiry can be instituted, even if it is under oath, but which would prevent the necessity being imposed on a family, where one of their members is in an institution, of having this further burden placed on their shoulders, even though they have but scanty means, because they feel that they are obliged to pay. There is a further provision regarding which I should like to say a few words. Provision is made for a deputy-commissioner, and I regard that appointment as necessary. I have noticed that the Commissioner himself has been about Cape Town for the last three or four weeks, and possibly he will remain here for another three or four weeks. This in itself is sufficient proof that a deputy-commissioner should be appointed, for the law lays down that all sorts of details about patients must be submitted to the Commissioner. They must be enquired into through him. He is responsible. Therefore it is very necessary to appoint a deputy-commissioner, so that the routine work may be done by him. In regard to the other small amendments in Clauses 1 to 22, I am convinced that the intention is to make it easier for the patient and not more difficult for him, or for his relations; but to make it easier where a person is placed in this position—whether he is a private patient or a prisoner, or a person who is under suspicion that he has committed an offence. That irregularities and difficulties will occur may be expected. That sort of thing happens in every part of the world, but what we will achieve is that a guarantee will be accorded the rights and liberty of a person, even when there is a suspicion that he is suffering from a mental disorder. Many years ago it happened that there was a very good family who would not place their daughter in a mental home, because they felt that this would cast a reflection on the family. The child had a very sweet nature. She had only one weakness; she imagined that she was a turtle dove; and one day the turtle dove flew off out of the third storey of the dwelling and fell dead in the street. Then the reflection on the family was much greater than they thought would have been the case if their child had been detained in an institution. It must, be understood that what is done in an institution is done primarily in the interests of the patient, and in the second place, for the protection of the public. Accordingly, we want to have the best provisions and precautions, and I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that it is not possible to introduce any further amendment to prevent loopholes for irregular or illegal detention. For the rest, I commend this Bill to this House. I think that it constitutes an important step in the right direction.

The views of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) will command the respect of every member of this House both because of his long experience in the medical profession and the position which he occupies with the acknowledgement of his fellow-practitioners as President of the Medical Council. He is acknowledged in this House as one who is devoted to the interests and well-being of the people at large. I have listened very attentively to the views expressed by the Minister of Public Health this afternoon in the introduction of this Bill, but I wish he had spoken less as a Minister than as a member of this House who has always shown himself keenly alive to the interests of the people. I recall that in 1931 two members of the present Cabinet associated themselves with a request for a Select Committee of Enquiry into the administration of the Mental Disorders Act. The hon. the Minister of Public Health was the one who moved in this House, Sir—

His motion was seconded by the present Minister of Commerce and Industries in an appeal that the then Minister of the Interior should agree to the proposed enquiry. I am somewhat unfamiliar with the correct titles of Ministers in these days, but I hope I am right in being guided by the front page of Hansard. What I feel about this Bill is that the early desire that the Minister expressed in regard to an enquiry into the administration of the Mental Disorders Act ought to be met by the referring of this Bill to a Select Committee. There is no doubt, Sir, that the feeling that was emphasised by the then hon. member for Salt River has continued, and prevails to this day—that there is room for improvement in the administration of the Mental Disorders Act, 1916; and I am sorry to say that the Minister has not—with the one exception of the proposed amendment to Section 10 of the Act—done anything in this Bill to meet the reasonable wishes of those who maintain that there are dangerous tendencies in the administration of the Act as shown from time to time by cases that have occurred. For example, it will be remembered that not very long ago two physician superintendents actually travelled fifteen miles to go to court and to give evidence there in respect of the mental condition of a person whom they had never seen. Now, Sir, I have made it my business to try to find whether there has been a recent parallel to this case in other countries, and so far from my having succeeded I have found that no such case has occurred in the United Kingdom for almost a hundred years. The last case on record in which a doctor declared a man to be a dangerous lunatic without having seen him occurred in Great Britain in September, 1860, and the medical officer, a parochial surgeon, who was guilty of that act, was denounced by his own profession. “The Lancet” published a leading article in which it was declared that Dr. Jeffreys, who had been guilty of this action, had dishonoured the profession, that he had committed an act dishonourable to the profession, and that he should be deprived of his office because of what he had done. Now, Sir, what is the position in this country? We have had an enquiry held by a judge under Section 20 of the Act in the course of which a representative of the Attorney-General, whose actions had been called into question quite considerably, was allowed to lead the evidence. The Attorney-General was actually objected to by the persons whose interests were at stake, but those objections were overruled. The enquiry was not an enquiry held by the judge in his capacity as judge, but as a commissioner appointed by the Minister under Section 20 of the Act, and there was no appeal against the judge’s ruling on the point of the Attorney-General—whose actions had been called into question—having been allowed to lead the evidence and to determine the procedure; with respect to the action that was most bitterly complained of, namely, the giving of evidence against a man by medical officers who had never seen him, the judge came to the conclusion that this was quite in order. He said, Sir—

In this particular case the Attorney-General took very good care to see that the accused person who was described as a patient had no opportunity of consulting legal opinion, or of knowing that he was to be rushed into Court, and actually although a warrant of arrest was issued against him, that warrant was never shown to him. He was taken by a trick from his own garden, put into a car and landed in court before he had any inkling that a charge was laid against him; and from that moment in spite of his repeated applications for an adjournment to enable him to get legal assistance, he was denied the elementary privilege of every citizen in this country, that of an adjournment to get legal assistance, and within two hours he was inside a mental hospital for observation by the very people who had declared beforehand that he was mental without ever having seen him. The Minister has praised the physician superintendents today for their reliable characteristics; but this subject, the subject of their handling of that case, may yet form the occasion of a law suit, and there is no doubt, Sir, that if that were to take place the question of the right of any person to go into the box and swear away the liberty of another person on the grounds that he is a mental, though they have never seen that person, may yet be successfully challenged. I maintain that is only one of the objectionable features of the administration of this Act that ought to be enquired into. A case was quoted by the Minister in 1931 in which the actions of a magistrate, the actions of the medical officer who gave his certificate, and the actions of the physician superintendent who was in charge of the patient, were all called into question in a claim made in the Supreme Court in Pretoria. It is true that the person concerned was unable to recover damages, but the court showed itself most sympathetic to his case and in the end expressed the hope that the Government would do something to compensate him for what he had suffered. What was the result? This House on the petition of the man who had been injured, granted him a pension for life because of his treatment in that case, and I understand it was a substantial pension too. If those are the fruits of the administration of the Act, I maintain that the Minister is altogether too generous in saying that there have been no features in the administration of this Act that have proved disquieting. That was a case which the Minister quoted very fully when he made his request for a select committee in 1931, supported by the present Minister of Commerce and Industries; he went very fully into the undesirable features that had occurred, and attributed them to the looseness with which the Act was regarded by some persons. There is no doubt that this is the dangerous feature of this Act. Not one of us desires to see a person branded as a person who is mentally disordered, unjustly, and yet there are many opportunities. In his speech in 1931 the present Minister of Public Health mentioned loopholes—for instance, where a person had any enmity against another it would be possible from him by invoking the aid of the police to succeed in getting his adversary into a mental hospital. Let me mention one feature about the case which I brought to the Minister’s attention in which two doctors had certified a man—they went into court and swore his liberty away. In that case it was proved that the Attorney-General, who was himself the complainant, wrote a letter to one of the doctors asking him what evidence he was prepared to give against the accused. That shows you what a misuse has been made of the present Act already, and that to my mind is one of the worst features of that case, and one of the worst features of the administration of the Act. The Minister has given a very comprehensive review of the provisions of the Act as they would be if the present amendments are carried, and that review was supplemented by the remarks of the hon. member for Stellenbosch, with whom I have had a conversation regarding the precise effects of the Act, but there is no denying that under Chapter 7 the existing Act already provides for the treatment of cases which are not regarded as cases of mental disorder, but cases that call for curative treatment; and the present Act, however, required that before any person requiring curative treatment can be detained for a certain period, the concurrence of a magistrate by way of an order is necessary. The present Bill proposes to do away with the concurrence of the magistrate and to leave that entirely dependent on the certificate of two medical men. I have a great respect for the medical profession, but there are many medical men in the Union whom I should not be prepared to trust with such a dangerous power as that; there is a very large number I should be unable to trust; and in legislating in this matter we have to prevent the abuse of the Act, and I say that that provision would be going too far altogether. It would put persons at the mercy of the certificates of two medical men. The magistrate would have no authority in the matter whatsoever. It is true that certain provision is made under which a person under temporary treatment can be released; but, Sir, there is provision made for the extension of this medical treatment from time to time, and it is not at all clear whether if such provision has been fulfilled, and the time for his detention has been extended, whether at that time and at any moment his release can be demanded. It is true that certain provision is made under which his release can be resisted by his wife and by his guardian, but the ordinary man in street looks upon these things, from his experience, as an infringement of his liberty, and he regards it in this way: He says, how much is it going to cost to get out? And that is to my mind a very important matter. I know of cases in which hundreds and hundreds of pounds have been spent to try to repair damage that has been done through a reckless administration by some persons of this Mental Disorders Act. And I appeal to the Minister not to press for this Bill to pass through the House without an opportunity to the public to come forward and give their views in regard to this matter. We have met here as representatives of the public, but where the public are interested in the question of their own liberty we are surely called upon to use some circumspection and to consult them and to allow them to come forward any say where the shoe pinches and what their views are of the extended powers which are going to be conferred on the officials of the Mental Hygiene Department, with regard to the future treatment of these cases. I maintain that the curative treatment of persons whose detention need only be temporary can be carried out quite efficiently if the authority of the magistrate for the detention of these people is still retained. Once you begin to do away with the authority of the magistrate for the issue of reception orders on committal warrants, as the case may be, you come on to dangerous ground—where the whole of this section of the Act dealing with the temporary detention of persons comes in and you open the door to injury being inflicted upon a large section of the public. It means that you are simply surrendering to a request of this kind by the officials of the department As far as I am concerned the curative side of mental disorders has to be studied, and this phase of mental hygiene ought to be encouraged. I think the freedom of the people, however, should not be endangered. There are unfortunately a large number of people in this country who are susceptible to mental disorders. We are face to face with the treatment of a large number of our soldiers who have suffered during the war and have become temporarily mentally disordered. I consider that our duty is not lightly to allow the liberty of these men to be treated as if it were not of first class importance to everyone of us. I hope the Minister will agree to the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee so that the people affected by this new departure will have an opportunity of saying how they would like the public at large to be treated under the Act. At the present stage I feel the Minister would be making a mistake in conferring these wider powers on officials—on the medical men of the Mental Hygiene Department.

Notwithstanding the very doleful prognostications of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), and much though I was touched by the story he told of a paranoic persecution patient, I feel that this is an enlightened Bill, and I feel that this amending measure is a step forward in the right direction. It brings South Africa into line with the modern conception in the treatment of the mentally disordered. It certainly contains new ideas in the way it treats that particular aspect. The Minister drew the attention of the House to the amendment of Section 10 of the old Act under which the word “apprehend” is now changed to “detain,” and under which an application has to be made for the retention of a person in an institution forthwith. This Bill shows that we are getting away from the old idea that mentally disordered persons are to be apprehended and put away, not only for their own sakes but for the sake of the public. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) drew attention to the fact that Section 23 is in the nature of a new charter for the patient. Here the Minister takes away the stigma which was formerly associated with any person who temporarily had to be detained in some institution on account of his being mentally disordered. Now the patient can be voluntarily detained on the application either of the husband or wife or guardian—a patient can be detained from three to six months, or if necessary for longer. In other words, every opportunity is given to the patient so that a cure may be effected. The Minister was quite right when he said that in Scotland this has been in operation for a long time. There the stigma was totally removed—the stigma which in the past did exist, that a person could not be detained without being certified insane. I was a bit worried when the Minister said that he was afraid that the right of persons to be admitted to general hospitals would perhaps not be extended in the future. Perhaps X did not understand him correctly, but I think in many cases it is to the advantage of a patient, especially where a man is temporarily disordered, to be admitted to a general hospital, into some special ward, where he can be under observation before being transferred to a mental institution. Here, again, the feelings of a patient and of the relatives of a patient can be saved and can be relieved immeasurably by the fact that they can be detained for a time for observation in a general hospital. I agree with the hon. member for Stellenbosch’s request to the Minister to bring in an amendment so that a person detained in an institution can be got out of such an institution on the application of a husband, wife or guardian, and—as suggested by the hon. member for Stellenbosch—on the application of the patient himself, and perhaps in certain cases on the application of a representative of the patient, where the patient has no legal guardian. Here I agree with the hon. member for Pinetown that every opportunity should be given to a patient to feel that he or she has every opportunity of appealing against being detained. Now the Minister also told us that the maximum charged to the relations where a patient was detained would be 4s. per day. Well, I think we have come to the stage when the State should forego any charges for mental patients. Where a patient is detained in some institution, either against his or her will, or at his or her will—nevertheless it is the patient’s misfortune to be so detained, and I think no payment for the keep of a patient in any mental institution should be charged. I contend that all patients should have the right to be treated free. I was always under the impression that prisoners awaiting trial could be recommended by a judge or magistrate for observation as to their mental condition, and if that is so I cannot quite understand the explanation the Minister made that some section will have to be introduced in this Bill to deal with that. I have often seen it reported in the Press that on the order of a magistrate or a judge an accused person has been sent to an institution for observation; in such a case the court awaits the report of the institution as to the mental condition of the patient. Without going into the various amendments I can just say this, that in my opinion we have in this amending Bill a future charter for patients who at any time may become mentally disordered. It gives protection, and in the wider, sense it is a step in the right direction, and it is deleting many old clauses in the former Act which have long been looked upon as being unsympathetic towards mentally disordered persons.

I have not had as much to do with mental cases as the last speaker, but certain aspects of the administration of this Act have at times presented difficulty to attorneys like myself. I should like, in the first place, to deal with the amendment to Clause 29. I do not believe that the Minister himself realises what he is about to do there. It is quite true that the principal Act is an old law which has now existed for nearly thirty years, and that it may be necessary to amend it. But I think that this specific amendment is a retrograde step and not a step in the right direction. The talk is now about social security, and all the assistance that we will provide people with to create a new heaven and a new earth after the war. But now the Minister comes along with an amendment that throws the onus on people who have some member of their family who is not quite normal. This is altogether wrong, and I would ask the Minister to drop this particular amendment. You may have people who are wealthy and where the parents will gladly pay for the care of the children in such an institution. But only a few months ago a case came to my notice which shows the reverse side of the picture. The Minister is a lawyer, and he knows as well as I do that the magistrates regard themselves as the custodians of the Government. They want to get as much money out of the people as possible. I know of one case where a widow has an income of £13 a month. One of her daughters was not normal and had to be sent to an institution. The mother went to the magistrate, and he took £6 a month from her for the maintenance of her daughter, which left her with £7 a month. I found out what the circumstances of the case were. This is her stepchild. She had inherited so much from her husband, and she was simply faced with this position that if she did not pay then the magistrate would have had recourse to the other children. The one daughter was married to a teacher, and the other to an official in the Government service. They would have been asked to contribute—I do not know what their incomes may be—and accordingly this widow gave in, and the magistrate took that portion of her income. I maintain that that is a case where the State should have borne the expense. If a man is rich and is able to pay, I can understand it, but as the section has been amended the position is going to be even worse. The section in the existing law states—

1. 79
   1. (2) The cost of his maintenance and other expenses may be recovered from the estate of any such detained person, or from any person or persons liable by law to contribute towards the maintenance of such detained person.

This section has in the last 20 or 25 years been interpreted in this way, that if a person has been detained in an institution and there is a member of the family who can pay for his maintenance, then the Government tries to obtain the money from such a person. Provision is made for the person to be summoned to attend the office. The magistrate is then able to ascertain what his estate is. Now this section is being altered as follows—

1. (3) A magistrate may enquire into the ability of any person so liable to contribute towards or to pay the cost of the maintenance of the patient, and may for that purpose call upon such person to appear before him and to make a statement on oath as to his means and to answer such questions in regard thereto as he may see fit to put to him.

In other words, the onus of proof is thrown on the people. The magistrate may have them called or he can have them summoned, and they must describe to him what their estate comprises. I can tell the Minister this, that the dishonest man will profit by that, and the honest man will have to pay more. I do not think that it is necessary for the Minister to alter this section in the Act. If the person who is a mental patient has the money, then the Crown can obtain from him the funds for his maintenance. But here comes the rub, the parents or other family connections can be ordered to contribute. We are living in quite a different epoch to 1916. We say that we are out for social progress, and that we want to eliminate social evils, and if that is the case then I think the Minister could have left out this clause. It will provoke a great deal of opposition, and moreover the costs in connection therewith cannot be so very high. I anticipate that the Minister will experience difficulty under this clause, and I regard it as a step in the wrong direction. As the last speaker has said, we have reached the stage when the State must care for these unfortunate persons who are detained. We cannot tolerate that steps should be taken against persons such as the widow in the case I have just mentioned. Her income was £13 a month, and the State took £6 of that. She is a decent woman, and how can one expect her to live on the balance of £7 a month. She has to support herself and keep her home, and a decently brought up woman cannot make ends meet on a few pounds like that. It appears to me to be unjust. This type of case is left to the discretion of the magistrate, and it is my experience of magistrates—of all of them—that they regard themselves as the agents of the Government, and they are out to get as much as they can for the Government. The Minister knows that himself. The magistrate always tries to keep the expenditure incurred by the Government to the lowest possible level, and to bring the revenue to the Government to the highest possible level. That may be right. In any case I do not think so. They ought to be reasonable, and they are not doing anything so marvellous when they take away from a poor woman more money than she can afford to pay. Then there is another type of case that I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. That is the case of people who go raving mad, who have become dangerous, and have to be removed from their neighbourhood to an institution. There is usually a lot of trouble in getting such a person away. One has to go to the magistrate. The patient is then brought in and locked up in a cell in the police station. When this is done the patient should be removed as quickly as possible. It happens at times that he has to remain two or three nights in the cell; he screams and runs amuck, and the whole neighbourhood goes into a state of commotion. I do not know whose fault it is, whether it is the fault of the magistrate or of the police. But it appears to me to be quite unnecessary. The magistrate can always get into touch with the institution by telephone, and such a patient should be put on the first train available. Such a case occurred recently in my constituency. The people in the vicinity of the place of confinement complained. They said that the patient had screamed the whole night through and had used offensive language. I do not know what provision can be made in cases of this sort. It should not really be necessary to have an amendment of the law, but the magistrate could perhaps be informed by the Minister that in such cases the patient must be sent away as quickly as possible. It is not a case of where it is necessary that a person should be kept under observation. It is not necessary because everyone can see that he is raving mad and that he is a danger to the neighbourhood. I think that the Minister ought to take steps to ensure that such persons are removed as quickly as possible.

When we compare this amended Bill with the original Act, then we must agree that improvements have been made. But I want to join with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) in protesting against Clause 29. I also would like to know how far we shall go in regard to the family of the person who is detained. Is it only the father, the mother or the child, or do we go further, so that every relation may be asked to contribute towards the costs? The position is that these people already find themselves in an unfortunate situation on account of the fact that someone in their family is mentally deranged, and I consider that in such cases, where the patient has not got the means to enable him to pay, then the State should bear the cost. Why should these other people if they are overtaken by misfortune in this manner also have to contribute some pounds towards the cost of the maintenance of such a person. I hope that the Minister will take this into consideration. There is also something else that has struck me. If I understand the matter aright, a proclamation may be issued providing that territories outside the Union may send mental patients to institutions in the Union. I presume that is what Chapter III refers to.

Yes, that is Chapter III.

Then this other question occurs to me: When this proclamation enables patients to be brought here from outside the Union, who will bear the expense of such persons being maintained in the institutions? These people are not citizens of the Union, and they cannot expect the cost of their maintenance to be borne by the Union. Accordingly, I should like to know from the Minister who will bear the cost of maintenance in such cases. Another point is this. Mention is made of licensed institutions and of unlicensed institutions. In certain cases the Minister allows mental patients to be sent to institutions other than “licensed institutions.” Those institutions are approved by the Minister and the Commissioner. But still, they say that these people can be admitted to licensed institutions. I should like to have an explanation from the Minister regarding his intentions in connection with the passage that patients cannot be admitted to licensed institutions. What has struck me in connection with this matter is a point in regard to the schools that have been started, in the country districts as well, in which special classes are given to retarded children. I should like to know whether the Minister is going to allow these children to be admitted to such schools. They there enjoy education of a special character, and we should very much like to know whether he is going to allow those children to remain in those schools, and whether he is going to send them to institutions. I am not a medical man, but I consider that if these children can remain in that neighbourhood, even if they are retarded, then they will profit much more from the instruction than they would if they were sent to an institution.

There is just one little point I want to bring the attention of the House to. I refer to the estates of mentally defective persons. We know that the process of getting the court to order a mentally disordered person’s estate to be administered is a very cumbersome and also very expensive one. Particularly so on the platteland, where people are away long distances from the higher courts. I would suggest that in a case where a man is mentally detained some arrangement should be made for the administration of his estate—particularly if his estate is a small one—while he is away. I feel some clause should be inserted whereby on the application of some person interested someone should be appointed to take care of a man’s house or the man’s business affairs during his absence either temporarily or permanently.

I should just like to draw the attention of the Minister to a few points. We appeal to the Minister to take them into consideration, and to give exemption, especially as we do not believe that it is very general; it is rather an exception, and it will not involve the Government in much expense. I specially want to emphasise this point to the Minister, that where such a thing occurs in a family it hits the family almost as hard as death itself. The mental worry that is occasioned the parent, the brother or the sister is in itself a very heavy burden. Apart from this mental distress the family has now to meet the costs of the removal and the care of a member of the family. I consider that this is in itself a burden for the family to bear, and accordingly I want to appeal to the Minister to take into consideration the granting of exemption, but at the same time to keep the door open should I or anyone else be in a position to contribute on a voluntary basis. The hon. Minister will find that the family affected, even though the Government may bear the cost, will, if it is possible, decide to defray the expense themselves. Where you have a family who will not voluntarily bear the cost the reason is to be found in the fact that the family is not in a position to pay. Why then place this additional burden on them? I should like the hon. the Minister to take this point into consideration. Then I come to a second point, and that is in connection with Clause 28. Section 72 of the principal Act is substituted by the following clause—

No exception is made. Such a person comes to your place, he enjoys your hospitality, you do not know where he has come from, and often such a person represents himself as being someone else. You may encounter him on the road, and he asks you to take him with you, and in perfect innocence out of sheer courtesy you give such a person a lift, and you take him home; and when it is discovered that you have given such a person shelter, then you are liable to be punished. I should be very glad if the Minister would direct his attention to this clause, and make an addition to the effect that when one renders aid to a person without knowing that he is a person who should be under detention, one should not in such a case be subject to a penalty if one can prove that one had no knowledge of the fact that the person was detained.

I am grateful to the House for the attention which it has given to this measure and for the amount of support which appears to be fairly general from all sides of the House regarding the innovations contained in the Bill itself. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) has welcomed the new Chapter 7 of the Act, but he has pointed out that there must be extended provision for the treatment of patients in the institutions themselves. He has said that perhaps the most important part of the Bill is outside the Bill, namely the machinery to carry out the intentions contained in the Bill. He has referred to the question of accommodation. Well, that is a matter which has given the Commissioner for Disordered Persons a great deal of difficulty. It is one which has given the Government difficulty. Hon. members know that we have an accommodation shortage at present. We have to some extent met that by being able last year to open up new wards for native patients at Krugersdorp, but the present shortage is about 400 for Europeans and 2,500 for non-Europeans. We hope as soon as circumstances become normal again to overtake that shortage, and plans are being worked out with a view to providing the necessary accommodation as soon as possible. There is, for instance, the extension of the recently opened mental hospital at Krugersdorp. The wards at present available are for natives. It is intended to provide other wards for Europeans and the Public Works Department is at present working on the plans. Hon. members know that arrangements were made by the Government through the Department of Interior, when mental hospitals fell under that Department, for the purchase by the City Council of Cape Town of the land on which Valkenberg now stands. This transfer will not take place until such time as alternative accommodation has been erected for the patients at present at Valkenberg, but it is the intention to replace the existing mental institutions at Valkenberg by two other institutions, one for Europeans and one for coloureds, each with accommodation for 1,600. When that comes about, this should materially ease the position so far as the Western Province is concerned. Then the Department has in view plans for two new institutions for natives, each to accommodate 1,600 patients. Then, Sir, as hon. members know, the only accommodation available for mental defectives is at the Alexandra Institution in Cape Town and the Witrand Institution at Potchefstroom, and it is felt that provision should be made in the future to meet the needs of persons from the Free State and Natal, and plans are being worked out in that regard; and another very serious need which the Department appreciates is that for an Institution in the Western Province for coloured mental defectives. We hope in due course to be able to meet that need as well, but I entirely agree with the hon. member for Stellenbosch that it is no use amending the Act and bringing the Act up to date unless one is able to translate these ideals into practice. But the honourable gentleman knows and the House knows the difficulties which are experienced at present. There is a shortage of building materials, not only for private housing but for Government-controlled institutions as well. But these are matters which are being worked out at the present time, and we shall have to meet those needs as soon as we can. Then the hon. member for Stellenbosch has suggested that in addition to the safeguards inserted in the new Clause 51, we should make provision for the patient temporarily detained in a mental hospital himself to be able to ask for his release. There is provision at present for the husband or the wife or the guardian of the patient to apply for release. If an application is made by any such person, the Physician Superintendent must release the patient. It is obligatory upon him to do so. Of course, one could not have a similar provision in regard to the patient. One could not provide that merely upon the application of the patient himself, he must be released. That would defeat the object of the new provision, and that is to cure him. But I am having drafted an amendment along the lines suggested by the hon. member and I am quite prepared to move that at the Committee stage. The amendment will be to the effect that a patient so committed will have the right to apply to the magistrate for an enquiry, and it will then be incumbent upon the magistrate to go into the circumstances of the case. I hope that in that respect I will be able to meet the request of the hon. member for Pinetown. He stated that he was somewhat nervous of allowing a patient to be admitted to a mental hospital merely upon the statements of two medical practitioners. He felt that the magistrate ought to be brought into the picture. But the whole purpose of the new procedure is to avoid anything in the nature of a judicial enquiry—at the outset, at any rate. One wants to get away from the process of certification, and so the magistrate has been left out of the picture. But it is essential that there should be a statement by two medical practitioners. If the patient is given the right to ask for an enquiry by the magistrate, then I think that should go far in meeting the fears which the hon. member still has in the matter. The hon. member for Stellenbosch also asked me for an assurance that there was nothing further that could be done by way of legislative enactments to ensure that irregularities would not take place. He contended that certain irregularities had taken place. He agreed that they were very few, but he contended that there should be an assurance that these things will be tightened up in the future.

I was referring more to dissatisfied patients than to irregularities.

The Commissioner and the experts have been going into this matter for the past six to eight years. They have been applying their minds to ways and means of ensuring that the public interests should be safeguarded, that the interests of the patients themselves should be safeguarded, and that every possible step should be taken to make it manifest that no public injustice has been done; and I am told by the Commissioner that he is not able to advise me in regard to any other amendments that should be made at the present time. In the opinion of the Commissioner the amendments suggested should meet the points suggested by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. When one considers that this Act has been in operation for 28 years, that the admission rate into the mental hospitals is at present about 2,000 per annum, and that therefore in the last 28 years something like 50,000 to 60,000 persons must have passed into the institutions, then I think one can say that the record of South Africa is a creditable one indeed. There have been irregularities from time to time but very few indeed. The hon. member for Pinetown has referred to the Penrice case. He has, of course, dealt with that case before in the House. He suggested this afternoon that the two medical practitioners concerned, both men of experience, physician superintendents, had—to use his words—been unworthy of their profession. I do not want to charge my hon. friend with unfairness, because I know that he does not intend to be unfair. But I am not quite sure whether he made it plain to this House that upon representations made to me at the time as Minister of the Interior, by him and by others, a judicial enquiry was held, and those two physician superintendents were completely exonerated by the judge who sat on that enquiry. An independent judicial enquiry was held, and those two physician superintendents were exonerated. I would like to meet my hon. friend but the Governor General appointed a judge to make an enquiry, and that was the outcome of the enquiry. I am not sure whether my hon. friend wants me to appoint someone to go into the conduct of the judge! I did feel that, in justice to those two officials of my Department who gave evidence before the enquiry, I should remind the House that they were completely exonerated by the judge who held that enquiry. In view of what I have said in answer to the hon. member for Stellenbosch, namely that the Department has gone through the Act meticulously in order to see whether additional safeguards could be made, and has come to the conclusion that it has been brought as up to date as possible, I would like the hon. member for Pinetown not to press his request for a Select Committee. It is quite true, as he has reminded me, that in 1931 I did ask for an enquiry, but many things have happened since 1931, and I have tried to refresh myself as to what I said on that occasion and I find that the allegations were more concerned with specific legislative enactments. This Bill seeks to remedy a number of defects that have been found in the Act itself, and I hope that will meet my hon. friend. Certain other points of minor importance have been raised. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) wanted to know at whose cost patients from neighbouring territories were maintained. They are maintained at the cost of the patient. We do not admit them until adequate arrangements have been made to meet the cost of their maintenance. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) asked whether it was necessary to include the provisions of Clause 29, namely, to place the onus of proving inability to pay on the relatives. It would appear from what has been said by hon. members this afternoon, that they do not like this clause; I am quite prepared to drop it in Committee. I move.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 29th February.

I move—

Already last year I introduced this Bill here in Parliament, but owing to the stress of circumstances I found it impossible to have it passed and consequently it had to stand over until the present Session. As soon as I took over the Portfolio of Lands from my hon. friend on the other side, I visited most of the settlements in order to obtain firsthand knowledge of the conditions prevailing there. I discovered conditions there which gave cause for anxiety, especially in regard to overcrowding. I found settlers who had with them on their holdings bywoners and grownup sons, some of them with families. I remember one case where I found the following position: On the holding lived the settler and his wife with four children, his old father with his wife, and seven children, and he also had a widowed sister there with her three children. There were therefore not less than three families with 14 children on that one holding. The question of bywoners and especially that of grown-up sons has been discussed from year to year in this House since I took over this portfolio, and the question was fully debated. I tried to convince the House that if those conditions would be allowed to continue, the inevitable result would be the impoverishment of the settler to whom the holding was allotted. Just before I took over from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) he himself tried to tackle the problem and gave instructions to his department to investigate the position in regard to overcrowding and the keeping of bywoners on the various holdings. I just mention this to show you that even my predecessor felt that it would lead to a most unhealthy development if those conditions were to continue. In this Bill you will find three important provisions. One is in connection with the residing of bywoners. The second one concerns the division, hypothecation and sale of holdings, and the third one refers to the expropriation of land for settlement purposes. Before I discuss these measures in detail, I should like to give the House a survey of the purpose and aims of the Settlement Act of 1912. Hon. members of this House will remember that since 1910 this burning question, one of the most burning questions of this country, namely the problem of our poor whites has been before this House, and schemes were continually drawn up to try and uplift the poorest section of our population and to make them self-supporting and to assist them to earn their own living. The Settlement Act of 1912 cost the State a lot of money. Millions of pounds have already been spent as a result of it. One must not only count the cost of the settlement and of the land that is made available, but millions of pounds have also been spent on irrigation, for one cannot establish a settlement unless one first of all constructs irrigation weirs. The original idea was to try and rehabilitate the poorest section of the population and to make them citizens of the country by means of settlements. The idea was to allot certain holdings to them, and in connection with the allotment of such holdings, a Land Board was appointed to advise the Minister. Those holdings should be an economic unit., not only in order to give the settlers an existence, but the unit should be such that the settler’s position could be improved thereby and that it would make him independent. The following position then developed on those holdings. Applications were called for. When applications were called for, the applicant declared: “It is for myself, my wife and so many minor children.” The Board had to give the Minister an assurance that the holding could be worked on an economic basis and that it would supply the settlers with a decent standard of living. If we were to allow grown-up sons and bywoners to stay on those holdings, it is self-evident that the income which was meant to make the settler self-supporting, to give him a chance in life, became entirely insufficient. Estimates are made that a holding will guarantee him a certain income, but as soon as he allows one grown-up son to stay there, that income is to be divided into two halves, so that the man will not be in a position to make a decent living. He has not got the income to pay for the interest which he has to pay on that holding and if the Government should thus allow a holding to be divided into two parts, it will only lead to poor whiteism, and if the State were to allow that position to continue, it would simply mean that instead of rehabilitating those people and making them independent, the Government would assist in creating poor whites on a large scale, larger in numbers than they were before the holdings were allotted to those people. This furthermore, leads to overcropping and the result is that slum areas are brought into being. The holdings are not so very large. On the holding a decent house is built which will be sufficiently large for the settler and his family, but as soon as bywoners are allowed on the holding, all sorts of hovels are being erected on the holding, and that of course cannot be allowed. The question was put here in the House why, for instance, the sons cannot be allowed to stay with their parents. Under our existing system the State grants free education to the children of every white person in this country and the settlers also share in that privilege, and education is given there to a fairly large extent. The result is that those children when they grow up, after having received that education, are sufficiently equipped to fight their own battles and earn their own living. The child receives the education, and we expect it to go out into the world and earn its own living. I just want to give an instance of the ideas of some of these settlers. One settler asked that he be allowed to keep his son on his holding. He even got as far as inducing his member of Parliament to make representations here, and that hon. member reproached the Minister for chasing the child away from his father’s holding. I got a letter, however, from that man saying that it would make little difference to him as he was paying his son “merely a kaffir wage.” When the policy originally introduced and the policy that the standard of living of every man and woman in this country should be economically sound and sufficient to give him or her a chance in life, are taken seriously, no Government can allow that any boy who has had a proper education and can therefore earn his living, should stay on his father’s holding.

. Should the child not inherit the farm in the future?

Yes, it is laid down that he should leave it to one of his sons.

Is that laid down in the Act?

Was it not an only son in this case?

No, there were more sons, but as long as the father is the settler, the Government expects him to use that holding for himself and his minor children, and furthermore that the purpose for which he has been allowed to settle there, namely to rehabilitate himself, should not be jeopardised. The State cannot allow a settler who has received a holding, to divide it up between two or three sons. That would mean nothing less than the creation of poor whites. During the last four years I have found out that there is an unfortunate inclination among settlers to think that if the State has made a settler of a person, the State has also to look after his progeny for generations to come, and that the State should look after his sons and should see to it that they also become settlers and also receive land from generation to generation. That is their idea. I want to quote a few examples to illustrate what I mean. In the Transvaal, at Brits, under the Hartebeestpoort scheme there were some years ago—before the hon. member for Wolmaransstad became Minister of Lands; I think it was during the time of the late Minister Grobler—quite number of settlers who were as poor as the proverbial church mouse. In passing I want to remark here that the people who are put on the settlements belong to the poorest of the poor. There was one case of a settler at Hartebeestpoort who was sent to Natal and on one of my trips through Natal I came across him and he told me: “I was on the Hartebeestpoort settlement and Minister Grobler then let a farm to me in Natal, and I have been here now for 4 or 5 years and own 400 head of cattle; why don’t you want to allot a holding to me?” He was most impolite and demanded that the Government allot him another farm for he said that after all he was a settler and owned 400 cattle and where could he go to if his grazing were cancelled. Here we had a man who was sent away from Hartebeestpoort because there was not sufficient room there and had been so to say rehabilitated but did not possess the courage and initiative to rent a farm himself and to become independent from the Government. He demands that the State should support him still further.

Why don’t you assist a man like that?

A man arrives at a certain stage when he should help himself. The idea of settlements is to assist the poorest of the poor and to rehabilitate them, but as soon as a man has found his own feet again, he should not expect the State to continue to assist him as well as his children from generation to generation.

Was it not perhaps an exception to the rule?

There is another case I wish to mention, also in Natal. There we find on small farms quite a number of settlements and the settlers there sent a deputation representing them and they asked that the holdings be extended. According to them the holdings were too small. This request is not at all unusual. During the four years that I have been a Minister, we have enlarged already hundreds of holdings of settlers.

Only those of the Saps.

I suppose along the Palala River. Those are all the hon. member’s people. He is the last one who should pass such a remark.

You sent Mr. Moll around to find out who were Saps.

The deputation asked for an enlargement and at the same time they told me that if they could get that enlargement of the holdings, they would like to remind me that there is still much Crown land which has not been allotted, and would I please not allot it, especially not to “outsiders.” I thereupon asked them what they meant by “outsiders.” I told them that the citizens of this country surely could not be called “outsiders.” They then told me that that land should be kept for their children, that I should reserve it for their children. I just mention this to show you the unhealthy position which exists there, the ideas these people have. They think that once you are a settler you and your descendants will have to be looked after. They must all be settlers. Just recently I was at the Vaal-Hartz scheme and I discussed the question of bywoners with the settlers there. I must say that. I do not experience many difficulties there. They realise the position. I told them: “Look here, the Government wants to help you and to do everything in its power to rehabilitate you, so that you may become independent citizens of the country, so that you may ultimately become the owners of the farms.” Many of them have already made enough money during the time they were probationary tenants, to pay, if they want to, the price which has been laid down for their holdings, and when they asked for benefits for their children, I pointed out to them that schools have been erected at the Vaal-Hartz. £20,000 or £30,000 has been spent on the erection of schools. They have a secondary school there. But so far there are only 350 settlers there. Once the school building programme has been completed, it will have cost over £100,000. I told them: “Look here, the State gives you the holdings and establishes schools. You are given the holdings at a reasonable price, without consideration of what they may have cost the State—for they cost us much more than the price at which they are being allotted to the settlers. Our aim is to make you people independent. You cannot always keep your children here. As soon as you have to split the income from the holdings, you get in arrear, and instead of being rehabilitated, you again slide back into being poor whites. Instead of the scheme of assistance to make you independent being realised, you will again become poor whites.” I then advised them, and they accepted my advice, that each settler should declare: “We are settlers of the Government and the Government assists us, but we will never allow our children to become settlers too. We are going to make use of the amenities to educate our children and to send them to school and to properly equip them to earn their own living. None of our children will become settlers.” It is now being said here: “But surely the man is expanding his farm.” I told them that they should try to get sufficient money together. One of them had £1,000 in cash and in trusts in the bank. I told them that they should assist their sons, that they should buy them farms under Section 11. If the farm would cost, say, £3,000, all you need pay down is £300. Make the money here on the holding and give your son a chance to become an independent man outside.

Do you allow them to buy under Section 11?

Certainly, that is open to any citizen. All that has to be paid is one-tenth and there is nothing to prevent them from buying a farm in that way.

Can they select the farm themselves?

I thought no land was given out at present.

That is not giving out land; the land is bought under Section 11. The existing legislation which governs the settlement policy prohibits the keeping of bywoners before the issue of the Crown grant, but as soos as one has his Crown grant, the prohibition falls away. This is a flaw which has to be corrected. The prohibition is there under the Act, but as soon as they have their Crown grant, the prohibition lapses and the settler can keep his sons and families there and in that way in many cases they again slide back into poor whiteism, the position from which they once came. As soon as the man has his Crown grant the restriction falls away and overcrowding can once more take place. In that way the restriction is of no use. After they have their Crown grant they can keep as many families on the holding as they want and this amounts to nothing less than that our attempt to save them, has failed. No state and no government will be prepared to spend money on settlements if it means settlement only for a short time until the man has his Crown grant, after which he may again relapse into poverty. One should remember that the holdings were heavily subsidised by the Government. The State has its money invested in it, and the settler does not pay for it, and this is a strong argument in favour of the position that the State, having invested its money in the holding in order to save and rehabilitate the settler, should also see to it that the holding remains an economic proposition. We cannot allow the holding to fall back into an uneconomic proposition as soon as the Crown grant has been issued, so that all our rehabilitation work comes to nought again. I shall mention a few cases of overcrowding just now. We are now making provision for the prohibition of keeping bywoners, being embodied in all deeds of transfer of Crown land. It is not a law of the Medes and Persians that no settler has the right to keep a son or a bywoner there. There are certain cases where the holding has economically enhanced so much in value that there is a chance for a son also to make a living there. There are other cases where a father can afford to keep a son there. All those cases are dealt with on their merits and there are numerous cases where on the merits of the case a son or bywoner has been allowed to stay.

Will you incorporate such a provision in the Bill?

It will be left to the discretion of the Minister and his Land Board. I know that there are many of our friends who want to see the provision deleted from the Bill, and who want the position to remain as it is, but I tell you that if land settlement is to be based on that footing, then I for one will not have the courage to come to Parliament and tell the House that we should spend so and so many millions on settlements. I cannot justify everything deteriorating again after a short while and our purpose thus being completely frustrated, whilst the State is busy spending money for settlements which do not result in the rehabilitation of our people but on the contrary create poor whites on a larger scale than ever before. The second important provision in this Bill concerns the division, hypothecation or sale of Crown land, which I mentioned before. In 1937 the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) introduced two Bills in Parliament in connection with this matter. The first Bill which he piloted through dealt with unbeneficial occupation. Under that Act the Minister was given the right to expropriate land which had become uneconomic as a result of overcrowding. When a farm becomes an uneconomic proposition due to overcrowding, it can be expropriated, and thereafter the farm can be transformed into an economic proposition.

Does that refer to inheritances?

To any farm. I shall give you an instance just now. Under the law on unbeneficial occupation, the Minister has the right to expropriate any farm which has become uneconomic as a result of overcrowding or sub-division and to re-establish it into an economic proposition, but that only relates to private farms and not to settlements. The other Bill which my friend, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, piloted through in 1937 contains a provision made in the law on which I should like to give some further information. Hon. members perhaps would like me to explain it. Under Section 9 of the Act of 1937 settlers are prohibited to sub-divide, hypothecate or sell land without the approval of the Minister, but in that legislation there is also a loophole and that is that as soon as the Minister has once given his consent to sell the land, the restriction falls away. The land may not be sub-divided, sold or hypothecated without the approval of the Minister, but this restriction falls away as soon as the grant has been made. I do not think it was the intention that as soon as the restriction has been waived once, the people would be allowed to sell and sub-divide as they liked. One cannot allow them to continue with it and to frustrate our intention in that manner. Section 9 of Act No. 45 of 1937 reads as follows—

I read the section to you to indicate what the intention was. The intention was that the restriction should continue, but unfortunately the Law Advisers held the view that once permission had been given, the restriction would fall away. The intention was to prevent that happening. You will realise that one of the main causes of poor whiteism, especially among the farming population, is the evil of sub-division of farms and land. That is one of +he reasons why the hon. member for Wolmaransstad introduced his Bill on unbeneficial occupation in 1937 in order to protect the people against the evil of sub-division. Millions of pounds have been invested by the State in order to make land available for the very poor and to rehabilitate them again and make them independent and if we do not want to frustrate that purpose, we must see to it that the holdings remain economic propositions and that they are protected against sale and cutting up. One hon. member of this House recently came to see me and told me the case of a father who has 20 morgen of irrigable land and who also has 10 sons and now wants to divide the 20 morgen among his 10 sons so that each of them would get 2 morgen. He wanted to know why I did not want to give my consent to that, and how it was possible that I could refuse. I just want to read out something. Under the unbeneficial occupation Act which my friend had passed in this House, I want to mention a case where we had to interfere in order to expropriate. This refers to Waterval 68 in the district of Rustenburg.

Is that the case where each one had one morgen?

No, this is another case. As a matter of fact we have quite a number of cases here which I should like to mention. This farm Waterval which had been expropriated owing to overcrowding was about 3,000 morgen in extent and no less than 63 families farmed on it. The farm was expropriated and the ultimate cost to the State amounted to £13,500. The farm was allotted to six persons for £6,000 so that the State had a loss of more than £7,000 in trying to transform that farm into economic holdings. This is one case of what I should like to call overcrowding. I now want to mention a few cases of overcrowding of Government farms. I have a case here which was brought to my notice, of a cattle farm, non-irrigable land, and no sowing land. It is the farm Delagoa in the district of Potgietersrust, in extent 1,400 morgen and four families are living thereon. Then there is the farm Oshoek in Carolina, in extent 2,600 morgen with four families: Olievenhoutspruit in the Waterberg district, 2,700 morgen and five families; Karreefontein, also in the Waterberg district, 2,400 morgen and nine families. Can you see now that if the State allows that position to continue, it will have to spend millions for irrigation, which is closely related to settlement. We will make an attempt to uplift the people and on the other hand the State will be creating poor whites on a larger scale than ever before. I now come to the question of selling of land. Some of the settlers, as soon as they get their Crown grant, start selling their land. You will understand how strong the temptation is, especially during the war time when prices have gone up. The temptation is very great and many people sell their holdings.

That does not happen at Kakamas.

The people there never get possession of their land, it never becomes their own land.

But you said that the church was so bad that it did not give the people their land, and you are doing the same thing now.

Please do not let us drag in this matter by the back door. We shall deal with that separately. As soon as they have their Crown grant, they begin to sell. As far as the selling of land is concerned, a very unhealthy state of affairs has already developed on the Hartebeestpoort Settlement for instance, one of our oldest settlements. You find quite a number of settlers there who have their Crown grants and who have sold. As soon as they are free, they start selling. Then the land goes into the hands of private people, often rich people or companies. They also have the right to buy as many holdings as they want. If that state of affairs is allowed to continue, a company may buy up a whole settlement.

Suicide.

Speculation in land is taking place and if we allow the position to develop, whole settlements will become the property of money lenders, financial companies or rich individuals, in the not too distant future, and the original settlers will have sold their land and the money will have disappeared in no time and in the end they will come back and knock on the door of the Government.

Have there been cases of companies buying up land in that manner?

There have been cases of companies advancing money against bond security. Of course one cannot pass legislation prohibiting those people to buy. The money is advanced, they have their security and in that way the land changes ownership. My information is that on the Hartebeestpoort Settlement at least 40 per cent. of the settlers are very heavily in debt with financial companies and if that is to continue, the companies ultimately will obtain possession of the land. The money slips through the fingers of the settlers and then they again come as poor whites to the Government to ask for help. If that state of affairs continues, we shall arrive one day at the position that although we have assisted and subsidised those people, that in spite of having written off large amounts, and having allotted holdings, economic holding, no matter what the cost has been to the State, private persons or companies have taken possession of it so that in fact the State has put the money and subsidies which were meant for the people who originally were put on the land, in the pockets of the companies. The settlement has to be administered by the Government and the expenditure is fairly high. Hartebeestpoort is costing thousands of pounds to administer at present. There is the drainage, there is land becoming brackish, there are roads to be made, trees to be cut down—the maintenance costs quite a lot of money every year. If the land passes into the hands of private people, the State will continue to be liable for the administration of the settlement in the interest of the companies who have bought up the land, whilst the original settlers will have disappeared.

Are you now altering the law in such a manner that such holdings can become your property again?

I am coming to that point. We shall allow nobody, even no settler, to own more than one holding, whilst a company will not be allowed to buy them at all. That will be done by proclamation. That eliminates the rich people and companies wanting to buy up large tracts of land. I should like to mention briefly a few instances of farms bought by settlers who had an unencumbered Crown grant, and who are no longer owners of such land. I mention a few cases of Hartebeestpoort. There was one settler who had 86 morgen, for which he had paid £390 to the State, and he sold it for £1,600. There is the case of a man with 80 morgen which cost him £321 and he sold it for £1,200; 47 morgen bought for £158 and sold for £800; 47 morgen bought for £250 and sold for £1,400; 76 morgen bought for £127 and sold for £1,500; 73 morgen bought for £199 and sold for £1,750; 62 morgen bought for £196 and sold for £1,200; and 55 morgen bought for £199 and sold for £800.

Were there no improvements on those farms?

Yes, there were, but they amounted to a few hundred pounds only. I mention just another one or two cases: 14 morgen bought for £285 and sold for £675; and 27 morgen bought for £84 and sold for £1,460. I want to mention still one special case at Hartebeestpoort. Under the Act of 1928 a person was given a holding for £1,163. The State paid much more than £1,163 for that holding. In 1930 there was a new valuation of £871. The settler on the holding again came back in 1934 and it was then revalued at £500. In 1937 he came back once more and the revaluation then amounted to £453. Every time he came with the same story that the holding was not an economic proposition, that the price was too high and that it should be valued at a lower price. That was done. The improvements on the holding are estimated to be worth £665. Add this to the £453, then it comes to about £1,100 altogether. Now he wants to sell and comes to me to ask my consent to sell at a price of £3,200.

Don’t begrudge him that.

I don’t begrudge him that, but must point out that this is a most dangerous principle. Just realise for a moment the position of the State investing so much money in holdings in order to uplift people, and writing down the value so as to make the holdings economic and to rehabilitate those persons, and this happening in the end.

But now he is rehabilitated.

Is he? I make bold to say …

Do not allow him to apply again for land to the Land Board.

I make bold to say that more than half the people who sold their land, have already lost all that money. The Superintendent at Hartebeestpoort recently informed me that several of the settlers who sold their land, are now sitting there without money and without land and they do not know where to turn to. Who is deriving the benefit of the colossal amounts which the State invested in those undertakings? Of course the private people who bought those holdings. I maintain that the intention of the prohibition to sub-divide, sell or hypothecate, laid down in the Act introduced in 1937 by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, was that it should be made impossible for such things to happen, and to ensure that the holdings might always remain economic holdings and would not be sub-divided, sold or hypothecated and fall into the hands of private individuals, so that the Government, seeing it invested money in such holdings, would keep an everlasting interest in them. It is of importance to the Government, because it invested State money in those undertakings, that the holdings should remain economic propositions and that the people living on the holdings, should farm properly and should not overcrop, so that the value of the soil may be preserved.

Would the right way perhaps be to stipulate that the sale can take place only if the buyer has been approved of.

That is exactly what we intend doing now.

That is the right thing.

I now come to the point mentioned just now by my hon. friend. In the Bill provision is made for a prohibition on the sale of holdings to companies and financial institutions, unless such company or financial institution had before the coming into force of this Bill advanced money to a settler against security of the holding. I do not want to impinge upon that right. If the holding is the security for such an advance and the time arrives that the holding must perhaps be bought in, then that company or institution should have the right to buy. In other respects they may no longer buy a holding on such settlement. I now come to another important provision in this Bill. Hon. members will remember that in the Irrigation Act of 1912 there is a provision, subsequently amended in 1934, that in case the Government requires irrigable land for settlement purposes, it shall have the right to expropriate such land for the purpose of settlement with the proviso—inserted by the Act of 1934—that the person whose land is being expropriated, will have the right to keep out 100 morgen for himself. In regard to the allotment of the 100 morgen there is a serious flaw in the Act, for no conditions whatsoever have been laid down as to where those 100 morgen can be taken or what the owner can do with it. He can select it wherever he wants to on the settlement and he can speculate with it. An abominable speculation is taking place in consequence. I can mention the instance of the Vaal-Hartz. The owner can cut out his 100 morgen, he can sub-divide it and cut it up in small plots for building houses, he can open shops there, he can cause a slum to develop there and he can do just what he likes with it, for it does not fall under the control of the settlement.

Wasn’t an agreement reached between that man and the Government?

The law made provision for that.

But now you want to take it away from that man?

Not from him, but we shall prevent a recurrence in the future.

You are not doing that in this Bill.

The Bill has no retrospective effect.

As it stands it is retrospective in its effect.

I may not understand legislation so well as my legal friends do, but I want to emphasize strongly that the Act of 1934 amended the Act of 1912 and in that amendment it was stipulated that the owner shall have the right to select 100 morgen. This was not the original act. The great flaw, however, is that no provision has been made for the conditions under which and where he can take his 100 morgen, with the result that private people have taken land on the settlements left and right and have afterwards sold that land and used it for all kinds of purposes. At the Vaal-Hartz we have the position today that even an Indian has bought land there. He sits in the middle of the settlement and I cannot prevent things like that happening. Let us consider the matter on its merits. That is the position at the Vaal-Hartz. The owner of one of the farms was allowed to select his 100 morgen and do you know where he selected it? He selected it right around Border station and in that way cut the Government completely off from Border station. I went to have a look at the matter and I can assure hon. members that terrible conditions have developed there. A European family with children is living under a tree over which they have drawn a tarpaulin, not to mention the sanitary arrangements.

Who is the owner?

He is a Jew.

The Government was completely cut off from Border station and now that the Government has established a large settlement there it cannot get to the station. The Government was compelled to close down Border station and to build another station one and a half miles from there. This is a flaw in the Act which results in a very undesirable state of affairs and we cannot allow it to continue. At Pokwani we have a similar position. We have been completely cut off from the station. The railway people had to construct a new line. They had no space and they had to devise some scheme to build the line through the goods shed in order to meet the requirements. I want to say in connection with this question of the 100 morgen, that the people from whom the farms were bought originally were paid well by the Government. We are quite willing, and it is a good thing, to give such an owner of the farm a piece of land, but then there should be conditions in regard to the place where he can choose it and what he is going to do with the land. We should lay down as a condition that he has to use that land in the same way as the settlers and that he should be under control so that he cannot put a spoke in the wheel of the administration of the settlement and also cannot bring private people in there by sub-dividing his land. At the moment he may even establish a location there and we cannot prevent him doing so.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 29th February.