I should like to suggest that the Minister of Public Health should take steps to ensure that there is no further depletion of his staff in the immediate future, otherwise he will run the danger of sustaining further losses in addition to those he recently suffered. We want to recommend to him that he should greatly enlarge his staff so that he will be able to take effective measures in future and thus avoid further possible Wakkerstrooms. I should like to ask the Minister to what extent the plague that has been prevalent in the Northern Free State has spread, and what measure of success has been achieved with the regulations designed to hold it in check. That is a matter of the most vital importance to us in the Northern Free State. The plague has assumed considerable dimensions, and the Minister will be aware that it has come very close to large industrial centres in our country. The plague is creeping closed to places like Vereeniging and we shall be glad to know what measures the Minister is taking to check its spread and to keep it under control. We shall do everything in our power to assist him. There is one hint that I should like to give the Department, a department that is diligent enough, that they should not endeavour to combat the plague by working outwards from a central point of an area; we believe the preferable plan is to draw a cordon around the area and to work inwards towards the centre, because as soon as you start with your measures the rodents run off, but if you draw a cordon and work inwards there is some chance of catching the rodents. However that may be, drastic measures must be taken to obtain control and to ward off the menace that is threatening to endanger the whole country. The disease is encroaching nearer to the industrial centres and should it once get a foothold there it will be difficult to eradicate. A second matter that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is the problem of diphtheria injections. The State provides the vaccine for smallpox and it is obligatory on parents to have themselves and their children vaccinated against smallpox. By those means we have got that disease properly under control in our country. We now ask the Government that it should set to work in a similar manner as regards diphtheria. If we can get the injections from the Government and if all children are immunised we shall be able to stamp out diphtheria just as we have stamped out smallpox. But, of course, the injections must be made available. The carrier of the diphtheria germ can spread the disease for years, without being infected himself, and, especially having regard to the poor living conditions, particularly amongst the non-European population, we should do everything in our power to stamp out the disease. Systematic measures must be taken to eradicate it.

I should like to bring one or two points to the attention of the Minister, namely in connection with district surgeons. In this connection I want to support the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) as regards the Bochem Hospital. I think that a serious effort should be made to put the doctor there on a much higher grade than he is today. There is one case that I want especially to bring to the attention of the Minister. Some time ago one of our prominent families had a child which had a sore on its mouth. Eventually medical opinion was sought and it was established that the servant looking after the child was suffering from venereal disease. The parents were almost off their heads that their child that they had so cherished should have contracted this terrible disease. I think the hon. member for Pietersburg has indicated a serious position in the Northern Transvaal. The district surgeons are working under the most difficult conditions. In my district, for instance, a district surgeon is expected to cover five to six thousand miles a month in his car. He gets completely exhausted, and he is unable to do the work properly for the people. More assistance should be provided. The district surgeons have to travel impossibly long distances. I may mention as an example the case of a prominent farmer who recently fell ill. The wife called in the doctor who paid two visits, and after the man had died the widow got a bill for £57 10s. for these two visits. That sort of thing is out of the question for the people. I really think that the Minister should intervene here, and that in the case of people who are willing to pay for medical attention he should do something to accommodate those living in remote areas by compensating them partially in respect of travelling expenses. It is not possible for the people to pay these costs themselves. I want to mention another case of a farmer’s wife who became ill. He had to call in the doctor; the doctor was there for half an hour and the one visit cost the farmer £27 10s. Where these farmers are willing to pay they should receive a little help in respect of travelling expenses. The people do not want all this medical help for nothing. They are prepared to contribute their share. There is something else. It has transpired that certain surgeons sometimes will not go out on a visit unless the parent, or a relative, makes a deposit. I think it is a sorry state of affairs that we should, when members of our family are sick, have to make a money deposit before we can get a doctor. I think that the Minister should intervene, so that no one will be obliged to make a denosit before the doctor comes out. Then, I notice on the estimates an amount of only £20,000 for anti-malaria measures. I want to tell the Minister that there is something radically wrong when the amount placed on the estimates for malaria is so small. The country apparently does not realise the extent of the malaria menace if it is not combated, and it cannot be combated. In a school in one of the worst malaria districts in the low veld we have found that out of the 250 children who are under proper treatment not one of them contracts the disease. But the children frequently go home for the week-ends. There they do not sleep under a mosquito net, and the result is that on the eighth day following they have malaria. A great amount of land is being bought, but the Minister must see to it that no soldier is settled on that land until adequate arrangements have been made to have the living quarters equipped against mosquitoes. I want to pay a tribute to the institution at Tzaneen and to Dr. Anecke who has done wonderful work there. But the scanty funds that have been allowed to him and his staff are lamentably small. They are working under very difficult conditions and they receive little assistance. I want to say this to the Minister that those women who are connected with the institution are apparently amongst the worst paid officials in his department; and it is not right that the people who do this work in the malaria districts should not be accorded more assistance. I have before me a book that was written by Dr. Hay and Dr. Park Ross of Durban on malaria, and therein it is clearly revealed that unless malaria is immediately combated we shall have in those districts a population that will not assist in building up our country. These men have had years of experience, and they point out that malaria is infectious, that there is an infectious type, because the parasite remains in the blood and the disease is communicated to healthy persons. The result is when natives suffer from malaria, it is transmitted to Europeans. The hon. member for Pietersburg has referred to the report on malaria, and has urged that an immediate effort should be made so to carry on the war against it that we will not merely commence the work when the malaria actually appears amongst the natives, but that the means for prevention should always be available to the people. I want to suggest that where the farmer is prepared to make his buildings properly mosquito proof, for native accommodation, the Government should help him to do this, because those natives contract malaria not only to their own detriment but to the detriment of the native population. I should like to ask the Minister to enquire into what plans can be made to house the natives properly and to make provision so that the requisite injections and equipment for prevention are available for combating malaria. If he takes a census he will see how many hundreds of working days are lost because of the natives being incapacitated from work. We go to the native commissioners and we find that they have not got the quinine available that is required for the natives. I want to ask that no stone should be left unturned, that we should not wait until the appearance of malaria, but that every year care should be taken that the quinine and the injections are available before the commencement of the malaria season. If extracts were taken from this book and a few thousand pamphlets were circulated amongst the people it would help considerably. In this book the Minister will see that the health of the children of the farming community is being undermined, and it is our duty to give them a chance in life that they do not now have. It is dreadful for a child to contract malaria, because then he gets it year after year, and not only that but it changes to blackwater fever, and even if the child does not die he gets attacks every year. I want to ask the Minister to bestow more attention on the malaria districts than has been accorded in the past. [Time limit.]

I just wish to bring a few points with regard to the district surgeons to the notice of the Minister. The position is that they receive a certain medicine allowance. In the country it varies from £2 10s. to £5 per month. Since the outbreak of war no change in the allowance has been brought about, though it is accepted that the cost of the medicine has risen by 100 per cent. during this period. Also with regard to the travelling allowance the district surgeons are still in the same position as before the war. We know that petrol, tyres and motor cars have tremendously risen in price. I think that they received 1s. per mile before the War and no change in the allowance has yet been brought about. In the country 5,000 miles have sometimes to be covered in a month and with the rise of costs which I mentioned, the Minister can realise what a big difference it can make to such a district surgeon. I will be pleased if the Minister will give attention to this. A third matter concerns the salary of district surgeons. I understand that no allowance for cost of living is paid on that salary and they are still in the same position as before the war. Where there is not much encouragement for the district surgeon in the country today, I hope that the Minister will bring about an improvement in the position to encourage these people to carry out this very difficult work in the country. They have to go out anywhere in the district during the night and I think that where this rise in costs in connection with their work has taken place, it is only fair that they should be compensated for the rise in expenses.

I want to bring to the Minister’s notice the question of blindness among the native population in the Western Transvaal. According to a report made to the National Health Services Commission by the National Council for the Blind the incidence of blindness amongst the native population in the Union worked out at 2.58 per 1,000, but in the Western Transvaal, in the Rustenburg, Marico and Mafeking areas the incidence rises to the startling figure of 1 in 84 of the native population. The National Council for the Blind has had this matter under serious consideration and some years ago the Government put a sum of £8,000 on the estimates for the purpose of surveying the extent, cause and possible cure of eye diseases amongst the natives. Owing to the war the services of a specialist could not be obtained and the vote lapsed. Partial surveys were however arranged by the National Council in the Western Transvaal. In addition the National Council provided funds for a small hostel in a hired house near the Eezenzelini Institute at Roodepoort, under the supervision and management of the Rev. A. W. Blaxall and Mrs. Blaxall to whom I pay special tribute for their self-sacrificing service on behalf of the blind. There is a trained nurse in attendance and both a general practitioner and a specialist attend regularly and render voluntary services. This hostel has been doing excellent work. Sixty cases were dealt with in 1942 out of which 42 were prevented from becoming blind. This is a remarkable result and I want to impress upon the Minister that it calls for urgent expansion of this treatment. If the specialist cannot go to the people then arrangements should, if possible, be made for the people to go to the specialist. The difficulties during war time, are fully appreciated but as an emergency measure I ask the Minister to give favourable consideration to some financial assistance to enable this work to be extended considerably at the earliest possible moment. I know there has been in the past the vexed question of departmental responsibility which I understand has been shifted from Social Welfare to Health and then to the Provincial authorities; but I do impress upon the Minister that this is a matter of urgent importance calling for the special attention of his department. I have personally been with Dr. Boshoff to the Institute when, on one occasion, 30 cases were dealt with. I saw him treat nine cases in which men were concerned and he informed me that out of the nine, seven, if they had been treated earlier, could have been saved from becoming blind. On the lower level of economics here is a great waste of human energy and labour but on the higher level of humanity these people should have a chance of preserving or recovering their sight. In 1938, the Government introduced grants for the native blind. Since then the amount has increased from £50,000 to £165,000 on this year’s estimates. I know that this increase is largely due to discovered Cases, but I wish to emphasise that any money spent on the prevention of blindness would in an increasing measure mean a saving. For the reasons I have indicated I think the case has been made out for the Minister to give urgent consideration to the immediate granting of financial assistance in connection with this hostel, which I hope will become a site for a hospital for the native blind in the Western Transvaal.

I wish to express a few thoughts and bring a few points to the notice of the Minister in regard to sufferers from tuberculosis. I think the time has arrived for the Department of Public Health to accept full responsibility for the treatment and housing of tuberculotics in our country. Tuberculosis has tremendously increased in recent years, and I think that up to now that disease has been very badly treated. If we do not take serious action in connection with this disease, then it may happen that large numbers of our nation will be suffering from tuberculosis in the near future. I think the full responsibility for combating tuberculosis should be placed on the Government as a whole. Up to now the Town Councils had to take the responsibility and treat tuberculotics who were living in their areas. It is an obligation which rests very heavily on the Town Councils, especially in the case of the smaller Town Councils who have not the necessary funds to treat those people properly. The accommodation in the places to which tuberculotics can be admitted at present is very limited. As one who served on a Town Council for many years, I know what difficulties Town Councils experience where tuberculotics are discovered in their areas. I think that the Government should undertake the responsibility, especially where the smaller Town Councils are concerned. The Government must itself bear all the cost of combating the disease. For a Town Council with a small income it is a very difficult matter to treat those people as they should be treated. The Town Councils must find an isolated place for the tuberculotics; they must have somebody to look after these people, or they have to send the sufferers from tuberculosis to a place where there is accommodation available. I think that is wrong. The State should undertake the responsibility. The second point I want to raise is the collection of funds which takes place annually through the sale of Christmas stamps by the different post offices. I am not opposed to the printing and sale of these stamps by the post office, but the way in which those stamps are sold, is wrong in my opinion.

The local postmaster usually goes to the school and hands the stamps over to the teachers, and the teachers again give those stamps to small children of 8 or 9 years to sell. They perhaps lose the stamps or lose the book, and all kinds of unpleasantness arise therefrom. I think that those stamps should not be given to boys and girls below the age of 16 years. The younger children of 8 or 9 years have not a sense of responsibility. They lose the stamps or the book, and it causes unpleasantness. I hope the Minister will seriously consider these few points and see whether improvement cannot be effected.

I should like to know whether the Minister and his Department are satisfied that things are satisfactory with medical practice in South Africa. There is a great increase in doctors, but the health of the people seems to be rapidly declining—according to their own figures—and I think that is why we have so many Christian scientists, homeopaths, chiropractors, herbalists, nature curers and quacks. I don’t say that these other peoples are quacks, but I mean the quacks, too. At any rate they seem to be on the increase. The doctor today has not got the respect he had when I was a young man—he has become a fallen idol—in fact, the medical profession in the eyes of the public does not stand half as high as it did many years ago. Now I notice that in Johannesburg in regard to child birth for every 188 births a mother dies. In France the figures are 16 in 10,000, and in Holland 27 in 10,000. Then take heart disease. In 1928 there were 151 deaths from heart disease, and in 1942 1,270. These figures are alarming. I suppose a man will go to a doctor the day when he is not feeling well, and he may think he is quite all right—a week later he is dead. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not base himself on Russia. Of course, Russia frightens people—I don’t know why, but the Russian system makes for the elimination of disease. You don’t have so many doctors there, but in Russia they eliminate the disease and the specialists look after the people when they are sent to hospital. In South Africa it seems that wherever you go there is a doctor—that is in the towns—in the Platteland there are very few. Now, in Soviet Russia you don’t have all these unnecessary operations—you don’t find any fortunes made out of the sick there. We have people here whom we call specialists—in Russia they are the people who attend to the elimination of disease and who look after the people who are sent to hospital. But about these specialists. Not long ago a friend of mine went to a specialist, and as she got into his consulting room the secretary put out her hand and said: “Three guineas, please.” I find diabetes is going up in this country, and so is cancer. Cannot we have prevention rather than cure?

Can you cure cancer?

If we had it laid down that every man should regularly have an X-ray examination; they would find out these diseases when they are in their early stages.

But people have to die of something.

There are two laws which I want passed, and the one is that every man shall have his finger prints taken; and, secondly, that a man should be forced to go every six months and have a radiograph taken. But, of course, some medical men wouldn’t like that. It would ruin some of them. But they have found out many of these things in the army. Large numbers of men have gone into the army C 3 or D1, or whatever these categories are, and for some reason or other they have got into hospital and the doctors have taken an X-ray and have found them suffering from something they never thought of. I think you will find that as a result of what has been done in that way the health of the people after the war will be very much better. I want South Africa to be healthy—it doesn’t matter about an old carcase like mine—but take a man like my young friend over there (Mr. Burnside). I would advise him to go to a doctor regularly; they might find something in his head—I must get something of my own back on him. Now I want to read what Dr. Cluver, who was Secretary for Public Health, said once: “If we apply the knowledge we now have, we can do away with 90 per cent. of all illness.” The Minister will say he has a Health Commission. Well, where has that bonnie laddie gone? We heard from the hon. member for Rondebosch yesterday (Dr. Moll) that they have written eleven books the size of “Gone With The Wind”. I hope the Minister will not take refuge behind that. I think the time has come when we should have a fully socialised medical service. The Minister probably knows the figures which were published yesterday in regard to veneral disease. I remember sitting in the Gallery of the House 35 years ago when the hon. Mr. de Waal, the father of the late Mr. Jannie de Waal who afterwards became Speaker, and he spoke about venereal disease and he warned the country that if things were allowed to go on, half of the coloured people would have the disease. He was attacked by the newspapers of the day which stated that he should not have made that kind of speech. Well, if his advice had been followed things would have been better. Those figures which were given in the “Cape Argus” yesterday absolutely shocked me. It seems that a very large percentage of the coloured people in South Africa are suffering from venereal disease. I don’t want to go into the subject—it is an unsavoury subject when there are lady members in the House and people in the Gallery—but I would ask the Minister if he would not adopt the Russian system—that is, when a person is suffering from the disease he is forced to give the name of the person from whom he contracted it.

What would you say about compulsory notification?

It doesn’t work. We have it now, but it is impossible to ask a doctor to give it away. It is not fair to the doctor. In a private house it is never given away. How can you expect the family physician to do it? It is not cricket. But when people go to clinics, I would say that they should be compelled to say where they have contracted it.

I mean compulsory notification by the patient.

You have that to an extent now. The Russian system is this. When they come to the clinic they must disclose the contact. I don’t know how you are going to make the family doctor give the information. I know the Department is doing excellent work but I should like them to take up this question. This is a most serious question, because we know what is going on—we know of little girls catching the disease from the coloured nurses—there is not so much of this infection as people say—they exaggerate, but there are cases of that kind.

Why don’t you make blood tests compulsory?

I do not understand the scientific side of it. I am talking as a father and a grandfather and as an ordinary citizen. [Time limit.]

For five years I have been representing the necessity for the isolation of tuberculotics in native reserves, and my pertinacity seems to have been rewarded, as in the annual report of the Public Health Department I find that the paramount importance of this subject is at last recognised. What I would ask now is that it should be recognised that it is necessary that this belief should be translated into action. I have suggested time and time again that these natives in the early stages of tuberculosis should be isolated near to the district surgeoncy in cheap huts modified to meet the circumstances and attended by trained native nurses and fed adequately. The conviction has been expressed that this is of primary importance, and I should like to see a start made this year in the establishment of these isolation points, so that the spread of the disease may be prevented. One other point: For five years I have been advocating the establishment of a national water supply commission in South Africa for the purpose of supplying water to small communities and large communities on the same basis as power is supplied by the Electricity Supply Commission. I am gratified to learn that a Bill has been drafted by the Public Health Department, and I hope they are going to stick to their point, and that the Minister next Session will bring that Bill before Parliament. I have no doubt that there are difficulties in the way but difficulties are only encountered to be surmounted, and I feel that if the Public Health Department will continue as they are doing and take the bull by the horns and do something, we shall have an increase in the state of health of everyone in South Africa. I would issue one word of warning: Do not let the water supply get into the hands of the Irrigation Department. They have been charged with water supply for more years than one likes to count and they have done nothing at all.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has gone off, because I gather from his speech that he has been reading Bernard Shaw’s “Back to Methuselah” and he has been putting forward a plea for the complete elimination of disease, which means eternal life. I think that eternal life for some members of this House, especially for the hon. member for Hospital, is a possibility too terrible to contemplate. It is a fact, I believe, that we must all die of something. I think it is a terrible possibility to envisage that every three or six months you will have to go before a doctor when you are felling in perfectly good health, to find whether you are suffering from some terrible and incurable disease. Never since I have been in this House have we had so much discussion on public health. We have it on many occasions, quite apart from the Public Health vote. The time, I think, has arrived when public health should be separated from the portfolios of Welfare and Demobilisation, and entrusted to a full time Minister. We are only playing with the question of public health. I am not suggesting that the Minister who holds the portfolio is not doing the job properly, but with demobilisation, public health and welfare slumped together, I believe that it is virtually impossible for one man to carry out these duties. Then we are shortly being issued with the report of the National Health Services Commission. That is a report which I gather is going to be particularly luminous, and a report which we all hope will make some far-reaching suggestions in regard to public health in this country. It is a report the working out of which, I believe, demands the attention of a full time Minister. I suppose it has not anything to do with the Minister himself, unless he goes to the Prime Minister and says: “I have too much work to do, and you had better take Public Health away and give it to somebody else.” The Department of Public Health has always been more or less a Cnderella of a department. There was a time, I believe, when it was not a department at all. At one time it was usual to mix it up with Interior and Education, and then it was given to somebody else. Today we find it with Demobilisation and Welfare, two departments which I am satisfied occupy all the Minister’s time, apart from all the growing onerous burdens of Public Health. It seems to me that now is the time, before the issue of the report of the National Health Commission, when the Public Health Department should be separated from other departments and put in charge of a full time Minister who would concentrate on questions of public health and the report of this Commission, which we believe is going to be something like a milestone in the history of public health in the Union. I want to say a word or two in support of the remarks made by the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) with reference to these Bayer Pharma drugs. I know it is a peculiarity of our situation that the solution lies in the hands of the Minister of Justice. He actually controls the Registrar of Patents, and if something is done eventually it must be through the office of the Minister of Justice. But at the same time the matter is one which vitally affects the Public Health Department. It is a matter which so far the Public Health Department has not given sufficient attention to. The hon. member for South Rand explained that this company, whatever disguise they may assume today, is in reality a German company; and whatever excuses they may put forward, they are today holding the public of the country up to ransom in respect of drugs of which they hold the pick, and long before now the Department of Public Health should have taken steps to place this position before the Minister of Justice. I know that the Minister has now told us that a kind of conference is going to be held in Pretoria this month, but I cannot see the necessity, for the life of me, for holding such a conference; because the facts are clear and undenied. The company admit them. I have a memorandum issued by the Bayer Pharma in which they admit that they themselves applied for the alteration to the emergency regulation which made it impossible for the Registrar of Patents to issue licences to reputable drug firms in this country, unless with the permission of the Bayer Pharma Company. From various directions we are hearing a great deal about the limitations of profit. I have been considerably interested to read in the report published that the limitation of profits was laid down, but here we have this company which not only demands that when drugs similar to their own are sold, that they shall be sold at the same price as their own drugs, but they demand 5 per cent. royalty. This 5 per cent. royalty is an additional 5 per cent. profit. The royalty is on the actual price, so it is in fact really more than an additional 5 per cent. profit. It is also on the cost of production of the actual article, so that the royalty of 5 per cent may represent something like 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. additional profit on the particular drug concerned. At the same time they enforce this condition that these drugs must not be sold under the price demanded for their own products, and the position is getting serious, because the delay has been so long that many companies which previously had refused to enter into any arrangement with the Bayer Pharma Company, are now being forced to enter into these arrangements. There is one firm, I understand, which has been most reluctant both from the point of view of public interest and also I presume from the point of view of national patriotism, to entering into any arrangement with this company; but they found in the natural course of their business that they are being forced to enter into this arrangement. It does not seem to me to be necessary to have a conference with the Custodian of Enemy Property or with the Pharmaceutical Society. The facts are there. I have the facts here before me, and if the Minister is in the slightest doubt he can have the facts as laid down by the company itself in the memorandum they sent to the Pharmaceutical Society, where they admit everything that has been said by the hon. member for South Rand, and which I am now repeating. They admit they were the persons who made this application. I do not know whom they apply to. I do not think they could have applied to the Public Health Department, and by this provision that has been put into the emergency regulations they have prevented the Registrar of Patents issuing licences to the manufacturers of similar products. The country needs these drugs. I understand these drugs are in the country. It is admitted by the medical profession that the English drugs—which I am now referring to—are every bit as good as the Bayer preparations. But when they are selling these drugs they have to get the permission of a firm which admits that half of their share capital is in the hands of Germans in Germany. As a matter of fact, the chairman of the present company is Mr. Paul Fischer, who held the shares in trust in South Africa for the German shareholders.

There is not the least doubt that our public health has undergone great changes in recent years, that in recent years conveniences and privileges have been provided in regard to public health in general which did not exist before. We are thankful for the attention that has been paid to public health in that way, through which these conveniences and privileges have been provided in recent years. But, nevertheless, there is no doubt that public health is undoubtedly on an unsatisfactory footing and leaves much to be desired. When I sometimes have to deal with public health in more than one respect, the question occurs to me whether we are not under present circumstances often prepared to pay more attention to the health of, and the danger of dying, to many of our animals, than to many of our people. Today you have the position that when an important horse or beast becomes ill, specialists will be fetched a hunderd miles away to visit the animal and they will try to save the animal’s life and to prevent the disease of the affected animal spreading to other animals, while the same is unfortunately not the case with regard to people. It is a great pity that a situation has developed in regard to public health in recent years that nobody is any longer prepared to accept responsibility for the sick. When somebody becomes ill, everyone tries to shift responsibility onto someone else. If someone today becomes ill on a farm or along a road over a farm, the Divisional Council is notified in the Cape Province, and the Divisional Council first wants to ascertain whether the person is in the service of the man, how long he has served there, and whether it is not someone who has come from a municipal area; and while this wrangling is going on between these bodies or between the employer in whose service the man had been or on whose ground he had become ill, that person dies. I think that we have now reached a level of civilisation where sick people should not be treated in this way—it makes no difference whether the person is a European, a non-European or a native, and whether he belongs to a respectable class or a lower class. The fact remains that if a person is ill, he should receive the attention which is necessary. We are at present casting the responsibility on the local bodies, and, as has been justly said, there are local bodies who cannot possibly afford it. The municipalities and the divisional councils, many of whom are very poor, have to utilise the funds at their disposal for the work which falls under their administration, with the result that they cannot afford these enormous sums which public health demands from them. Let me request the attention of the Minister for a few cases of my own Divisional Council, that of Caledon. The Divisional Council of Caledon have during the past year paid an amount of £37 16s. 6d. to the City Hospital in Cape Town. In respect of one case £35 was paid. They paid an amount of £95 8s. 6d. to the Hospital for infectious diseases at Caledon. We know that the amount is much larger, because the Department returns a large amount. I do not know what it is called.

A subsidy.

No, it is not a subsidy.

It is a repayment under the law.

Yes, it is a repayment. Then we have the case of the Infectious Diseases Hospital at Stellenbosch to which the Divisional Council of Caledon paid an amount of £231 12s. 5d. during the past year. That is for a single case. In addition to these amounts they oaid £95 10s. 6d. to the Nelspoort Sanatorium for Tuberculotics. We know that here also a certain amount is repayable. But this amount was paid by the Divisional Council over and above what the Divisional Council got back from the Department. Then the Council also paid out certain amounts to nurses in the district. In respect of the European nurse of the A.O.V.V. £30 was paid and £15 in respect of the coloured nurse; in respect of Riviersonderend £15, Stanford £10 and Hawston £15. So it continues. Then there are Hermanns, Villiersdorp and other places. These are a few of the places and of the amounts, and you can understand that these amounts are not all. It is part of what the Divisional Council was called upon to pay during the past year, and it had become impossible for the Divisional Council to pay these amounts without trying to evade part of its responsibility where it was at all possible. We know that public health has advanced far but allow me to give you a few figures with regard to my own district where we have in the past year had six cases of leprosy which had to be sent away. In 1941 there were four cases; in 1942 there were six and in 1943 there were nine cases of leprosy. See how it increases! Take venereal diseases. In 1941 43 cases were reported; in 1942 146 cases were reported, and in 1943 162 cases. This is astonishing. I do not want to take up the time of the House by continuing with these figures. I think it should give us an insight into the necessity for providing better facilities, for making better arrangements in regard to public health in general.

The increase is precisely proof of the improvement of the position, because it means that there are more facilities for tracing cases.

I will grant that. There may undoubtedly be much in what the Minister says. But the cases which I mentioned here are cases which were reported. The cases which were treated are many more in number.

There are more facilities for treatment and consequently more are reported.

I hope that is so. It is a sad thing that people are walking along the road; they become ill and we find them there; and there is nobody to look after them and nowhere to take these people because everyone is trying to evade responsibility. This is a daily phenomenon in regard to my experience in connection with local bodies. We know that our hospital accommodation is hopelessly inadequate. We have not got the hospital accommodation to provide all the conveniences and facilities to nurse those people. When I think of it that we have a hospital in the district of Caledon, then the question occurs to me what the position must be with regard to the many districts which have no hospital to which they can admit these people.

Hospitals are a matter for the Provincial Administration.

I realise that, but it is also a matter which affects public health in general, for which the Minister is held responsible, notwithstanding the fact that the Provincial Council must bear its share of the responsibility.

Will you support me if I want to take over the hospitals from the provinces?

That is another matter into which I am not now prepared to go here. If the necessary facilities are provided, I do not doubt in the least that the Provincial Administration will accept its full responsibility in that sphere, but it is unfortunately not the case today. Take the case of tuberculosis which is increasing to such an alarming extent. Everyone is afraid of tuberculotics. What is the result? If the case of the sufferer from tuberculosis becomes serious, we cannot get him removed to Nelspoort. It sometimes takes weeks and months before we can get a bed for such a person. Everyone is afraid of him. We must try to get the person attended to and cared for as well as we can. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the deplorable conditions from a public health point of view which prevail in most of the municipal locations in the small towns. It is not only a question of tumbledown houses, tumble-down hovels is a better way of expressing it, standing on miserable little patches of land ; it is not only a question of the general poverty which prevails, but these places have not even got water. The hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) in his contribution to this debate, said that typhus, which has been much discussed during this debate, is very largely a matter of dirt. Well, Mr. Chairman, these people in these smaller towns have no opportunities to wash. I know of no small town which has a location in which each house has a water supply. In each case these women of the household have to lug water along in buckets, sometimes walking for hundreds of yards and much further. You have urban communities in which thousands of non-Europeans, coloureds as well as natives, live, and where there are only a few taps in the whole place. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the hon. member for Gardens, or myself or any member in this House, would do much washing if we lived in the Simonstown location in one of the higher houses where we would have to stagger up a sandy track, or our wives would have to stagger up, with a bucket of water from a tap right at the bottom? I know the Minister will reply that he is going to legislate this session for a national housing scheme, and he will probably refer to the Bill referred to by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) for the organisation of a water supply on a national scale. But I want to emphasise that this business of water supply is an urgent matter. That is a minimum requirement for any population. These places that. I am talking about have been proclaimed by the Native Affairs Department as being fit for natives to live in, and I must tell the hon. Minister that it does not take much to satisfy the Native Affairs Department in this regard. It is only in recent years that any kind of system of inspection by the Department has been undertaken. In recent years they have appointed urban areas inspectors to go to some of these places and make reports. That system works very slowly. I have been trying to get some sort of inspection of the Prieska location for about two years, and it has not been inspected yet. There my information is that there are no taps and no water supply at all. I believe there is one windmill outside the location from which a large community is supposed to get water. In approving new locations or other housing schemes for the poorer people I hope the Minister will see to it that each house at least is supplied with water. That is an essential requirement that his Department should insist on. That has not been done even in the newer locations, such as that at Somerset East and similar places where there is only one tap for sixteen houses. Admittedly this is an enormous improvement on such hell holes as the Beaufort West location, but still it is inadequate. Another point to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention is in connection with the housing of native and coloured people in the smaller towns—I am thinking particularly of the Western Province, where I know something of the conditions from first-hand knowledge; I hope the Minister will impress on the Municipalities the necessity of being careful as to the sites where they put these housing schemes. I have a particular instance in mind. At Worcester the Town Council is at present constructing a new location for natives. I do not know whether the site of that location originally had the approval of the Minister’s Department—and I am not a doctor—but I have been to that place, and it seems to me to be built in a swamp …

Do you want it in the main street?

I want the place at least to be dry—hon. members know the type of place—there is this weedy grass there which always indicates the presence of damp. It is not a question of building it in the main street—that interruption was typical of the attitude of hon. members over there. If you suggest that a location should be built anywhere except in a swamp, hon. members over there at once oppose one. Their attitude is idiotic. These are serious representations which I am making to the Minister on behalf of a community, on account of the dampness of the conditions under which they live. Now I am referring to Worcester particularly. I know that attempts have been made to drain this place, but they haven’t got a proper drainage system. Last winter the only drains were open sluits next to each house. The water ran through them and seeped through into the houses. I am not a medical expert, but I do feel that these houses should be constructed somewhere where the ground has not always been damp. These low-lying parts are bound to be damp under the climatic conditions of the Western Province. Now, that location at Worcester has not been completed, and I understand the Town Council of Worcester is prepared to find another site where they will put another location when they have completed this one. What I want to ask the Minister is that his Department will see to it that no more houses are built in that place. I do not think it is possible to move those houses that are there, and the best possible thing will have to be done about draining the site. But no more houses should be built there. The native population of Worcester is increasing. It is one of those centres where industrialisation is proceeding apace, and a larger and larger non-European, particularly native population is being employed by the growing industries of Worcester.

The question of public health is so extremely important that I feel the time has arrived when an altogether new policy should be adopted. The time is overripe for the introduction of a centralised State-controlled system of public health both as regards preventive and curative services. I do not visualise a system under which all doctors will be State doctors; and in speaking of State doctors, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) who referred to the fact yesterday that our district surgeons have too great an area to cover. The services given by those doctors today, although useful, are extremely unsatisfactory, and there are two reasons for that. In the first place they cannot cope with all the work which is entrusted to them and in the second place, when it does not cost anythig to consult a district surgeon, the people consult him in connection with the most trivial ailments. I know of cases where a doctor had to examine forty cases within a few hours and immediately thereafter perform a series of operations. That is an unsound state of affairs. A medical man, after all, is only human, and he can give of his best when he is most human. The human machinery has a store of patience which becomes exhausted, I feel therefore that this matter deserves very serious attention. There should either be more doctors or the system should be changed. In this connection I also want to refer to dentistry. The position in this country is really serious as far as dental services are concerned. I do not know what the fees of the dentists are, and no one knows. We have this remarkable position in Pretoria where we have many officials, that the dentists charge double the fees which they charge in other places in the Union. That is an unsound state of affairs, and I can assure you that I know of hundreds and hundreds of officials and Railway employees and others who cannot afford the services of those dentists for themselves and their families. When I look at my own account for dental treatment for myself and my family, I have the greatest sympathy for those people. I feel that the time is ripe for some sort of supervision to be exercised. In Pretoria, in normal circumstances before the war, a dentist charged £1 for an ordinary amalgam filling. I am assured by dentists that one can make a fortune out of it if one charges 7s. 6d. Why then these huge fees? Is it not possible to exercise supervision? What is the reason for these high fees? If they charge double the ordinary fee, I cannot understand why they do not charge ten times the ordinary fee. When we go in detail into this question of public health in South Africa, we also find that an extremely dangerous state of affairs exists in our country owing to the fact that diseases are spread throughout the length and breadth of the country by roaming bands of uncontrolled natives. I feel that the time is overripe when every native or coloured servant should be compelled to undergo medical examination before he is employed. I know of cases where servants looked after children for years before it was discovered that they were suffering from venereal disease. That is an extremely dangerous state of affairs. Very often they also suffer from consumption or some other dangerous infectious disease, and there is no system of compulsory medical examination. You will remember that the report of Lord Haley in regard to the state of the health of the natives in South Africa revealed a shocking position. According to his statement, I think 90 per cent. of the natives suffer from venereal disease alone, and that is the position in a country where there are more than four natives to every European. There is only one solution of this problem, and that is compulsory periodical medical examination of every native in the country as well as compulsory treatment. Today the position is that one may have a native on one’s farm—and I personally experienced this—who suffers from venereal disease and who refuses to undergo treatment. He prefers to go to the native witch doctor. He refuses to undergo treatment although he suffers from this dangerous infectious disease. I cannot understand how we can tolerate the continued existence of these conditions in South Africa. I would advocate not only compulsory medical examination as far as the natives are concerned, but I would advocate, as is the position in some overseas countries, compulsory examination of every citizen every six months; that is the only way in which we could hope to exterminate these dangerous infectious diseases. The time is over-ripe when we should face those facts. Is there any reason why we cannot have compulsory examination? I am prepared to have myself examined every few months, and I should be pleased to be able to have it done. It is in the interests of the country and it is in the interests of the future of the nation. To repeat, if it is found necessary in European countries, and bearing in mind the results which were achieved in overseas countries by examining people for venereal diseases alone, it is all the more necessary to do so in South Africa since we have a large native and coloured population in this country. The natives also come in from the native territories. The Minister of Native Affairs admitted the other day that that was the case. I think the Minister of Justice also admitted in a private interview that thousands of natives were entering the country without permission. They spread over the length and breadth of the country without any control whatever, and practically everyone is a carrier of disease—nine out of ten according to Lord Haley. In this connection the position is so critical that if we do not take active steps immediately and if we do not face this matter pertinently, we shall be accused by prosterity of having neglected our duty. Just look what happens in the malaria belt. I know that a great deal is being done, and I know the Minister will say that they are doing an enormous amount to combat malaria. The Department provides insecticides and paraffin to the natives to spray their houses. But the natives, instead of using the insecticides and paraffin to spray their houses, use it for their lamps. It is extremely important that malara should be combated in this country. The natives use the paraffin which the Minister’s Department gives them for their lamps. Cannot something be done to prevent that? I would suggest that some sort of substance be put into the paraffin, which will make it explode. Once that happened, the natives might use the paraffin for the purpose for which it was given to them. The question of nurses was mentioned during the last debate by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). [Time limit.]

Certain new points have been raised in the course of the debate, and a number of points previously discussed have also been raised once again by members who have taken part in the debate today. The House has now had an opportunity of discussing this Vote over three days, and I shall do my best to reply to the points as best I can. It may involve some repetition, because it may happen that some members have come in and have raised matters which have been replied to already. But we have had a very full and constructive discussion, a most encouraging sign, and, as I said yesterday, the fact that members on all sides have been prepared to pay so much attention to this matter is an indication of the awakening of public conscience on health matters. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) asked me what was the position in regard to plague. He expressed fears with regard to the spread of plague in the Free State. There is no doubt that the field surveys which have been made by the Department of Public Health show that the wild rodent population in the Central Free State, especially in the vicinity of Bloemfontein, is increasing; and this area abuts on the Bothaville-Hoopstad area where plague has attacked the rodents, and it is possible it will spread to the healthy rodents further south. We have had a number of outbreaks in the Bothaville area.

Also in the Koppies area.

Yes, in that area too. We have dealt with those outbreaks and sent out additional staff where necessary; and the suggestion made by the hon. member that we should try to put a cordon round the area is one I shall go into. We had a slight alarm in regard to Johannesburg at the end of last year, but we took proper steps in collaboration with the medical authorities in Johannesburg, and I think there is no reason for any fear in regard to plague affecting Johannesburg itself. Very interesting experiments have been carried out by the Institute of Medical Research in regard to bubonic plague. In one case where we had a native suffering from bubonic plague an injection was given and the life of the woman was saved, and it may very well be that our scientific research in Johannesburg will lead to some striking developments in regard to anti-plague activities. Then the hon. gentleman mentioned the question of diphtheria. I am glad he did that. I think it would be as well if I were to give a word of warning to the country about diphtheria, not an alarming warning, but a reasonable word of warning to parents. In the opinion of the Department of Public Health the incidence of diphtheria in South Africa is still unnecessarily high. A number of local authorities are taking steps to encourage active immunisation and the number is increasing. A great deal more interest has been taken in this matter recently. The Council of Public Health and the Health Department have discussed the question of compulsory inoculation on more than one occasion. The Department feels that that would perhaps be taking too drastic a step at this stage, and that we should rather, by means of propaganda, try to bring home to parents the essential need for the inoculation of children at an early age. The Department has been carrying out surveys in recent years which show that, unlike the position in England where the incidence is greatest over the age of ten years, in South Africa the greatest incidence is in the 0—5 years’ period. It is extremely important. I quote from the last report of the Department of Public Health—

Then some interesting examples are given—

The Department points out that to prevent the ravages of this deadly disease children should be immunised during the second half of the first year of life. This is emphasised. It is considered necessary to stress the importance of immunisation at this early age because of the considerable number of cases which occur in infants under one year of age. Where district surgeons give these injections the Department pays half the cost, and we are considering the advisability of increasing that subsidy to 100 per cent.

Are you extending it to the rural areas?

The provisions apply to the rural areas. District surgeons are empowered to give injections and we pay half the cost, and if there is any extension in that subsidy it will naturally apnly to rural as well as to urban areas. But I want to appeal to hon. members and to others interested in oublie health, to spread throughout the country the necessity for the early immunisation of children, especially between the ages of six and twelve months. If we can make parents realise that it is in their interests and the interests of their children, we shall get many more of them coming forward. There has been an improvement in recent years. Local authorities are doing a great deal to stress the necessity for inoculation, but, we do not, want to have to resort to compulsory inoculation. I do not think it will be necessary if we can spread the necessary nronaganda. Then the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) has dealt with the Question of malaria once again. That subject has been very fully discussed. I wish to remove one misstatement of fact. It was stated that we are spending £20.000 a year on malaria; actually the figure provided on the present estimates is £37.000, and that figure has been progressively increased in recent years. There is no doubt that the activities of the Department have brought about useful results. Here again, in the latest report of the Department of Public Health, the wisdom of control and efficacy of proper control is emphasised. The Secretary for Public Health points to an example of what can be achieved by efficient control. He gives a case that occurred in January, 1943, and which he considers worthy of mention—

That is an example of what can be done by proper control. Close co-operation is maintained between the Union Health and other Government Departments and all local organisations carrying out malaria control measures. The success that has been achieved has undoubtedly been very great, and this is in a large measure due to that co-operation. It has been suggested that we have not taken proper steps in the Northern Transvaal. That is not borne out by the report of Dr. Annecke. He is satisfied that the steps we have taken through the provision of these 11,000 spray pumps and quinine and pyagra, are sufficient to meet the present needs, and in his opinion the recent sharp outbreak of malaria in the Northern Transvaal is well under control. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has asked me some questions in regard to travelling and other allowances. Part-time district surgeons do not obtain cost of living allowances; I understand these allowances are not applicable to any part-time officials. The travelling allowance is 1s. a mile. That has not been increased, but, as I pointed out yesterday, the effect of paying that allowance of 1s. per mile has meant in many cases that we have had to pay over to district surgeons, full-time and part-time, an amount of £1,000. I have pointed out that some district surgeons receive, with their basic salaries, with their travelling allowances and allowances in respect of operations, amounts of from £2,000 to £3,000 a year. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg suggested that one should enquire into some of these large amounts that are paid out in regard to travelling. Well, Sir, the Department has in some cases converted part-time into full-time district surgeons, where it has been found there has been a saving in regard to that. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) asked me specifically some questions regarding drug allowances for district surgeons. The amount the Department pays to them is assessed annually on the basis of the number of prescriptions made up by the district surgeon for the previous year. Basically, the sum of 6d. is considered reasonable, but allowance has now been made for the increase in costs today. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has referred to blindness amongst natives, and he has asked me whether I was prepared to give financial assistance to the Palmer institution at Roodepoort. I should be glad to discuss the matter with him to see if there is any way in which the Department can go further than it is doing at the present time. An amount of £250 has been placed on the present Estimates towards the costs of this institution, and we have already made provision there for the training of a native nurse who will be able to assist in the treatment of blindness amongst natives. At present financial assistance to blind natives is rendered by the Native Affairs Department in accordance with a certain scale of grants. One pound per month is given in the larger towns, 15s. in the smaller towns, and 10s. in the rural towns. The amount included in the Estimates, in the Native Affairs Vote, for blind natives has been increased from £130,000 to £165,000. That is the amount the Government has provided this year on the Native Affairs Vote for the payment of allowances to blind natives. In addition provision is made in the Social Welfare Vote for augmentation allowances, and the total sum there is £25,320. This year we have included in the Department of Public Health estimates an amount of £1,000 for the investigation and treatment of cases of blindness amongst natives.

It is far too small.

I appreciate my friend’s feelings when he says it is far too small, but the Department of Public Health, when it attempts to make an innovation, is always faced with the criticism that it is not going the whole hog at once. When the hon. member says it is not enough I would remind him we had practically a similar amount on our estimates two years ago for the purpose of getting a full-time medical officer to study blindness amongst the natives. We advertised and we got no one. We might set aside £1,000,000 and get no results. We have to put down money for measures which we can carry out at the present time, and while I can understand my friend’s feelings I ask him not to blame the Department for not going the whole hog at the start. A start is better than nothing at all. We are breaking new ground in an attempt to deal with this matter. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has suggested that it is far better to prevent blindness than spend these large sums on giving allowances to blind natives. I entirely agree. It is quite obviously in conformity with the modem conception of health that one should prevent disease rather than wait to cure it when the damage is done. I find, Sir, that the number of blind natives registered in the Union is approximately 25,000, but it is estimated that the total for the Union is about 32,000, representing an over-all incidence of 4 per 1,000. In certain districts of the North-West Cape and the Northern and Western Transvaal the incidence varies from 10 to 20 per 1,000, but an incidence of 1 to 1.15 per thousand may be regarded as normal. Some interesting figures have been obtained by Dr. Rosset Berdez at a station in the Northern Transvaal. He has been doing magnificent work in difficult circumstances and we have been subsidising his work. We ourselves are not able to obtain the services of a full-time specialist and this doctor has been assisting the Department in carrying out an investigation. Over a period of 12 months Dr. Rosset Berdez examined 4,500 natives. Of these 527 had normal eyes, i.e., 13.16 per cent.; 214 were totally blind, i.e., 5.34 per cent.; 36 had lost one eye as a result of disease, i.e., 9 per cent. Of the 214 totally blind 115 had cataracts which could be relieved by operation, 62 had suffered from preventible chronic inflammations leading to destruction of the cornea or other coats of the eye. Of 619 of common conjunctivitis 33 had ulceration of the cornea, i.e., 5.33 per cent.; of 362 cases of follicular conjunctivitis all are responding to treatment; of 118 cases of keratitis, 53 are being efficiently treated. These figures go to confirm what has been said by the hon. member, that if we can deal with incipient blindness in natives sufficiently early we shall be able to prevent a great deal, and it is far better to spend money on preventing blindness than to have to spend these larger sums at a later stage in giving grants. I am entirely with those hon. members who have raised this point and I am entirely in accord with their sentiments. The Department will push on with the utmost speed possible in these difficult days with an investigation in regard to blindness as a whole. A number of hon. members have referred once again to tuberculosis. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) suggested that the time had arrived for the Government to accept full responsibillty for tuberculos’s. At the present time the Government is responsible for maintenance costs for tuberculosis to the extent of 75 per cent. and the local authorities have to pay 25 per cent. As the result of an amendment to the Public Health Act, which I introduced last year. We are now empowered to assist local authorities up to 100 per cent. and we have actually done that in the case of some of the less financially stable local authorities. We can step in and assist them up to 100 per cent., but the question whether we should take over full responsibility raises the larger issue of the relationship between the central government, the provinces and the local authorities. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) has spoken of the difficulties of local authorities and I put to him the question: Would he or would other hon. members support me if I asked Parliament to allow the Department of Public Health to take over the responsibility for hospital services which vests in the provinces? At present the Department is bound by the provisions of the Public Health Act, under which responsibility for normal hospital services rests with the provinces. The Department has a responsibility in regard to infectious diseases but in regard to normal health services the responsibility lies with the local authorities. We have powers of supervision. If we are not satisfied we can step in and report to the Administrator, but we cannot take over. There may have to be changes; we may have reached the stage in our development when greater centralisation is necessary, but it can only be done by changes in the Act and changes in the constitutional position as laid down at Union may be necessary. These things, however, we shall have to face, and I have no doubt the National Health Commission has given careful consideration to these aspects of the position.

[Inaudible.]

The whole question of the provinces’ responsibility is linked up with finance. There is no need to come to an arrangement with the provinces because the responsibility is theirs, it is their duty at the present time. The provinces, however, contend that they cannot get money to finance schemes, they allege that they are not being provided with sufficient sources of revenue and, as the hon. member knows, that particular aspect of the relationship between the central government and the provinces was the subject of consideration by the Corbett Commission, and the government and the local authorities will be having a conference in August in regard to a number of these matters. So the Department of Public Health, at the present time, is quite powerless to carry out any negotiations, either with the provinces or local authorities; these things are bound up with bigger constitutional issues. Despite these difficulties the department has been making a very large scale attack on tuberculosis. There is a sort of idea abroad that the department has been just “ticking over” during these years, just holding its own; but it has done very much more than that.

Hospital accommodation is inadequate.

I agree that hospital accommodation is hopelessly inadequate, but hon. members will give due regard to the fact that during the past five years the department has increased hospital accommodation for tuberculosis patients very largely indeed. And, although we are normally obliged to pay only 50 per cent. of the capital cost of erecting hospitals for T.B., in many cases we have gone further and have paid 100 per cent. of the cost. Where we can justifiably say that a particular hospital for tuberculosis patients will meet the needs, not only of the local town but of a surrounding area, we have been prepared to step in and pay 100 per cent. of the cost. We did that at Durban in the case of the King George V Hospital, the Victoria Hospital at Lovedale, at Worcester, Beaufort West and Paarl and certain other places. In the course of the last year alone the department has made available an additional 400 beds for tuberculosis patients and I would remind the House of this: that in 1935 the Government provided by way of revenue vote and loan vote a total of £45,916 to be spent on antituberculosis work. For the year 1942-’43 the amount we arranged to spend on this work was £360,000, an increase over those years of something like 800 per cent., and that despite war expenditure and other difficulties. I outlined the other day the programme of building which has been achieved and which we have in view. It is not necessary for me to reiterate that this afternoon. We have gone ahead very largely in providing additional facilities for tuberculosis. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has initiated an interesting and stimulating discussion on whether the medical profession in South Africa has justified itself. Well, Sir, I do not think it is necessary for me to follow up that argument; he has made some interesting observations, some of them perhaps somewhat provocative and I only wish to refer to his remarks on the National Health Commission. He suggested that that Commission was going to write eleven books. I think he probably misread a reference to the Commission by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), who said he had eleven books to read, namely the evidence given before that Commission. I think that Commission has been given one of the most important tasks given to any commission. If that commission were to skimp its task I think the country would never forgive it. The fact that it has made personal inspections of towns and country areas shows that it has taken its work seriously, and I think it is ill-advised and certainly not fair to prejudge its work. Let us wait for the report and then decide whether the work it has done, and the amount of energy it has given that work, is justified or not. I suggest that we should suspend judgment until the Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has suggested that the Department should be placed under an independent Minister. I appreciate his reference to the tasks imposed upon any one Minister, but I would remind him that the purpose of combining Public Health and Social Welfare, as well as Demobilisation, under one Minister was to give an opportunity to the Minister to co-ordinate the work of three Departments whose functions interlock at several points. The task of the Minister is to deal with co-ordination, to ensure that there is no overlapping and that each one is giving proper attention to the work it has to do without interfering with the functions of another Department. However, this question does not rest in my hands; it is one for the Prime Minister. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) has referred to the Water Supply Commission. The Department has drafted a Bill to deal with water supply and that Bill has not yet been published because quite obviously we have to consult with other Departments concerned, with the provinces, the Rand Water Board and other similar bodies. We have drafted a Bill as a basis for discussion, and the provisions of the Bill have been based on the provisions of the Electricity Supply Commission. We have made a start along the lines suggested by the hon. member for South Coast, and I hope that during the recess we shall be able to carry the matter further. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet), in pleading for further medical facilities for our people, suggested that we were prepared to give the best facilities for the treatment of animals but when it came to human beings we were not prepared to spend so much money on them. That is a statement that has been made many times but it is fallacious and I think it is dangerous, certainly it is not a fair comparison. It is perfectly true that in certain places the Department of Agriculture has spent large sums in dealing with sickness among animals. But if there is one section of the community which is provided with the best medical services— certainly in the towns—it is those who cannot afford to pay. There are two sections who can get the best medical services, the paupers and those who are financially stable. A man who has nothing in the world can get the services of the best medical men in Cape Town today.

What do you mean by a pauper?

That is left to the discretion of the magistrate who may deal with the case, and the case may vary according to circumstances. But I say that the pauper and the man who can spend what he likes can get good hospital accommodation and doctors and specialists, but it is the intervening group, represented by the middleclass man, those are the people who have difficulties.

Hear, hear.

They have difficulties in the platteland areas and in the towns.

Especially in the platteland.

The married man with a salary of £400, £500, £600, even up to £700 may be crippled if he finds it is necessary for him or one of his family to undergo a serious operation, an operation, say, costing £100. A Civil Servant or a bank clerk may be crippled for many years if he has to incur an expense like that. And those are the people we have to look after in any new health deal. Now the spirit in which this House has discussed this whole matter is one of the best auguries for any new experiment which we are going to make. We have to scrap the whole of the Public Health Act. It has outlived its usefulness. It has done a good job in its time. But it is too small for the activities of a proper Health Department to be fitted into. The National Health Commission will report this month, and I can assure hon. members that the Department will not delay in beginning action on that Commission’s report, and I hope that when the Government comes to this House, as it may well do next year, and asks for much larger sums to be spent on Public Health, those hon. members who are so anxious to assist will help us to raise the necessary additional funds.

I wonder if the Minister can make some statement on the alleged shortage of essential drugs, and tell us what steps are taken to deal with that. There is hardly a single thing you can get today. I understand there is a big order of £400,000 under lease lend. There are drugs which we are short of, and the position is very deleterious to the country. I am told that if people want hot water bottles it is impossible to get one in the country today. I am told that one of the reasons why one cannot get them is because they are held up, but that they are in South Africa. What is the position? Are they in South Africa, and is it red tape which is holding them up?

May I deal with that at once. On a previous occasion during this debate I mentioned that the Department is in close touch with the Controller of Medical Requisites. We have been approached from time to time as regards alleged shortages, and through co-operation with the Controller we have been able to come to the assistance of the persons concerned. I am not able to give my hon. friend any information regarding hot water bottles at present, but I am prepared to look into that. And may I appeal to hon. members now on this ground? We have discussed this vote for three days, and full and adequate consideration has been given to it. On one occasion the debate was adjourned to meet the convenience of the House, in order to make it possible for the debate on another Bill to be proceeded with, but I hope that hon. members will now meet us and let this vote go through.

With the best will in the world I don’t feel like meeting the Minister on this question because he made no reference to the very important matter I raised. Possibly it is just as well because the ten minute rule would have stopped me and I am now able to put forward some further facts. I am glad the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) raised this question of drugs and hot-water bottles. It is not only a shortage of medical requisites, but it is also a question of the shortage of drugs, and the point which the hon. member raised affects this particular company to which I refer, the company which is holding up these requisites. Now let me come back to the point. Although the trouble was caused largely by the action of the Director of Patents, it is a matter which affects the Public Health Department. They have a responsibility for seeing that drugs are available to the public and for seeing that these drugs are available at the cheapest possible price. While this House has agreed long ago that excessive profits should not be made out of the illnesses of people, and while we have also agreed that we should take the profit motive away under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in regard to injured people, here we are dealing with illnesses for which certain drugs are necessary, and we find that the Public Health Department has apparently made no effort at all to meet this position. I do not wish to lay any charge against the Department, but if the Minister refuses to reply to the point I have raised …

It was purely an omission, I am quite prepared to reply.

I have not finished developing what I was saying. I was pointing out that this 5 per cent. royalty is a 5 per cent. imposition on the actual cost of the production of the drug, and as a result, drugs are becoming scarce. I do not know whether this firm has a supply of drugs in South Africa. They are a German firm pure and simple. Half the capital is in the hands of German nationals mostly resident in Germany, and the other half of the capital is in the hands of an American company. There again I understand that the company belongs purely to Germans. I don’t know whether they are resident in Germany …

Yes, they are.

Well that is interesting anyhow. So we have this position that here we have a company whose shareholders are wholly resident in Germany. There are no Union shareholders in this company despite the fact that this company has been registered in South Africa, and it is only during the war that this company made an application to the Supreme Court to have the patent rights transferred from the German company, and during the war, by devious methods, they managed to have a process served—I believe that is the legal expression—in Switzerland, and because there was no appearance on behalf of the German firm the patent rights have been transferred to the company registered in South Africa, and 50 per cent. of the profits accruing to this company go into the hands of the Custodian of Enemy Property. Now whether or not that money will eventually be given to the shareholders in Germany, I don’t know, but what I do know is, that at the close of the last war the patent rights of this company were apparently put up by auction and bought in by the company itself. So the whole object of the legislature was circumvented. These patents rights were actually taken over by the company itself and as far as South Africa is concerned, remained in the hands of a German company until a period after the war began. That of course I realise is of little concern to the Minister of Public Health, but surely he should be in a position to make a demand on the Minister of Justice or on the Registrar of Patents that this Emergency Regulation should be altered in such a fashion as to enable the firms to get licences.

We have done so. We have made that request and are following it up to have the Emergency Regulation suspended.

I would certainly not have spoken again in this debate if the Minister had replied to the questions I asked when I spoke earlier. I asked him questions on two points. The first was, what his Department was doing to ensure adequate water supplies to the non-European population of these small towns. Have we to wait for his Bill and the establishment of a national water commission or is it possible to bring pressure to bear on these small local authorities? I gave instances of Beaufort West, Prieska, Somerset East, Simonstown and other places which are not supplying water in an adequate manner to the residents of their locations. The second question I asked was this: whether his Department was really satisfied with the site of the Worcester native location which is in the course of construction. It looks to me like a swamp. And I asked the Minister whether he would see to it that no further houses are bulit on that damp site.

When I was interrupted a moment ago by the time limit, I still wanted to refer to one or two minor matters; in the first place, the question of medical training at the universities. Cannot the Minister take steps to prevent native students from being thrown together with European students at the universities, and to prevent male natives from studying together with European women at the universities? The Minister has a say in regard to the universities; he has a certain amount of influence over the universities. If this state of affairs continues, the Minister will find that the dissatisfaction which exists in the country today will increase from day to day.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter under this vote.

I am sorry that I did not reply to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) and the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). It is purely an omission, although with regard to the latter I gave an indirect reply. So far as the question of drugs and patents is concerned, the Public Health Department has taken steps to induce the Registrar of Patents to suspend the Emergency Regulation governing the licensing of patents relative to medicines; to suspend the operation of the Emergency Regulation dealing with such patents which came into effect as from 22nd January, 1944. Apparently, in terms of the new Emergency Regulation, the Registrar of Patents is not able to issue what are known as compulsory patents. The Department is asking him to suspend that regulation pending the conference which we are having in Pretoria. So far as the company to which the hon. member referred is concerned, the Department has no jurisdiction in regard to any action—that is a matter entirely for the Custodian of Enemy Property—but we can come to the assistance of the people concerned in certain respects, although the Public Health Department cannot decide whether it is an enemy controlled company or not. That is not within the scope of our functions, and it is inappropriate for us to apply our minds to that. But, as representations have been made to us, we have made up our minds to come to the assistance of the hon. members who have mentioned this matter—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside). With regard to water supplies, I pointed out that the health responsibility in local areas is a matter for the local authority. The Municipality of Worcester is responsible for health in its area, and of course is responsible, just as other local authorities are responsible, for the provision of adequate water supplies in locations and elsewhere. The primary responsibility is left with the local authority. The Department of Public Health has the power of inspection. It carries out inspections and brings these matters to the notice of the local authority concerned. The other day a local authority concerned was fined for not carrying out certain of its health responsibilities. If the local authority does not pay heed to the request of the Public Health Department, the Department can report the matter to the Administrator of the Province concerned. We have done that in certain cases, but we cannot step in and ourselves provide water supplies.

Do you propose to take these powers in the Bill?

This question whether we should take over the powers resting on local authorities is a matter on which recommendations are being made. We shall have the report of the Health Commission in a week or two. I am informed that the Public Health Department inspected the native location site at Worcester, and, from a health point of view, they considered it suitable.

There is one point of some importance on this vote, and that is the Minister was asked a question today by me as to whether his attention had been drawn to a regional conference of the National War Fund in Port Elizabeth, at which complaints were made about excessive charges being made by certain doctors attending the families of ex-servicemen. The Minister replied that he had no knowledge of that, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that the “Cape Times,” a paper circulating here states that a complaint was made that doctors who are opposed to the war effort are accused of charging the dependants of soldiers twenty to twenty-five guineas for a minor operation.

If any case is brought to my notice I shall be glad to bring it to the notice of the Medical Council.

In regard to the matter of the drugs and the patents referred to by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) I would like to ask whether the Minister would agree to give consideration to it from the point of view of the objections raised in America to certain undesirable persons having been allowed to manage this company in South Africa. I should like to know whether I may send him some reports which have been published in the Press to show that the very claim made by these people that their shares are held in America, or that one-half of the shares are held in America is on all fours with the claim made bv Von Ribbentrop in connection with certain illegal transactions he was engaged in. It was found that the Custodian of Enemy Property repudiated the idea and sold Von Ribbentrop’s shares for what they would fetch. As a matter of fact the claim made that the matter was controlled by an American firm was wholly fradulent.

I shall be glad to have any information the hon. member can give me.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 31.—“Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feebleminded,” £950,000,

We are all anxious to have this vote passed, and I want to give the Minister the assurance that I only want a little information. As far as the Alexandra Institution is concerned, I notice that the maintenance costs per patient have been reduced from 3s. 7d. to 3s. 1d. I should like to know how it is possible for the maintenance costs to be decreased under the present circumstances. Reference is also made here to the number of patients for whom provision is made, but I can only find the amount in pounds, not the number of patients. I should like to know from the Minister, however, what the position is as far as treatment is concerned. Unfortunate people whom we regard as having been blessed with not quite the same amount of commonsense as we, are sent to these institutions. In many cases the inmates are children who were sent there by their parents and a few cases have been brought to my notice where the parents are not satisfied with the treatment meted out to their children at these institutions. I have the greatest sympathy for people who have to send their children to these places, and when one finds on the child’s return that his hands are rough and horny from scrubbing and scouring one asks oneself whether the conditions in these institutions are what they ought to be. When the children return on holiday and their hands are in this state, the parents do not feel happy at the prospect of sending their children back. There is another case which I could mention, that of a young child who was sent there with her own clothes and shoes, etc. When she came back on holiday after six months, they did not know what had happened to her clothes, and she was made to wear another child’s clothes. I should like to know from the Minister whether it is not possible to arrange for a doctor to pay periodic visits to these institutions to see what is going on. Then I should like to know what supervision there is in regard to these unfortunate people. I do not want to make wild accusations, but I should like to have the assurance that there is a svstem whereby visitors go to these institutions from time to time, so that the parents may be re-assured to a certain extent about the welfare of their children.

Under the Mental Disorders Act the Commissioner has power to appoint visiting committees for the various institutions. A committee has been appointed to inspect the Alexandria Institution, and it is the duty of the committee to make periodic inspections. I should be glad to have details of the case from the hon. member, and to assist him if possible.

In connection with the Item, Grant in Aid National Society of Mental Hygiene, the Minister will remember I had some correspondence with him over the amount that was wanted and he had increased it. But the estimates only increased it to £1,000. An increase of £2,000 was asked for. The Minister wrote—

Could the Minister tell the House what the position is now?

The position has not advanced. An increased grant was given but the particular body wanted something more, and that has to be subject to negotiation in regard to other similar bodies. I should like to assure the hon. member that this case will not be forgotten, and, if there is any change, the Council for Feebleminded will be considered.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 32.—“Labour”, £772,000, put.

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 13th May.

I should like to draw attention to the definition of “employer” in paragraph (c) of Clause 1. It is stated here—

I raise this matter here, because this clause contains two parts. In the first place it deals with the re-employment of people who were previously in employment, and in the second place with the employment of people who were not previously in employment. This deals with a fundamental matter which we examined in the Select Committee and which we want to go into again; in other words, although we are agreed that this Bill, which only forms part of the whole programme, should make provision for the reabsorption of people who were previously in employment, we are not in favour of provision being made in this Bill for the appointment of people to positions which they did not previously occupy. I want to point out that the Minister said in the course of his statement that this Bill is only one page of a big book as far as assistance to returned soldiers is concerned. In this book the State as such assumes no responsibility for the provision of employment.

When business was suspended, I was discussing paragraph (c) of the definitions. It would seem that the hon. Minister of Labour is rather at his ease and that he thinks he is going to have a very easy passage with this Bill. He should bear in mind that this Bill did not have such an easy passage in the Select Committee; he should also bear in mind what the contribution of this side of the House was in the Select Committee in bringing before the House an improved Bill. He must not expect us to be silent and to refrain from further attemps to improve the Bill. We expected him to react to the efforts of this side to bring about improvements in the Bill. In his speech in reply to the second reading debate the Minister did not react to the suggestions which came from this side—at any rate not in a positive sense. He practically issued an ultimatum to this side. Well, I can only tell him that we do not intend to allow that ultimatum to deter us from our determination to persist with our attempt to help him to improve this Bill, since the Bill is not yet what we expect it to be. This Bill consists of two parts. The first part makes provision for the re-employment of people who enlisted for military service, to enable them to return to their former positions. There we heartily agree. But in terms of the definition of the word “employer,” as defined in the definitions, the Minister can force any employer to appoint a person who was not previously in his service. There we are going to be consistent and we are going to oppose any attempt on the part of the State to shift its one responsibility on to the shoulders of private citizens. At the end of this paragraph the following words appear—

It is not quite clear whether that only applies to paragraph (c) or whether it applies to all the previous paragraphs. Because we are opposed to giving power in this Bill to force an employer to employ a person who was not previously in his service, I want to move the following amendment—

Frankly, Sir, I am mystified.

So are we all.

I want to know what it means. If hon. members will read sub-section C it says—

The hon. member moves to delete all the words from and including “in” to “an”. At the very outset of the Bill we laid down that we shall not be able to insist upon any employer taking a quota. That is not the object of the hon. gentleman. At all events in explanation of his amendment that emerged. I am very much afraid I cannot accept it because it is cutting out what the Select Committee has already resolved upon and the Government has resolved upon and the second reading made it abundantly clear what we have resolved upon.

In connection with the definitions, we have here, inter alia, a definition of “war service.” It is defined as any service or activity, other than military service, connected with the prosecution of the war, and declared by the Minister, after consultation with the board, by notice in the Gazette, to be war service for the purposes of this Act. That is quite clear, and the definition of the word is so wide that it includes any war service which he may proclaim. One of my objections originally against this Bill was that I regarded it as the duty of the State to look after the soldiers and the war workers, where that may be necessary, but I thought that in the first instance it was the duty of the State to look after our Union subjects. Thereafter it is its duty to look after persons who are rendered unemployed owing to the re-employment of soldiers. That was my objection originally.

Apart from what?

Apart from everything. It is the State’s duty to see to it that every person in this country is able to make a living, and where anyone is rendered unemployed owing to the re-absorption of a soldier; there is a duty on the State to make provision for such a person. The Select Committee unanimously accepted that. There were representatives of all sides of the House on the Select Committee and they accepted that unanimously. As far as war service is concerned it is not confined to war services in this country. It may be any war service inside or outside this country. I therefore move—

It will then read—

In other words, those services which were used by us in this country for war services. I am conviced that the Minister cannot have any objection to this and I take it he will accept it. It only means that “war service” will mean any service within the Union. I take it that would refer to factory workers and people engaged in similar activities; and I therefore move that this amendment be brought about. I am convinced that every member in this House, irrespective of the party to which he belongs, feels that while there is a duty on the State to make provision for returned soldiers and war workers, it is also the duty of the State to make provision for our own people. After having made provision for our own people, if there is then room for people from overseas, I would raise no objection. But it should be our policy first to look after our own people, and if thereafter there is room for overseas people, then we can import them. I move this amendment because I regard it as essential. In connection with the motion of the hon. member who sits next to me, I cannot understand what objection the Minister could have to its acceptance. It seems to me he is adopting an unreasonable attitude. It should not even be necessary to discuss it.

What about our men who worked up North—in East Africa?

We had no war occupations in East Africa. The only countries where such a person could have worked are America, England or India. Those people who were up North will fall under the definition of returned soldiers. When we speak of war workers, we speak of people in industries in our own country. My hon. friend on the other side is so clever that no one can teach him, not even Wakkerstroom. We must take care of our own people. If the hon. member has a different view, well, he is entitled to it. The Minister said it was a good thing to import people, even though we may not have made provision for all our own people. That is what he said. I do not think he realised the consequences of what he was saying. The hon. member on the other side may support that view if he wants to do so. The country will judge differently.

We left the consideration of the Committee stage of this Bill over for several reasons, and one of these was to enable those members who wanted to table amendments to do so. Now if those hon. members had indicated to us the line of country they wanted to pursue we might have been able to help them in framing their amendments. Now the last amendment will cut out a number of our mechanics not in the service, but many whom we sent out to do war work. I am at one with the hon. member, I do not want to give people other than Union citizens the protection that is proposed in this Bill.

I am glad to hear it.

So if my hon. friend had been good enough to consult me, as he has often done in the past, it would have been most helpful. I suppose it slipped his memory, and there was a great deal of nervousness about Wakkerstroom and now he is in a state of exaltation—he is a little above himself. We cannot frame the amendment now, but if I give the hon. member the undertaking that I shall go into this matter and let my advisers try and frame an amendment which will confine it to Union citizens—not to Union Nationals— and thus to remove any possibility of foreigners who were not resident in the Union at the time, coming in, then we shall be able to let it go now.

I am prepared to accept the hon. Minister’s word that he will meet me in this respect, but I wondered whether it would not be better to let this clause stand over. We could then negotiate with the Department in the meantime. If I have his assurance that it will only apply to Union war workers, I would be satisfied, but I would prefer this clause to stand over. The Minister spoke of Union citizens. There were Hollanders in this country who did not want to go and fight. They took the matter to court.

In that respect I support you.

Those people now have to be given employment before our own people. Could we not let this clause stand over? If we cannot do so, I shall be satisfied with the Minister’s assurance.

I shall go further—I shall ask the hon. member to consult with the Law Advisers and see if something can be drafted which will fit in with what he wants and what I want.

I hope the Minister will not pursue a policy—which he is not in the habit of pursuing, but which others are— of always considering our opponents and pacifying our opponents. No one who was in South Africa and was accepted to fight for this country could be excluded.

There is no such question. I see my hon. friend’s point, and I am willing to do what is necessary to ensure that only such persons who are citizens of South Africa will have the benefit. The people who offered their services will be provided for in any case.

I am glad the hon. Minister gave that assurance. I fully agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). Many foreigners entered this country and managed to be absorbed in industry, whether it be war work or not, while our own sons had to go and fight, and I am definitely opposed to that. The hon. member spoke of Hollanders. I do not want to mention any specific section, but I do not approve of those people being regarded as war workers while our own sons had to go and fight.

I want to suggest to the Minister—and I hope I shall get the support of all sides of the House—that we let this clause stand over. I wish I had a camera with me; if I had I would take a photograph of the Minister.

Are you collecting a picture gallery?

I would very much like to have a photograph of the Minister on this day of all days. He looks so different. I want to ask the Minister to accept this suggestion. The hon. Minister knows that on the Select Committee, towards the end of our deliberations, we made a definite proposal in this connection. He also knows what the result of it was, and I want to ask him to be reasonable and to accept our proposal that this clause should stand over with a view to improving this specific part, as moved by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). We would then be able to reconsider it and come before the House with a unanimous proposal.

What about the Minister’s assurance?

The hon. member asks what about the Minister’s assurance. We received a number of assurances in connection with this Bill. We received an assurance in the Select Committee as far as the portion dealing with agriculture is concerned, and we had to force that statement from the Minister. The acceptance of this amendment could do no harm. The Minister now proposes, practically in the same words, that we will again consult, and when we consult on this specific point, we shall see whether we can obtain a formula on which we are agreed; and if we succeed in doing so, this will no longer present a hitch in the Bill. I want to say very clearly that we made a specific point of this question during the second reading debate, namely, that it is the duty of the State, that it is the duty of the Government, and, what is more, that it is the duty of every employer in South Africa who is a private employer, that it is the duty of the whole community after the war to make provision for employment for our own people first, before anything is done for people from overseas; and, since an important point is at stake, I hope the Minister will accept this reasonable proposal to let the clause stand over. If unanimity can be obtained, it will be unnecessary to discuss this matter further. I just want to refer to the Minister’s reply to the suggestion which I made here. I said very clearly what the object of my proposal was, and if the Minister leaves paragraph (c) as it stands, the position will be that anyone who employs a person or anyone who provides work to any person, may be subject to the fixation of the quota. That is beyond the limits of what we contemplated. I spoke clearly, and if the Minister and other members could not understand what I said, it is not my fault. It may be the fault of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I am sorry the Minister was not prepared to accept this amendment. I want to put this question to the Minister. Will he tell us in round figures what the number of people will be who will remain to be provided for by the Minister of Demobilisation and other State departments once provision has been made for all those people who were previously in employ and all the others whom he wants to place in emoloyment under this quota? Can the Minister tell me that? Then I also want to put this question. Can he give us a definite, clear definition as to where war work begins and where it ends? I find it very remarkable that there is no definition at all. Reference is made in this Bill in general terms to “employers”. I think the Minister should define that clearly. What does he contemplate? He will have to give effect to the provisions of this Bill. Which people will be provided with employment under this Bill, and how many will remain for the scheme of the Minister of Demobilisation? If he can enlighten us on these points, we may be able to understand his attitude more clearly and it may shorten the debate.

I rise to remove a misunderstanding. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) is now doubting the assurance which the Minister gave. He says the Minister gave many other assurances in the Select Committee and he asks what became of them. The Minister gave an assurance in the Select Committee that this would not be applicable to the farming community, and he affirmed that assurance by his statement in this House. It does not therefore become the hon. member to doubt the word of the Minister and to cast any doubt on the assurance which the Minister gave to the Select Committee.

I did not want to take part in this debate, but I am concerned about the Minister’s concessive attitude. The members of the Opposition are trying this afternoon to make out a strong case for the soldiers, but deep down in my heart I cannot believe that they want to defend the interests of the soldiers. I cannot help suspecting their attitude. It is no use mincing matters. We all know what the attitude of those hon. members was in the past towards the soldiers, and as a member of the Johannesburg City Council I found time and again that soldiers who went to Nationalist members of Parliament went in vain. They were driven back time and again. I cannot therefore believe that they are really so concerned about the soldiers. As far as the amendment is concerned, I want to say that there are many young men—and I have in mind one specific type—who when the war broke out were debarred, as result of certain regulations, from employment in a certain service. Take the Air Force, for example. Numbers of youngsters left the Union to join the Royal Air Force, through the medium of Rhodesia. If we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) it will mean that these youngsters will be debarred from the privileges of this Bill. In other words, South African youths will be prohibited from getting back their former positions in South Africa. And what is more, the hon. member for Swellendam speaks of “war service within the Union.”

That does not refer to military service but war service.

I am not a lawyer but I do know a little about these things. Their tactics are only too transparent. Take another case, that of flight engineers.

Why did you not enlist?

That is the old story. The hon. member is talking nonsense. It has been repeated so often that it no longer produces any effect.

Why did you not enlist?

They spoke of Springbok hides. That was when they stated that numbers of soldiers in Kazerne had returned. At that time they did not think of the interests of the soldiers. Today they are the people who want to protect the soldiers. Then there is the second type, the young South African youth who wanted to become a flight engineer and who did not have the necessary educational qualifications to join the South African Air Force. These young men went to Rhodesia and became not ordinary flight engineers but enginemen at the aerodrome. Under the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam they would be excluded. The truth of the matter is that these members plunged a large number of Afrikaners into misery and now they want to save their faces by pretending to plead for the soldiers. I hope the Minister has learned his lesson in connection with the Apprenticeship Bill and that he will not in th’s case allow his Bill to be watered down to such an extent that it may result in more harm than good to the soldiers. When a member of the Opposition speaks on behalf of the soldiers, we just do not believe him.

The hon. member who has just sat down had a great deal to say in connection with what we on this side had done for the soldiers, or rather he said that we had not done anything for them. He states that in the past we hurled accusations against the soldiers. He can come to my desk and I shall show him dozens of letters which were written to me by soldiers in connection with their troubles. In any event, we never called the soldiers “skunks in uniform.”

Mr. Blackwell did at least wear uniform.

The position is that the other side referred to the soldiers who came to us with their troubles as “skunks in uniform.” We have the greatest respect, and we have always said so, for the man who enlisted because of his convictions, but at the same time we have always said that we have little respect for the type of man we heard hear this afternoon who continually speaks about the soldiders but who remains at home. Moreover, during this Session we have acted in the interests of the soldiers. It is not the soldiers who stir up ill-feeling, but people like the hon. member who is prepared to stir up ill-feeling, but who is not prepared to stand his ground in the light of his own convictions.

Rot.

I should also like to make an appeal to the Minister. The Minister knows that we are prepared to contribute our share to whatever is done for the soldiers. Every right-thinking person who has a grain of fairness, realises that we have to take care of the returned soldiers. The Government of this country declared war, and these people answered the call which came from the Government. We must take care of them. But we must realise that after the war thousands of people will be unemployed, our own flesh and blood. There will inevitably be a setback. Our plea is that we should first make provision for our own citizens. I do not think there is really any difference between this side and the other side as far as this matter is concerned. Moreover the Minister admitted that. Since we share the same views on both sides, let us try to obtain unanimity. Why does the Minister refuse to let this clause stand over? It is not a question of lack of faith in the Minister’s word. We believe that he wants to make an honest attempt, but we do not know whether that attempt on his part will satisfy us. He may have the best of intentions, but nevertheless it may not satisfy us. We therefore ask with all due deference that this clause be allowed to stand over. Let us make an effort to get unanimity. Let us try to find a solution which will satisfy both sides.

It is unfortunate I was not consulted beforehand. It would have saved all this.

I will give you the reason for that.

I want to say to my friend the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) that he need not fear I am going to give away his case, not on your life, but my attention having been drawn to it I knew how I was going to administer it.

We can trust you, but we cannot trust them.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to say: “I trust the Minister, but I don’t trust the Opposition”? Are you prepared to say that it means we are dishonest, that is what he alleges.

This is a Bill where we want the best possible feeling brought to bear. It is a Bill that requires all our co-operative effort, and I hope we will cease wrangling on the Bill or any detail of it. Please let us discuss it in an atmosphere of goodwill towards those we are trying to benefit under the Bill. I want to assure my hon. friend that realising how I was going to administer the Bill, I naturally did not regard it as something to be enquired into too closely. What is sought to be safeguarded is where we impose on an employer, as is provided in other parts of the Bill, a quota of war workers, not soldiers, but war workers, that it shall be confined to those who were engaged in the Union’s war effort. The soldier is completely and entirely safeguarded; this is separated from it. I want to ask the hon. member, in view of the expression from that side, that there is some difficulty in trusting to my word, whether he will let me settle it now? I am going to ask the hon. member for Swellendam whether he will accept this. After “war” in line 72 in the English version to insert the words “by the Union” then it will accomplish my object, and I think it should satisfy the hon. member. It will then read as follows—

If that is satisfactory I will move it—

I tried to exnlain to this House in connection with this Bill what the attitude of the Opposition is. We know that the State has declared war constitutionally through this Parliament. We are not in favour of the war because we do not think it was in South Africa’s interests. That is what we think.

Do you still think that?

Of course we still think it. We know that in the last election the Government got a majority on that, but that does not signify that the Government is right. I have seen the minorities right more often than the majorities.

That is the case with the Labour Party.

I want the House to understand that we realise that war has been declared according to our constitution by Parliament and we realise that those people who went to fight and those who take part in war work are doing what they think is right; the State has made promises to these people and must carry them out. That is the position and we have never tried to say anything else. What we do say is this that whilst we have every respect for the man who has offered his blood and his goods and made sacrifices for something which he thinks is right, for that man we have every respect but for the people who are so loudmouthed and made no sacrifices who are prepared to sit down and allow other people to sacrifice themselves, their children, their money and their goods, we have absolute contempt. I have said in public meetings that if you are a supporter of the Government and the Government’s war policy it is your duty to go and fight and not to expect your relatives or your friends’ children to go and fight for you. I have told the people that on public platforms that very often. I want the Government to understand that as far as the soldier is concerned, the man who in fighting thinks he is doing something good, we have every respect and are prepared to assist the Government in carrying out their promises. In fact those who were in Parliament after the last war will remember that when the Nationalists took over in 1924 they had to carry out the promises that were made. They appointed a Commission to go into the quesof pensions, which Commission went right through the country. That is the position we have always taken up and for the gentleman over there to talk about honesty, what the devil does he know about honesty?

Order!

I beg your pardon. Because we don’t think the same as the gentleman over there he calls us dishonest. If he has not the brain to see the position in the same way as we do he must go his way and we will go ours. We are honest in our endeavours to do what we think is correct. I have another proposal here in connection with this because I feel that the platteland is not being done justice to, I mean the farmer. Industries change hands seldom but a farm is a different proposition, a farm may have changed hands several times during the war and you say that the new owner must be responsible for someone whom a previous owner of a farm has employed. Coloured labour on the farm is not like labour in an industry where perhaps a man has worked from his childhood. On a farm many of these people are there for only a few months and then they go away. Nevertheless I don’t want to hold up the Bill although I have an amendment in my hand.

Are you accepting this other amendment?

Yes, I am prepared to accept that. I have no objection to our soldiers and war workers getting the right they are entitled to and which they were promised. The Minister knows that in Select Committee I tried to make plain what the position was. We want to do what we think is right but hon. members on the other side say we are just hypocrites. I have taken this opportunity to say what our feelings are in connection with these people. We feel that the State should carry out its promises to the full and try and make employment for these people; not try and throw their burdens off on other people’s shoulders. Where a man was in employment he should be taken back but as the Minister told an hon. member over there, this is a very ticklish matter and you don’t want these people to be taken back for 12 months and then put on the streets again; you want them to go back for good. The moment you start quibbling about it and making restrictions, in the end these people will be on the streets again and by that time people will have forgotten about the war and have forgotten their promises. We want to make the Act workable. I want to thank the Minister for trying to meet me in the way he has and we are prepared to accept his amendment. He must not think that we are not willing to discuss these matters with him beforehand. I have been very busy this Session with Select Committees and Appointments and I have not been able to consult the Minister as I would have liked.

I cannot allow the statement made by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) to go unchallenged. I am astonished at the almost impertinence of the hon. member. The statement I wish to challenge and controvert is that the Nationalist Party gave to the soldiers what the previous Government had promised. The hon. member instanced the Commission that he said was sent through the country to give soldiers their due. That Commission, let me tell the hon. member, did this. Under the War Pensions Act any person who had an ordinary pension was entitled to have it as a permanent pension if it had been enjoyed for a period of five years.

Order, I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to go into these matters now.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to allow that statement to go …

Order, the hon. member must confine himself to the Clause or the amendment.

Sir, the Clause is a safeguard of the benefits given to soldiers. The hon. member said they support this Bill in order to implement the promises which the Government has given to soldiers and war workers and he said the Opposition were prepared to do what they did in the last war, namely implement the promises of the previous Government. He instanced the manner and method by which those promises were implemented and cited the Commission which went round the country. Sir, that Commission robbed hundreds of wounded pensioners in the last war of pensions which would automatically have been theirs if it had not been for that Commission.

In order to expedite the debate, I just want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said. The Minister will bear me out when I say that throughout the deliberations in regard to this Bill, both in the Select Committee and after the Select Committee, we have always tried to retain the necessary contact with him in order to create that spirit which is necessary for the successful execution of this very important Bill. I am very sorry that he, as well as other hon. members on the other side, tried to spoil that atmosphere. The Minister knows as well as I do what the attitude is which this side of the House put very clearly in connection with this Bill. We want to share with him the responsibility of ensuring that justice is done to the men who took part in the war. Although we were, and still are, against the war, we cannot, when this war is over, allow thousands of people to be unemployed in this country. We know that we shall inherit the aftermath of this war, and we as a section of the nation—and a very big section of the nation—who have to bear the joint responsibility of finding money in order to give effect to the provisions of this Bill, want to ensure that the best possible measure is placed on the Statute Book.

The hon. member must not discuss the principle of the Bill.

No, nor do I want to do so I am only replying to the Minister’s statement that we must keep the discussion within the limits of the spirit which should be created in order to make a success of this measure, and that we should expedite its acceptance. I can give the Minister the assurance that we will continue with the same plan which we have always had and with the efforts which we have always made with that purpose in view. We have already proved that. Since the Minister was prepared to meet us, we were only too willing to accept his amendment and not to let the clause stand over. Let me tell the Minister at once that in endeavouring to protect those people we do not want to rely solely on the assurance of a Minister who is but mortal; we want to protect them by incorporating that assurance into the provisions of this Bill. A Minister may state in this House that he is going to do this, that or the other, but tomorrow or the day after tomorrow he is no longer there, but the Act will still be on the Statute Book. It could then be given effect to, and that is why we adopt this attitude. I hope the Minister will continue with this Bill in that spirit. Where we agree with him, we shall give him our support. Where we differ from him, we shall say so clearly, and in that way we shall try to make this Bill a better Bill than it is at the present time, so that it will be effective for the purpose for which it was introduced.

I have just one question to ask the hon. member who has just sat down. He has pleaded for the Oudstryders and he has now pleaded that a soldier who is not a British subject should not come under the provisions of this clause. Would he be prepared to apply that to General Slegtkamp of Spioenkop—would he say that he should not be treated as an Oudstryder because he was a Hollander?

Since that challenge has been issued, may I just give this brief reply. It is recorded that one of the people who pleaded for special financial provision for those people was Slegtkamp of Spioenkop.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr, S. E. Warren was withdrawn.

Question put: That all the words from “in” in line 62, down to and including “and” in line 64, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—67:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet. H. C.

De Wet. P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Nækerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen. W. S.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Noes—25 :

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Serfontein negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour put and agreed to.

I just want to move the following in the definition—

Where are you now?

I am at the end of page three—the definition of “employer” on page three.

Can the hon. member tell me where that amendment comes in?

Clause 1, sub-paragraph (c) at the foot of the page.

I am sorry, I cannot accept it. I cannot go back to this clause, because the amendment of the hon. Minister has already been put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I should like to refer to sub-paragraph (1) of Clause 2. I want to point out to the Minister that in this sub-clause it is not provided that these eight members of the board must necessarily be bilingual. We on this side regard it as a matter of extreme importance that they should be bilingual. Let me mention a few reasons. During the last election this question was unanimously accepted throughout the country. All the parties were agreed that the principle of bilingualism should be given effect to in making appointments to the service. These appointments will carry remuneration, and we would like to see the principle of bilingualism maintained. It will save both time and money if it is not necessary to engage the services of an interpreter. We know that time is always wasted when the services of an interpreter have to be used. We notice that in the case of the Minister himself. It is much more pleasant if we understand one another, and for these reasons we would like to have this amendment inserted. We also have in mind the spirit of Section 137 of the Act of Union which lays down that the principle of bilingualism must be given effect to throughout the country. In view of that, I should like to move the following amendment—

It will then read—

I do not think the Minister can have any objection to that.

I hope my hon. friend will not press that. This is not possible. If he will be good enough to read the composition of the board he will see how impossible it is to do that—

1. (a) One shall be an officer, and, while the executive board of the Directorate of Demobilisation continues to exist, a member of that board;
2. (b) three shall be appointed from a list of persons nominated by such organisations as the Minister may deem qualified to represent the interests of employers, three from a list of persons nominated by such organisations as the Minister may deem qualified to represent the interests of employees, and one from a list of persons nominated by such organisations as the Minister may deem qualified to represent persons who have performed military service; provided that—
   1. (1) One of the members appointed to represent the interests of employers and one of the members appointed to represent the interests of employees shall be a person who has rendered military service.

The public officials come under the Public Service regulations and should be bilingual.

The employers and the employees nominate their own representatives. I cannot intervene.

Do you want to tell us that they have not got bilingual men?

It is their business to choose the representatives, not mine.

Tell them they must not only be soldiers but bilingual soldiers.

Supposing they decide to select a unilingual Afrikaner what are you going to say then? It is impossible for me to do the selecting.

It is not impossible in this bilingual age to ensure that the representatives are bilingual.

Of course it is impossible to tell an organisation whom they should select. I am not going to try to do it.

I only want to point out to the Minister that he on another occasion created the impression in connection with appointments that he was in favour of members of such boards being bilingual. He made a solemn statement on another occasion and here we come along with the identical principle, and now that he can incorporate that principle in the Bill, he tells us that he is powerless to do so. He prepares for having people on the board who will not be bilingual. The Minister is putting up a smoke-screen behind which he will be taking refuge. He doesn’t want to accept the responsibility. I want to point out to him that this board is going to be a very important board. Its function is going to be to decide the fate of thousands of soldiers and war workers in this country. The interests of these people can be referred back to the Board by way of appeal. There will be a lot of bilingual people among them but also unilingual English-speaking people, and there will also be unilingual Afrikaansspeaking people among them. If the Minister is really out to create the right spirit and appoint a board which will be able to attend to the interests of every section, he should see to it that all members are thoroughly proficient in both languages. I am speaking on the principle and I am also referring to the practical value of bilingualism on such a board. Any member who is not fully conversant with both languages will be in a difficult position and will not have the necessary authority to arrive at any decisions. The board will consist of only eight people who will represent the whole of the Union from the Cape to the Zambesi and yet the Minister is not prepared to say that they must be bilingual. The board is to be constituted first of all by an official of the Directorate of Demobilisation. I want to ask the Minister outright whether that official is going to be bilingual, yes or no? If the man has not yet been appointed I want to knew whether the Minister sees his way clear to appoint one who is bilingual. Anyhow so far as he is concerned he comes under the Public Service, and as a Public Servant, he will be compelled to comply with the bilingual requirements. I fail to understand the Minister. He himself is not bilingual. Does he not realise the importance of this qualification? Now that’s the one member. Why cannot he demand the same qualification in regard to the other members? The members are to be paid out of the Exchequer, and their functions will be similar to those of the paid officials of the State. Is it impossible for the Minister to appoint three bilingual members from the list of people to be nominated by organisations whom the Minister may consider qualified to represent the employers. The organisations will perhaps submit a list of 12 or 30 names, where possible. Will the Minister not be able to tell them that they must submit a list containing at least three people proficient in both official languages? What is wrong with that? Three will then have to be appointed out of a list of people nominated by organisations representing the employees. There are organisations representing the interests of people doing military service. Assuming that the whole army is doing military service, and that that is the organisation, cannot the Minister get three men out of the whole army who are proficient in both languages? Does the Minister want to tell us that that is impossible? He shouldn’t try to hide behind a smoke screen. I said on the second reading debate that a tremendous amount would depend on the spirit in which the Act was carried out. Is it not necessary, with that object in view, with the object in view of creating a good spirit that this important body which will have to deal with administration of the law should consist of men thoroughly proficient in both official languages? Nobody would then be able to point a finger at the board and say that one section was privileged more than another section owing to the one section being better represented than the other. Does the Minister really want to create the right spirit in regard to the application of the law? If he does he must appoint bilingual people. If he gives us the assurance that that will be done, as he has done in another case, we shall say no more about it. We are not pleading the interests of one section only, we are pleading the interests of the whole community. Let me say clearly that if the Minister carries out his wishes in the way he apparently wants to do now, there will not be a single individual on that Board who doesn’t know English, but there will be people on it who do not know Afrikaans, and if that is the case the constitution of the Board will be unbalanced as between the two sections of the population. It is because we don’t want that, it is because we want a Board which will be able to provide for the needs of both sections of the population that we move this amendment. It is essential for the members to be bilingual if they want to be able to decide on the matters which will come before them. I ask the Minister with all due deference to accept my suggestion in the interests of the whole population.

The attitude of certain Ministers on the Government benches is really most disappointing. Let me ask the Minister frankly whether he realises the impossible position in which he himself is with an interpreter next to him. Does he not feel that he would be willing to give thousands of pounds to know the Afrikaans language? He continually has to have an interpreter next to him. Now, does he want to place other people in the same unfortunate position in which he is himself? One asks oneself whether some people are never going to learn anything in all their lives? Are they honest? They get up and they proclaim to the whole world that the country must be bilingual, but when it comes to the appointment of such an important Board which has to serve both sections of the population, then they are not prepared to appoint bilingual people. Are we not entitled in those circumstances to ask whether they are honest? Will the Minister tell me that in the soldiers’ organisations there are no bilingual people who are competent to be appointed? If he says a thing like that he will insult the soldiers, and he will insult the organisations if he tells them that they haven’t got the necessary bilingual people from whom to make their selections. But as the Minister has a provision in this Bill about organisations of employers we should like him to tell us what type of organisations he is going to take into consideration. I can come to one conclusion only, with the experience I have of this House, and that is that the Minister has actually selected the people whom he wants to put on this Board. Even now he has a number of people in his mind, people whom he has selected, and whom he has told that they are going to be appointed.

How can that be possible if the organisations have to nominate them?

One man is an official—so long as the Directorate of Demobilisation remains. The Minister has a man in mind. He has not yet made an official appointment, but he has him in mind. Just as unpleasant as it is to the Minister and his party to see us get up here from time to time and demand that bilingualism should be applied in practice, just as strongly as he resents our doing this, just as sick and tired are we on this side of finding it necessary from time to time to do it. I want to ask him for heaven’s sake to remove all this hypocrisy out of political life. If we are all in favour of bilingualism, as hon. members opposite pretend, there is only one way of attaining it, and that is by applying it in practice. That is all we are asking for and no more.

I would appeal to the Opposition. Are they being fair to the Minister by insisting that the Minister should insist that all appointments to the Board should be bilingual? These are not civil servants that he intends appointing and they are not going to put their full time into this work. I appeal to the Opposition not to insist upon all these Board appointments being bilingual. The Minister has to go along to these different organisations and I think it will be absolutely wrong if he were obliged to put terms down for them. It would look like a breach of faith to ask these people to nominate people and then tag certain qualifications on them.

Must they be Union nationals?

Of course they will be Union nationals. These are not civil servants that the Minister is going to appoint and I do feel that the Opposition should really not press this. I do not think he can go along to these different bodies and demand that.

Why not?

I have said before and I have been trying to be convincing, that I feel that these bodies would object to being tied down. The Minister shows in Clause 8 his sincerity and there insists that all inspectors who are appointed on to the staff must be bilingual. These inspectors will be civil servants.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t think it is a fair proposition to insist that the members of this Board shall be bilingual. Take the case of Natal where Afrikaans is very little spoken and where you have a very large mass of employers and a much larger mass of soldiers. You may have a man there who has outstanding qualifications for service on this Board a man who has been nominated by employers and employees alike but he will be barred and deprived of his opportunity of giving service simply because he is unilingual. I think the Opposition should support the Minister in his attitude towards the appointment of these representatives. After all some of the best men may be purely Afrikaans-speaking or purely English-speaking. This thing will cut both ways and their other qualifications may be everything that is desired for the discharge of these duties.

It often strikes me as very strange that when hon. members on this side of the House get up and make a reasonable request, hon. members opposite get up and oppose them and put forward arguments such as we have heard from the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) to the effect that if we exclude unilingual people, we are excluding the most competent people. The hon. member opposite wants bilingual people appointed only in such places where they come in contact with the public. Hon. members when they speak here take up that attitude every time we advocate the appointment of people who speak both languages, but when they go to the country they tell the public that they stand for a policy of fifty-fifty. Yet when we ask the Minister to appoint bilingual people we are faced with this type of argument that unilingual men are more competent. If the Minister is honest, and if he means well by the people of South Africa, he should accept the amendment. It is a very fair amendment, and it doesn’t demand too much. All we are asking for is that the members of this board shall be bilingual and I want again to appeal to the Minister to listen to our request, to be honest in this regard, and to comply with our demands.

It is peculiar to me that in this year 1944 we should still have to appeal for bilingual boards. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) said that it would be an insult to the different organisations if we laid down the condition that they must nominate bilingual people. How can it be an insult to make such a condition, when other conditions are already laid down? Does the Minister realise the hopeless inconvenience he is going to cause to people who have to go to this board to have an appeal heard? There are thousands of our soldiers who are not so fully bilingual that they can express themselves fluently in both languages. Say a man like that has a case before the Appeal Board, and the Appeal Board is not entirely bilingual—what is going to be the result? We can take it for granted that some of the members will be English unilingual, and the result will be that the soldier will have to put forward his case in English. He at once finds himself in difficulties because, with the best will in the world, he cannot express himself fluently in English, and he finds it impossible to explain what he wants clearly in English. We are not putting this forward in a carping spirit— that is not the spirit which animates us in asking that such boards should be bilingual. We know from experience that if a man has to use a language, before such a board, in which he cannot express himself fluently, he is at once at a disadvantage because he cannot explain his case as well as he would like to. This board will have to deal with people almost daily who have only got an ordinary average amount of knowledge and education—people who cannot express themselves fluently in both official languages—and we are going to place those people in an impossible position. As this Bill provides for the appointment of a board, we want to know why we cannot include a provision which lays down that the members of the board must be bilingual, in view of the fact that those people will have to render services to the public and will come in contact with the public. We realise that there may be parts of the country where there is a possibility of such a provision causing difficulties. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) said it would be difficult in Natal to get bilingual people. According to the statistics, however, we find that Natal is 30 per cent. bilingual, and we shall therefore be able to get bilingually proficient men there. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister not merely to concede our request just for the sake of making a concession and to get the Bill passed through the House more easily, but because it is necessary to do justice to all those who are concerned in this matter. The Minister himself knows how difficult it is to do justice to your case if you have to submit your case in a language which you cannot speak fluently. We ask him to accept this amendment in order to do justice to all who appear before the Board, and justice cannot be done if the members of the Board are not all properly bilingual.

Mr. Chairman, I am much more concerned about another aspect of this Board than about the language qualification of its members. I am concerned about their ability to represent the interests of all the sections of the army and war workers, and I should like to get some guarantee that this will be the case. I am, of course, thinking particularly of that large section of the army derived from the native population; and I am doubtful of the capacity of a Board constituted as this one is to give it the interest and representation it needs. In terms of this clause of the Bill the personnel of the Board is to be drawn from representatives of employers and employees, but of a Board of eight, at least four will be soldiers, of whom one each will be drawn from the nominees of these two groups, which leaves employers and employees only two representatives to represent their industrial interests. My concern is with the possibility that the employees’ representatives will be much more concerned with the organised workers than with the unorganised workers. I think that will be a natural tendency on their part. That is why I am anxious about a place on this Board for a representative of the interests of the group that we here are representing and who are among the unorganised workers. I would like to suggest what I am afraid the Minister will not accept, that the members of the Board should be increased to nine, and that the ninth member of the Board shall be a person who will represent the interests of the African soldiers, who are members of a class which are excluded from workers’ organisations. There is a special justification for this plea on behalf of the African workers, in that they are excluded from any identification with other workers in workers’ organisations It may be said that I am sectionalising this Board which is designed to look after the interests of all sections, but my point is that the Africans are unorganised, and therefore nominations which are asked for from other bodies representing employees are unlikely to provide for them. I know that if the composition of the Board remains as it is, the Minister can and no doubt will call for nomination of employees from organisations that represent African workers as well as from other organisations. I believe his intention is good enough to do that. But I am merely suggesting to him that the organised workers will feel that to the extent to which there is any reality in that invitation to the representatives of Africans to nominate to the Board, they themselves will be being deprived of adequate representation. The employers are not called upon to recognise this sectionalisation and the employees will probably resent the suggestion that they should give up one of their seats on the Board to one set of workers, even though it be one which is not represented by them and for whom they do not speak. It is on that line that I would ask the Minister if he will not even now consider adding this one member to this Board for this section of workers—who represent a very large section of the army. The African population did turn out in very considerable numbers to serve the country on this occasion. I have no doubt that both this Board and the Demobilisation Board intend to do the right thing by the African soldiers, but I want to see that their interests are kept in the foreground when matters affecting them are under consideration and it is for that reason that I suggest that the Minister might make this concession.

The hon. member knows quite well that the history of this Bill is a long and varied one. She knows very well that we have had at least half a dozen conferences on this Bill. She herself was present at two …

One.

I thought it was two. We have had conferences with the Trade Unions, and we have had conferences twice with the Advisory Board and it was the second time when my hon. friend was there. She knows that this is the maximum and minimum of balance which could be obtained by all that discussion. Since it has come into the House we have had it before the Select Committee. That Select Committee has vetted it and has vetted it admirably and it is almost impossible for us to start introducing something fresh, something new, something which will unbalance something which is regarded as a balanced Board. She is correct when she says that I shall also have in view native representation—mind you, not of the natives …

That is better.

I don’t want my hon. lady friend to go away under the impression that I shall call for native representation, but representation for the natives, and of course I would have to call on native organisations to nominate some Europeans.

That wouldn’t be necessary, the officers are all Europeans.

It doesn’t follow that they have to be officers of native battalions,

But they can be.

Of course they can be, but it doesn’t mean they have to be. What the hon. the lady member for Cape Eastern is desiring is that there shall be a direct representative of the natives on the Board.

Yes, that is so.

Well, it may be an officer and it may not be an officer. It may be someone who has been engaged in the ordinary work of organisation for natives and of natives. It may be someone like Douglas Buchanan who has been keenly interested in pushing the claims of natives for what they regard as a place in the sun. It may be anyone, not necessarily the officers, because the hon. lady member has not asked for a soldiers’ representative; she has asked for a natives’ representative on this Board; because of her particular interest in the natives generally I feel that I must give consideration to what she has asked for—I feel that the claim of native soldiers and native war workers must not be forgotten. But I cannot accept the suggestion that I should increase the numbers. I should have to go to all these bodies again and explain why I have to do this. I would rather my hon. lady friend would do that.

I would not mind.

I don’t think it is practicable to do it.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister’s sense of fair play. Surely our laws lay it down definitely that the principle of bilingualism is to be maintained.

May I interrupt the hon. member? If he will look at what the Bill says later on he will see that where I am personally responsible for the appointment I have made it compulsory.

Well, surely the Minister is the head of the Department and it depends on him. The appointment he makes is final. I say that bilingualism is laid down by the Act of Union, and that being so I want to know why it is not given effect to. I say that if the Minister does not believe that our legislation lays down bilingualism, then we and the country have been given the impression that there is a gentlemarl’s agreement to the effect that bilingualism will be maintained. And if that is not carried out, then it is understandable that this sde of the House will be detrimentally affected. If the Minister is to appoint the eight members to that Board, and if he appoints one single member who is not bilingual, what is going to be the result? What is the natural result? It will mean this that for the sake of the one unilingual person the whole procedure is changed. Assuming the unilingual member does not know Afrikaans, the other seven members will have to give in, and for the sake of etiquette the whole procedure will have to take place in English. Is that fair? If the Opposition were to appoint those members, and if they were to appoint seven bilingual members and one unilingual member …

That would make eight.

… and one unilingual member, what would we do? For the sake of etiquette the Opposition on that Board would use the language of the one unilingual English-speaking person in order to meet his convenience. Is it not so?

Yes.

Is it fair?

It has been so all our lives.

The minutes are kept in English, and the proceedings take place in English for the sake of the one unilingual member. Is it fair to ourselves? This is a bilingual country. I say it is very unfair and very unjust. It is in conflict with the general principle that we should have bilingualism in this country.

Let us be fair to each other. We want to be fair, and we want to go out of our way to meet both sections, particularly in this instance. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that a very large percentage of the men at the front are Afrikaans-speaking. If we go into details we find that two-thirds of the soldiers at the front are Afrikaans-speaking and onethird English-speaking. Many of those soldiers are not bilingual. Not all of the Afrikaners are bilingual. And now they are coming back. They come before a Board where the proceedings are conducted in English, perhaps for the sake of the one unilingual member of the Board. Is that sort of thing fair to the Afrikaans-speaking soldier who knows only one language? I say that we want to meet the Minister, but we very courteously ask him, even though he is not bilingual, to concede our request; he realises the difficulties connected with unilingualism, and we therefore ask him not to insist on his having the rght to appoint people who know only one language. Several hon. members have said that the very best men may possibly know only one language. I don’t believe it. I believe that the best talents in this country are bilingual. It is self-evident. The man who can speak only one language is unilingual. Is it not so? It is one’s talent, it is one’s ability which enables one to become bilingual. Natal has that ability. The Cape Province has this bilingual talent. The Transvaal and the Free State have those talents. We are not insisting on the Board consisting of half Afrikaans-speaking and half English-speaking. Give us eight English-speaking people, but give us eight English-speaking Afrikaners who are bilingual. Then we shall have no objection.

Are we not to have any representation then?

The Minister can do what he likes, but is he fairly meeting both sides of this House? Is he fairly meeting the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking sections. We want to be generous, but we are pleading with the Minister not to push the responsibility off his shoulders and not to say that he has nothing to do with the appointments. He makes the appointments; he is responsible for his Department; and we are not going to level any criticism against the individual making the appointments. He, and he only, is responsible to us. I am making an appeal to the Minister to meet us. The day will come when he, too, will plead this self-same principle of bilingualism, and I can assure him that he will never get the opportunity of having to come and plead with this side of the House for bilingualism. We shall realise our duty out of respect for the English-speaking section, and we shall let both languages have their due. Surely we have sufficient talents; our English-speaking friends are not so poor and so inferior as to say that there are not very many among them able to speak the second language. [Time limit.]

I am really astounded. The other day I was under the impression that as far as the Minister is concerned bilingualism was an accomplished fact and that the members of boards to be appointed would be bilingual. I have not yet taken part in the debate on this Bill. Other hon. members have scrutinised it and we have effected several improvements. As the Minister is now taking up such an extraordinary attitude with regard to bilingualism I am compelled to support the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink). The Ministersaid that so far as he, personally, was concerned, he would see to it that where he had to make appointments, bilingual people would be appointed, but, he added, he could not tell the trade unions and other organisations that they were to nominate bilingual people. That immediately creates the suspicion that he will be prepared to appoint unilingual individuals to the board. It is a pity that we have to take up the time of the House, but this is a serious matter and we ask the Minister to accept this reasonable amendment. I would be the last to trample on the language rights of English-speaking people. I stand for both languages being recognised in the Public Service and in any institution paid by the State. This is an important Bill and we have been spending days on it to get it into such shape as to make it acceptable to both sides of the House. Here we have an important point and the Minister refuses. The board will have to listen to the complaints of English-speaking and Afrikaans speaking people, and I cannot understand how the Minister can defend the appointment of unilingual people. Surely the Minister cannot contend that the soldiers’ organisations or trade unions have not got competent people who know both languages well enough to serve on the board? If the Minister has not got the idea in his mind that he wants to appoint unilingual people I do not believe that he can refuse the amendment. This is a serious matter so far as we are concerned. We do not know what other arguments we can use to induce the Minister. We do not want to take up the time of the House. We only ask that the members before whom these men and women will have to appear will be able to listen to them without the assistance of interpreters.

If the hon. the Minister will only be kind enough to meet our reasonable request, there will be no necessity to discuss the matter any further.

You know that I cannot meet your request. I do not appoint the members.

If the Minister would show us his goodwill he wouldn’t hesitate to comply with our reasonable request. It would help the Minister a lot to insert this provision in the law, it would strengthen his hands. He would get a list of names before him from which he would have to chose and he would know that he would have to select bilingual people, and the people drafting the list would know that bilingual people would be selected. Surely this is logical—he would strengthen his own position. The Minister asks for our help and co-operation and we offer it to him; but unless we co-operate on his conditions, he doesn’t want to co-operate. Surely it is advisable to co-operate, it is advisable to discuss things together, and it is advisable to stand together when one goes to war, and we want to say emphatically that we are dealing here with a great question of principle. We are not just asking for Afrikaans-speaking people or for English-speaking people, but for bilingual people. We have reached the stage in this country when we don’t want to beg for bilingualism. It should be an accomplised fact. Every time a measure comes before us where a board has to be appointed, we are going to fight to the last ditch to get bilingual people appointed. The Government pays the people and he who pays the piper may call the tune. The man who pays will have the right to demand what he wants. The taxpayer has the right to demand that he shall be fully represented and not just half represented. If there are two members on such a board who are not bilingual then for their sake everything has to be done in the language of those two people and everything has to be translated into their language. Surely there are Afrikaans-speaking people who have gone to the front and have done work for the Government.

But surely that’s not the point one should raise?

Has the hon. member strayed so far from the right course that he fails to see the reasonableness of this proposal. I have never yet met a man whose ideas are so distorted, and whose thoughts are so misplaced as the hon. member. The Minister asks for co-operation. We are willing to co-operate. We feel we owe it to those people and we are going to do our duty in an honourable manner. The Minister is not going to get any rest until he complies with the fair and reasonable demands of the Afrikaans-speaking section. For more than a third of a century the battle for bilingualism has been carried on on the floor this House. We always get fine and sweet words from the other side in which they tell us that they also stand for bilingualism, but when it means doing something, that is the end of it. Every time we have to come and beg and plead. We are Afrikaans-speaking men and want to be met on a basis of equality. We don’t want to stand below anybody else—we don’t want to be a step lower than others—we don’t want to look up to others and we want to have the opportunity of using our own language. We don’t want the Afrikaans-speaking section to have to use another language to get their rights, or to get favours. We want to be treated on a basis of equality and we don’t want to have to look up to anyone as being superior to us. Surely the Minister should realise that a unilingual man will act as a break on the committee’s work. If one man doesn’t understand the language everything will have to be translated for him which will mean considerable delay and expense. He will be a burden and not an asset to the Committee. Surely the Minister has the right to choose when names are submitted to him. He can appoint bilingual people and if it is provided for in the Act it will be a guide for those who have to frame the lists in accordance with the provisions laid down by our legislators, the Parliament of this country. We appeal to the Minister to meet us here and to cultivate a good spirit throughout the country.

You first of all demand and then you come with a courteous request.

The hon. member should keep quiet. I want to ask the Minister for the sake of goodwill and co-operation to comply with our reasonable requests.

When the amendment was introduced, I honestly did not think this non-contentious question was going to cause such a debate. But the whole thing depends on how stubborn or unreasonable the Minister is going to be, or what concessions he is prepared to make. It seems to me that he is not prepared to give way at all. This Bill provides for the appointment of a Board, and if it is also provided that members of such a Board must be bilingual, the organisations which will have to nominate the people from whom the Minister has to make his selections, will feel compelled to nominate bilingual people, because if only bilingual people are nominated the Minister will have to select the people he considers most suitable to represent those organisations. The chairman will be bilingual, because he is an official. Of the others, two will represent the employers, and they, of course, will be nominated by the Chamber of Industries or the Chamber of Commerce, or possibly by the farmers’ associations. Are there no people on these bodies who are bilingual? Cannot they select bilingual men from their membership? The Minister in his introductory remarks referred to the Chamber of Mines and to the Chamber of Industries, and I expect that he is going to select people belonging to those organisations. So far as the employees are concerned, he will, of course, consult the Trade Unions. There are hundreds of Afrikaans-speaking people who are members of the Trade Unions. Then we come to the representative of the soldiers. I noticed that in his introductory remarks the Minister only mentioned the names of the English-speaking bodies, such as the M.O.T.H.S., the B.E.S.L., the S.O.E., and the W.A.A.F.S. Why did he not refer to the Afrikaans-speaking organisations as well? We have liaison committees in our towns and villages; there is the Reddingsdaadbond and we have the Farmers’ Associations.

And the Broerderbond.

We also have the Tobacco Corporation of which the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is a member. These are all bodies comprising employers and employees among their members, and it should be possible for the Minister to get bilingual people among them. We want to put up a special plea on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking men and women in the army. Among them there are numbers who speak Afrikaans only, and if a person like that has to submit his or her case to the Board and is not allowed to do so in his or her own language, it means using the services of an interpreter. On the one hand, that person will be afraid of the Board adopting an unsympathetic attitude towards him; and, on the other hand, it creates a sense of inferiority in him towards the Board. The result will be that his case will not be put as it should be put.

There should be no interpreter.

No, there should be no interpreter, and, in addition, it would save expense. Where is the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) now? Why does he not stand up on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking people of Johannesburg West? He is keeping perfectly quiet now. Take the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet). A good many of the coloured people in his constituency cannot speak English.

They speak Afrikaans just as well as you do.

I say that they cannot speak English. I know that they understand Afrikaans as well as I do. Why should those people be compelled to have an interpreter? Those hon. members are failing in their duty. Why we feel that there should be a bilingual Board is because we want everyone to be able to submit his or her case in his or her own language without having to resort to an interpreter, because if one has to speak through an interpreter one cannot really express one’s feelings. I want to emphasise strongly that the Minister should reconsider this matter, and that he should accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that an arrangement has been come to with the other side to report progress in order that the House may consider the second report of the Public Accounts Committee. In view of that I am bound now to move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :

That the Chairman report progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 13th May.

I move—

As Chairman of this Committee and on behalf of its members, I wish to thank the Government for giving us this opportunity of discussing this report on war expenses. As you are aware, it has been said in this House from time to time that reports of this Committee very often never get printed during the Parliamentary session in which they are prepared, and by the following year, of course, a great deal of interest in these reports has disappeared. In this session, Sir, my Opposition friends asked that the Government should give consideration to the report before we adjourn, and we thank the Government for giving us this opportunity. I would like to say that so far as the work of the Committee is concerned we have considered the matters brought before us in no Party spirit, but as Parliamentarians seeking to carry out our duty to Parliament and the people of this country. And, Sir, you will find perhaps as a result of that decision that the report presented now to the Bouse is an absolutely unanimous report, every resolution has behind it the unanimous support of the members of that Committee. As you know, Sir, on that Committee both the Government and Opposition sides, the Labour Party and the Dominion Party were represented. The Native Representatives, I think, were riot able to attend. This report comes before the House as a unanimous report. Altogether there are 17 resolutions in this second report which covers war expenses alone and has nothing to do with the ordinary revenue accounts of the country. These 17 resolutions may be divided into four, sections. First, criticism of actions taken by Government Departments and suggestions to remedy matters in certain respects in the future. Secondly, it deals with recommandations reviewing prices paid for stores and certain defence works. Thirdly, it refers to recommendations for facilitating future business of the State and recognising staff difficulties. The fourth section refers to the financing of contracts. Now, Sir, the criticisms under number one are pretty severe. We have found as a committee that a lot needs to be done in tightening up the machinery, particularly in terms of requirements of Government regulations. It is only fair to point out, Mr. Speaker, that many important officers in the army today have been put into their jobs because of certain qualifications, but those qualifications may not be suited for the specific job to which the man is appointed. For example you may have a splendid engineer who becomes an Ordnançe Officer and he may be just the opposite in that capacity. In circumstances of that kind it will be recognised that the Defence Department has had very great difficulties. I think I will just link this up with the third section of these resolution. The constructive criticisms of the committee will be found around this question of shortage of staff, shortage of man-power. It is very remarkable to see that practically in every respect where our war effort has not been 100 per cent. perfect, it has been because of shortage of man-power. Your committee draws very particular attention to this. Most of you will have read the evidence given by the Secretary for Finance. We have found, Sir, that in its desire to have as many men as possible at the front fighting, the General Staff, shall we say, have not been so much concerned with having the best possible men put into, say, the Pay Department. This is a matter which has come before this House before. We have found that in connection with the soldiers’ pay and allowances to soldiers’ wives—where you have got into difficulties, these difficulties have to a very large extent been brought about by a shortage of staff. That department of the army has been doing all it possibly can to improve the position but it is still far from satisfactory. Your committee has investigated the matter, has had responsible officers before it and in particular has made an appeal to the Adjutant General to see what he can do in this regard. Another department that is closely linked up with the Defence Department is the Pensions Department where on the release of soldiers on pension an enormous amount of work will have to be dorie, and the staff of that department is far smaller than it should be, and in all respects it would appear that shortage of staff is one of the biggest difficulties which we have in our army, and great stress has been laid on that by your committee. Even on the staff of the Auditor-General himself there is a serious shortage. Nothing caused your committee more grave misgiving that when we found that certain audits had not been made because of the fact that the Auditor-General did not have the staff to start on these audits, and your committee cannot bring too strongly before this House the serious position which has arisen because of these facts. Now going on to No. 2 of our recommendations, I want to say that in reviewing the prices paid by the Defence Department I think the committee generally, is extremely impressed with the keenness of the buying department of the Defence Department to buy its goods and services at the best possible price. I am speaking per sonally as a business man, and I say that we have found a keenness and alertness which has been very gratifying. Mistakes have been made. We have found things done which should not have been done, but at the same time we should realise the colossal scale of the purchases and expenditure of the department in a time of very great difficulty, so far as the obtaining of commodities and services were concerned. We have criticised only specifically. I would just like to say here that when we come to criticise contractors we have not in any case called a single contractor before the Committee. That may be, I think it is, a weakness, in the case we put up. We have all the evidence collected by the various departments concerned. We have the evidence of documents, we have the evidence of audits made, the evidence of very searching analysis of figures, and on that evidence we have made out our case, but in no single instance have we called in one of the contractors whom we criticised. In this regard representations have already been made to me by the Liaison Officer of the Director-General of Supplies. Criticisms are made in our report about the price of cigarettes, and just to give a lead to the House I want to say how careful we should be in examining figures, and how we should endeavour to be fair and authoritative in the statements we make. The other day an opportunity was taken on the Excise Bill by some hon. members to make reference to this report, and there some figures were misquoted, badly misquoted, and the Liaison Officer has asked me to bring to the notice of this House instances where very grave misstatements were made with regard to certain figures. It was said, for example, with regard to the price of cigarettes, that too much was being charged for these cigarettes. It is pointed out by the Liaison Officer that there are three stages of Cigarette purchases. When the war broke out tenders were called for cigarettes. The quantity required was not very large, and the prices tendered were accepted by the Department. Later on when the demand for cigarettes increased the responsible Purchasing Officer made representations to the suppliers and asked for a reduction in the price largely because of the increased quantities that were asked for. The tobacco companies, particularly the two companies referred to in criticism in this House, immediately said that they were willing to accept a lesser price, and they made a concession of 2s. per thousand on the cigarettes supplied. For the time being that seemed to satisfy the Purchasing Department. Later on there was set up in the organisation of Army Purchases a price control section; and when that section took over it started to buy requirements on a basis, not altogether so, but for the most part, on a cost-plus basis. With regard to the purchases of cigarettes it agreed that an investigation should be made into the costs, and whatever the costs revealed were, the purchase price would be cost plus 10 per cent. That was applied all round among the manufacturers. Later on it was decided to reduce the percentage from 10 to 7½ per cent. And there your Committee criticised the Purchasing Department; in so far as two firms were concerned, 7½ per cent. was not made applicable to them till many months after it had been made applicable to other firms. The Liaison Officer wishes me to point out to the House that he has received communications from these manufacturers in which it is said that until this matter was discussed by the Public Accounts Committee, the United Tobacco Company had no knowledge that it had received for a period more favourable terms than its competitors, and immediately and voluntarily it agreed to refund the difference between 7½ per cent. and 10 per cent. Time has not yet allowed a computation of the refund which will be made to the Government, but it is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of £5,000. It is only fair to make that statement. The company knew nothing of this differentiation. The Director-General of Supplies said that this differentiation was justified, but when it was pointed out to his department that the view being held was contrary to that held by the Public Accounts Committee, the Director-General immediately conceded the point of the Public Accounts Committee and communicated that fact to the companies with this result. So I think we should be fair to these companies. These are two in number, the United Tobacco and a subsidiary company. For the first period they supplied us with their commodity on a tender basis. In the second period they got 10 per cent. profit on cost, the same as other companies, and in the third period, when other companies were only getting 7½ per cent. they, enjoyed 10 per cent. for a time, but immediately they heard of what had happened they came forward and offered to pay the difference to the Government: because they desired to have no differentiation or no favours of any kind. Now, it has also been stated in this House that the difference at what the Army is buying cigarettes and what the public has to pay for cigarettes is so great that it can be clearly said that the tobacco companies havé been enjoying not only large profits, but excessive ones. In support of that statement, the hon. member for Geoi-ge (Mr. Werth) the other day mentioned that 9s. 8d. was being charged for certain brands of cigarettes in the Defence Department, and that the public for the same cigarettes were paying something like 40s. The great difference, of course, is made up by the amount of money which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance takes from the tobacco companies. As a matter of fact, it appears from the evidence that we smoke something like, 25 per cent. of tobacco and say 75 per cent.—no, not quite as much as that—say 60 per cent. of taxes. So that when you smoke your next cigarette remember that the tobacco manufacturers get about 25 per cent. and the Minister of Finance about 60 per cent. of its price.

You should give some further figures there.

It would appear that I ought to give some more figures. There are various brands of cigarettes.

What brand are you quoting?

I am quoting the cigarette, the unstamped cost price of which is 9s. 4d. Freight, selling and advertising expenses come to 2s. 8d. That 2s. 8d. is not allowed by the Price Controller. The Defence Department refuses to pay that. Now, stamp duties and total cost come to 22s. 2d. That gives you a price of 34s. 2d. per thousand. Then the difference between 34s. 2d. and 45s. goes to the wholesaler and the retailer. The manufacturer does not get any profit from these latter sources whatever. He doesn’t wholesale his cigarettes, he doesn’t retail them. Fortheir services the wholesalers get a profit, and the retailers get a profit, making up the differences. And it will be seen in these circumstances that the profits which my hon. friend for George said were made out of the tobacco business, and particularly the cigarette trade, are nothing what he thought they were. Now, this doesn’t alter this fact at all that undoubtedly in the period where the contract was by tender a great deal more was paid for cigarettes than was subsequently paid under the arrangement of cost, plus profit. From the evidence put before it the committee felt that the company should be approached, though we had no legal standing in the matter. We accepted those tenders of these companies. They supplied us according to contract. And the difference between a tender contract and a cost-plus contract is this, that a tender contract accepts all responsibility if anything happens. If costs go up, either prices or wages, the tenderer has to supply at tender price; whereas in a cost-plus contract those fluctuations are reflected in the cost, and the manufacturer is relieved of all risk; he has no responsibility in the event of fluctuations in price. I think it is only right and fair that this statement should be made, and I believe the member for George (Mr. Werth) was under a misapprehension—I can quite understand him being under a misapprehension—because these figures are very difficult to follow at times, and the evidence had to be studied over a long period of time. I hope he agrees that the statement I have made is one fair to all parties, and that when a subsequent opportunity offers he will agree that that is so. I do not think at this stage I will say more. We naturally, as a committee feel that taken by and large the work that has been done by the Defence Department is an amazing piece of work; here is no doubt about that at all. When we think of our Defence Department starting from scratch, getting volunteers, having to take the men available with such experience as they had for their requirements, when we think of this army of ours growing from nothing at all to an army such as we have today, in face of all those difficulties I think that as chairman of this committee I would be wanting in my duty if I did not say how impressed on the whole the committee has been with the services rendered by those volunteers to the army in the time of the country’s greatest need. They have done a magnificent job of work. The things we criticise are matters that must be put right. Your committee really is Parliament itself. I should say that the chief function of Parliament after all is said and done, is to exercise a rigorous control over the State finances. That is perhaps after all Parliament’s outstanding function, and this committee of yours has been acting fór Parliament itself in this sphere, and it will be understood that as custodians of the public purse we must—if you like to call it that—show our teeth. The hon. member for George told us the other day that we were the country’s watch dogs. Well, Sir, I think we have barked; I think we have shown our teeth; I think that we have even here and there given a bite, but I take it that the department concerned will understand that we are trying to do our duty just as they have tried to do their duty, in ensuring that the best interests of the country are being served.

The most miraculous things are happening today. This morning we had the wonderful news about Wakkerstroom, and we know that what Wakkerstroom says today, South Africa will say tomorrow. It happened in 1924, and history is going to repeat itself in 1944. That is the wonderful thing which happened today. And this afternoon we have this further miracle that I get up to associate myself with most of what the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) said, viz., to recommend very strongly that the House adopt the resolutions and recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The hon. member first of all thanked the Government for giving the House an opportunity of discussing the report. I sincerely wish to associate myself with him. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister made us a promise that an opportunity would be provided to discuss the report, and that promise is now being given effect to. The hon. member for Vasco further mentioned the very fine spirit of co-operation which prevailed on the Select Committee. I am very pleased to be able to testify to that, too. I believe I have served on the Select Committee on Public Accounts, with intervals, since 1920, but I have never before worked so pleasantly, and I have never before felt so strongly that the Committee was able to do useful work. The reason is—and members of the Opposition have felt so throughout—that there was no question, on the part of Government members of the committee, of trying to cover up anything or to hide anything. The moment we felt that we were dealing with an irregularity they were just as keen on tracing the irregularity, and I particularly want to mention the devotion and zeal shown by Government members in this respect, and I want especially to mention the name of the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). The hearty spirit of co-operation was to a large extent due to the able and impartial guidance of the Chairman. The hon. member for Vasco. It is impossible in the short space of time at our disposal to deal with all the resolutions contained in the report. I can only touch on them here and there, and try and give the House a bird’s eve view of what appears in the report. First of all, let me say that I am pleased that we havé before us a unanimous report of the committee; in other words, both sides of the House are thoroughly in agreement on this point, and if hon. members read the report they will see there that the Government is accused of three things, and I wish to deal with each of these charges. The first charge made in the report is the bad organisation of man-power in the Army and in the country. If you have a proner organisation of man-power, the Government sees to it that every man is used where he can render the most effective service. We have had highly placed officials before us, men in the service of the State; the hon. member for Vasco has already referred to the statement of the Secretary for Finance, which I feel compelled again to bring to the notice of the House. He said that the organisation of manpower in the country was so bad that while many divisions of the Army contain men who were bored stiff, other divisions of the Army were suffering as a result of lack of manpower. The words of the Secretary for Finance constitute a sharp condemnation of the way our manpower is employed, and unless the Government takes immediate steps in the matter it will stand condemned before the people of this country. This is what the Secretary for Finance said—

If our manpower is so badly distributed it means that the State suffers financial as well as other serious damage. At one place they sit and do nothing and are bored stiff, while elsewhere they are badly needed. I want to mention a number of branches where serious losses are suffered in consequence, and particularly the paymaster’s branch. This is a question I have mentioned here on previous occasions, and Col. Kearney in this report has something to say about it on Page 77. I am glad the Government has given him well-deserved promotion. He is a man who has earned his promotion. He has been promoted to brigadier. Col. Kearney in his remarks refers to the unsound condition of affairs which prevails in the Army. He states very clearly that of the 90,000 accounts which were not in proper order when he took over they had succeeded in reconstituting only 36.000 and he said there were still 54.000 left which were not in proper order and if demobilisation should come about soon, we would immediately get the same condition of chaos as we had when war broke out. When the chief of the Paymaster’s branch makes such a statement, the position is serious. We know that when war broke out there was a state of chaos because the war caught us unexpectedly, but here we find that Brigadier Kearnev says unless the Government does something, we shall, if demobilisation starts soon, find ourselves in the same state of chaos. Now mv question to the Government is this. He savs that he needs between 300 and 400 men and I want to know whether the Government is going to put these men at his disposal. The pay branch is part of the military machine. I asked the AdjutantGeneral whether he regarded it as an important part of the military machine. These 300 men can be found in the army. Dr. Holloway tells us that in various places they are sitting still and being bored stiff. Is the Government prepared to place these men at the disposal of the pay branch? If not, we are going to have chaos in South Africa when demobilisation comes, and I think we have the right to expect a clear and specific statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on this point. Today there is a state of confusion in the Paymaster’s Branch in the Auditor-General’s Blanch and in the Pension Division. Nobody is going to tell me that if we take 300 or 400 men out of the army and train them, we are going to run the risk of losing the war. We asked the Adjutant-General whether he was going to make those 300 men available. His reply was that he could only supply men of a certain category—he could only supply men who had been declassified and were today in category C.3. Brigadier Kearney need only go and look for men in the dispersal depot, and if he finds anyone there, he can take him on. We pointed out that there were men in the various branches who were bored stiff and who could be used, but the Adjutant-General stated that it was not the Government’s policy to make these men available. We find that on page 119 of the Select Committee’s report. Question 665 reads as follows—

We found that he had that responsibility and we asked him, therefore, whether he could tell us what the procedure was in regard to the army, and his reply was as follows—

The next question was—

To which he replied—

Then it is not a question. Which has to be discussed in the Select Committee on Public Accounts but in Parliament. Now I want to put this question to the Deputy Prime Minister or to the Minister of Defence: If it is imperatively necessary to provide 300 men in order that the Auditor-General can carry out his functions, to put the paymaster’s branch in order and to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in the allocation of pensions, is the Minister prepared to provide those 300 men, even if they do not come in the C.3 category? Nobody can say that there is a danger of our losing the war if 300 men re taken, away. I must honestly say that this is a very important matter and we want a clear statement on it from the Minister. Now that is my first point—the bad organisation of man-power in this country In the second place, this report of the Select Committee states specifically that there are certain “rotten spots” in Defence. This is a strong expression, but my experience in the last few years on the Select Committee on Public Accounts has shown me that I cannot use more moderate language than that, namely that in Defence there are certain rotten spots. Read the report of the Auditor-General, which we found to be correct after having enquired into it. We find there that it contains a strong condemnation of the Directorate of Fortifications—a very strong condemnation of the Directorate of Fortifications. The Defence Force has used two organisations to carry out certain works. The one was the Department of Public Works and the other was Fortifications, and we can study this report and find practically no unfavourable comments on the Department of Public Works. But as there was practically no irregularity which could have been committed—and I am using very strong language—there was practically no irregularity which could have been committed, which has not been committed by the Directorate of Fortifications. I am sorry—I said when the report of the Commission on the Cost-Plus Contracts was gone into, that certain gaps and anomolies had to be put right—I am sorry that those gaps and anomalies have not been put right. The Prime Minister unfortunately replied that he had full confidence in the Chief of Fortifications. It is now found day after day that the Prime Minister’s confidence has been misplaced. I am not going to say a single word against the Chief of Fortifications in his capacity as chief engineer. I understand he is a competent engineer. But it was an absolute blunder also to make him the administrative head of the department and this year trie immediate chief of the Directorate of Fortifications admitted that fact before the select Committee. We had the Quartermaster-General, General Mitchell Baker, before us—in the report of the Select Committee, General Mitchell Baker said this—

And I want to draw the attention of the Acting Minister of Defence to this—

There I thoroughly agree with the Quartermaster-General. It is a pity the Government did not keep him on engineering activities only. The fact that he was made administrative head of the department at the same time has led to South Africa’s suffering tremendous damage. I want to give a few instances. Towards the end of 1942 a large quantity of corrugated iron sheets suddenly arrived in South Africa.

They were required in this country.

Quite so.

Apparently they were also required for the black market.

Nobody knows exactly how many sheets of corrugated iron arrived. When we asked the organisation of the Director-General of Supplies we are told that 10,000 tons arrived. If we ask the Director of Fortifications, or rather the Directorate of Fortifications, it appears that 9,000 tons arrived. Anyhow, those corrugated iron sheets arrived and I think the country should know that the Defence Department did not really have the full benefit of these corrugated iron sheets. They were imported by the Director-General of Supplies. They thereupon asked Col. Craig if he wanted those corrugated iron sheets, and he said he was prepared to take them. They did not store them, but they left them out in the open, and they did not even have a guard placed, over them. There were no proper records kept of what happened to those sheets. It was a hopeless position. The sheets were lying in the open air and were deteriorating, and that at a time when there was a crying need for them in the country. Nobody knows exactly how many sheets were delivered and I doubt whether they can account for them. Today we read every day about corrugated iron sheets in respect of which prosecutions are taking place in our Courts. They have simply been dumped down without being guarded and a lot of the stuff has been stolen. That is one instance Now, let me tell hon. members what conclusions the Auditor-General and his staff have arrived at in regard to this Directorate. Until the end of March, 1943—remember that was not the beginning of the war, it was last year—the position in regard to supplies, the recording thereof, and the way goods were received and distributed, was in such a hopeless state of confusion that it was impossible to restore order, and the authorities were even advised to write off the whole thing and not try to restore order. It is only since April, 1943, that they have been trying to keep proper records of what the Directorate receives in respect of materials and what it distributes to contractors. Altogether this Department has spent £20,000,000. We know that half has been spent on supplies and half on wages. In other words, this Department has handled materials to a value of £10,000,000, and now we are told that no proper records have been kept of what has been received and distributed, and that apparently it is impossible to put everything right, and, as the Auditor-General said, the best thing was to call it a day and write it off. It is in the report—it is in the Auditor-General’s report.

And he said so as well.

That is only a fraction of what has been written off on behalf of the farmers. What are you worrying about?

There you are. That is the attitude that is adopted; £10,000,000— just a bagatelle.

But who says it is £10,000,000?

There it is on Page 286; question No. 1,349. There the AuditorGeneral says what the position was. No proper accounts have been kept. The other £10,000,000 has been spent by the Department on wages, and we find in the report how much supervision has been exercised in regard to wages and the paying out of wages. When the Cost Plus Commission went round and we visited works at Pollsmoor and in Natal—the very big one at Umbogintwini, for instance—we particularly inquired into the control exercised in regard to the payment of wages, and they explained to us on paper a perfect system, and now the Select Committee is compelled, in Paragraph 11, to come to the following conclusion—

In other words, no proper record was kept of the supplies received and issued by the Director. No proper records were kept of the wages, and the total amount involved is about £20,000,000, and, as I have said, there is hardly a single irregularity which could have been committed which hasn’t been committed. When the Select Committee on Public Accounts raised objections to the, first fortifications contract and asked for a revision of the contract, and when on the Committee’s insisting, another contract was drafted, under which the profits of the building contractors were reduced, what did we find? After we had been told that a new contract had come into operation which was less advantageous to the building con tractors, we found that the Director of Fortifications continued to issue contracts on the old contract basis. And when we asked why that was going on, he said that it was additional work, and it was difficult to have two kinds of profit scales in respect of the same contractor. That is what he told us, and then the Auditor-General told us that it actually had been done. He said that there had been two separate profit scales in certain instances, and in others not—no system whatsoever. Let me give hon. members an instance. On page 7, paragraph 13, they will find this heading: “Catering Arrangements for Contractors’ Employees.” Entirely in conflict with the contract, the Director of Supplies allows a contractor to include in his wages expenses he incurs in the feeding of his people at Saldanha Bay. But not only that; there is no provision in the contract for it; the contract says that it is not allowed but in spite of that he does it; and on top of that he still gets 10 per cent. profit. What is the result? The result is that the contractor has appointed coloured cooks at unheard of wages. The weekly wage of a coloured cook in those days was £2 14s. 3d. per week and this contractor, because he did not have to pay the expenses and got profit on top of it appointed a coloured cook at the unheard of wage of £10 per week. The fixed wage in those days was £2 14s. 3d., but this contractor, because he didn’t have to pav the costs, paid £10 per week, £40 per month, on top of which he got 10 per cent. profit.

George says it doesn’t matter.

Look at him blushing.

There are some very glaring weaknesses in Defence. The impression made on us is getting more and more painful every year, and unless the Government goes in for reorganisation it will stand condemned in the eyes of the people in South Africa. Just one other point—it is a point that was raised by the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet); the impression was created in mv mind that there are certain big companies in this country which are being specially favoured. There are certain big companies in this country—the biggest and the richest in the country—which are speciallv favoured and that sort of thing has made a very painful impression on us. One of those companies is the company which has supplied Bellman hangars and armoured cars to the State. I think they are the biggest suppliers of war material to the Defence Department. I do not think there is any other company in South Africa which has had bigger contracts than that one. The orders which they have carried out for the Defence Department must have amounted to at least £5,000,000. Although it was the fixed policy of the Director-General of Supply to bring down the percentage of profit on war orders gradually to 7½ per cent. in the case of this company it remained at 10 per cent. They have the biggest contracts. The profit of the smaller contractors is brought down to 7½ per cent., but the profit of these people, the biggest suppliers, has remained at 10 per cent. That is one instance. Take the other one, the motor tyre companies. I should like to know what the value of the orders is which the motor tyre companies have had from Defence. As I said, the profits almost right through, were brought down to 7½ per cent., but in regard to these companies they were kept at 10 per cent. so far as foreign orders were concerned and 8⅓ per cent. in regard to local orders. But the worst of all is this, and I should like the Minister to give us an explanation: The Auditor-General tells us that when the company’s books were examined the company reported as follows— or rather that is what the accountant who examined the company‘s books reported. He reported on 15th December, 1942, and he stated that the company was prepared to make concesions—

Imagine ! That is the message received from the man who examined the company’s books. We were then told that a discussion about prices actually did take place between the director and the managers of the motor tyre companies. As a result of this message received from the accountant, a discussion took place about the prices. We understand that the motor tyre companies agreed to reduce their profits to 7½ per cent., but to this day no change has been made. This happened in 1942 and this is 1944, and the profit still remains at 10 per cent. and 8⅓ per cent. Can the hon. the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what excuse there can be for that? In regard to motor tyres, I think it is essential that certain figures should be placed before the country and before this House. The hon. member for Vasco tried to correct me earlier on in regard to the United Tobacco Company, and I want to ask him to take notice of these figures. I think it will be interesting to the public to know how much profti is made on motor tyres. [Time extension granted.] The tyre I want to mention is the 600/16 heavy duty. I have the figures here in regard to tyres delivered to the Defence Force at £2 12s. 9d. This includes a profit of 10 per cent., so the cost price of that tyre is £2 8s. That same tyre is sold in the trade today for £6 9s. That includes 7s. 4d. in Excise, so if we deduct the Excise it leaves £6 1s. 8d. against the cost price of £2 8s. The profit therefore is £3 13s. 8d. or 150 per cent. Now, let me say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Vasco. He said I was apparently under a misapprehension. I just want to say that the information which I have in regard to that company was obtained after an examination of several days. The cost price of 1,000 cigarettes is 8s. 9d—that is the cost price as fixed by the Cost Enquiry.

In general?

I am taking just one type of cigarette. In the trade 1,000 cigarettes are sold at 42s. 6d. The Excise on those is 22s. 6d., so without Excise the sale prfice is 20s. as against the cost price of 8s. 9d. The difference between the cost of production and the selling price is 130 per cent.

That includes wholesale profit, retail profit, distribution costs, etc.

One hundred and thirty per cent. is the difference between the production costs and what the public pays. I have made clear in broad outlines what the Select Committee’s recommendations are, namely, that the Government makes very poor use of the manpower at its disposal; that there are certain rotten spots in Defence which have to be remedied; and, thirdly, that there are certain rich companies in this country which are favoured over weaker companies. It makes a painful impression. We hope that the Government will take careful note of the Select Committee’s recommendations and that it will rectify the black spots in Defence. It will be better for the Government’s war effort and it will save the country a lot of money. That is why I commend this report to the House.

I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) with interest, and, although he started off by explaining that he would approach this debate in the spirit in which the Chairman of the Select Committee introduced it, I think he did not keep quite within the limits he imposed on himself. There is no doubt about it that once or twice he overdrew the picture, as usual.

The half has not even been told.

I am sure the House got the impression when they heard the hon. member for George on the question of corrugated iron, that £10,000,000 worth of corrugated iron had been sent to Cape Town.

Your interpreter is wrong. I said 10,000 tons.

You said 10,000 tons, and then you talked about £10,000,000.

No, you have a bad interprefer.

Let me accept that it was 10,000 tons of corrugated iron. He said that it was more or less all pilfered, that it was laid out in the open where people helped themselves, that there were Court cases, and that more or less the whole 10,000 tons were pilfered. Then somebody said call it a day, and he said yes, call it a day write it off; it is a mere bagatelle. Did he say that or not?

On a point of personal explanation, those two cases are quite distinct. The question of the corrugated iron is confined in the 10,000 tons. I gave that as a typical example, but I said that the whole question of the material handled by Fortifications, of which this was only a part, amounting to 10,000 tons, was handled as badly as anything.

I still make the point that the hon. member created the impression that £10,000,000 had to be written off because the material was pilfered or damaged. I do not want to stress the point. I only want to make it clear that it was a hopelessly overdrawn picture. Out of the 10,000 tons sent down only a relatively small quantity has been lost. And how has it been lost? Not through any lack of supervision and control, but because the officers in charge of it were guilty of misdemeanours in connection with it. These are cases now sub judice, and one should not stress the point too much.

How much was lost?

Relative to the whole it was a small amount. The allegation that all the other stores were badly handled or lost can best be answered by my explaining that from the beginning to the end of the year covered by this report the total stores handled by the Director of Coastal Works and Fortifications amounted to barely £10,000,000. Everything he put into his buildings, everything that was in his possession from beginning to end barely amounted to £10,000,000, and yet we are told that he had to write off more or less £10,000,000. I do not want to make political capital and I do net want to score points on this matter. I am only giving the picture to the House to show that when the hon. member for George lets his imagination run riot he gives an entirely wrong picture. The hon. member for George made various charges on the question of manpower, of men kicking their heels in some departments, while other departments were hopelessly under-staffed. Rather than make these loose charges it would be much more helpful if the hon. member or hon. members who know the facts, or allege they do, told us or told the Minister where these men are who are kicking their heels. It is quite obvious you cannot take a man from any category and put him in charge of stores. You cannot put just anyone in charge of the financial administration of £20,000,000 of work. You need very special men for that, and it is absurb to say that because someone is kicking up his heels he is the man to put in a job. That is one of the difficulties we always have. You may have 500 men available and have a job requiring 300 men, but in that bunch of 500 men you may not find twenty men competent to do the work. That is the difficulty, and the hon. member knows it. Then he says: Why not take 300 men from the Forces and put them into the Pay Department? Does he really think that we should take men out of the ranks of those on active service and transfer them to the Pay Department, not only when these are competent but when they are fighting and willing to fight? Is it more important that we should get 90,000 old accounts put in order, or that we should win the war? Which has priority? Let us also remember we have a voluntary army. These men must be allowed to fight as they wish. We cannot order them about in these things. If they want to be combatants we must let them be combatants, and the idea that you can bring down combatant soldiers determined to fight the battles of their country and put them on this work, is again to draw a picture that has no relation to reality. It is because I am afraid that this Government will be responsible for some time for the Government of the country that I feel that we should go very carefully into these things so that there should be no question about our intentions in regard to them. In spite of the fact that what Wakkerstroom thinks today the country will think tomorrow I feel that many tomorrows must pass before we are going to be relieved of the responsibility which falls on us.

You seem to be whistling in the graveyard.

In regard to the general allegation affecting the Director of Fortifications and the Director-General of Supplies I think the Chairman of the Committee struck the right note in regard to these allegations. In many cases of course the full story is not even told in the report of the Public Accounts Commitee, nor is it understood. In after years looking at these things after an interval of time, things that were done in a hurry, improvised, it is very easy to be wise after the event. That of course we know is the privilege of the Opposition to be wise after the event.

All this continued till March, 1943.

It must not be forgotten that at the time covered by this report the need of this country was desperate. Japan had come into the war and the threat from Japan was a reality. I can assure this House the threat from Japan was a reality and a very dangerous reality and because of that threat we had to take steps at once to improvise and create coastal defences which up till then had not existed at all. The Public Works Department which had been doing our Defence work up to then was heavily overloaded and quite unable to take on any more work, the technical heads of that department were working overtime to an extent that would inevitably have brought the whole thing to a standstill and were quite incapable of doing more work. What was the Government to do? The Government did the only thing it could do, it got one of the best engineers in the country, a man of great experience and who had handled great work. We had to supplement the work of the Public Works Department and we had to get the best man we could. Judging by what the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has said we should have taken a great financier and put him in charge of the work, but if we had done that the work would never have started. We had then to take the best engineer we could find, and what did Colonel Craig start with? Did he start with a department like the Public Works Department, or like the South African Railways, with all their experts, quantity surveyors, architects, all the men who carry out great contracts, did he start with any of these? No, he started with nothing at all and he had to pick men here and there, wherever he could find them, he had to take them from the army and with that improvised squad he had to begin to build fortifications and works which in the course of two years totalled a value of nearly £24,000,000. I say that that was a herculean work and when you consider the extent of that work in relation to the rotten places, the difficulties that have cropped up, I say the trouble, the rotten places which occurred, are relatively trivial. If we put this thing in its right perspective, Colonel Craig will not be censored by this House; Sir, I am quite prepared to say he was not a good administrator, that there was possible slackness in the administration of some of his stores, but as soon as they were seen we tried to overtake them. But the work that was done more than cancelled that so far as the service of the country at that critical time is concerned. The British Admiralty itself, with its very exacting standards, an authority not easy to please, has advised us that Colonel Craig’s work in connection with the Wingfield Aerodrome is outstanding and that it has not been bettered either in the speed with which it was done or the quality of the work performed and in other ways has not been bettered anywhere in the British Commonwealth. Let me say on behalf of the Government I associate myself with that tribute from the British Admiralty generally in respect of the work that Colonel Craig has done. Having said that, let me assure the hon. member that I am not making light of the things that went wrong and it is the intention of the Government to follow up every one of the recommendations of the Committee as far as they can be followed up…

As long as you have no administrative head you will never get things right.

Well you may be pessimistic about it but I think the machinery is improving. As a matter of fact in your own report you say that things are much better and judging by what you say in your report it is a fair inference that in another year’s time everything will be satisfactory, at any rate sufficiently nearly satisfactory to meet the exacting needs of this Parliament. I do not know whether there is anything more of a general nature which I need say, but I would like to point out that in this report many matters are commented on by the Committee in regard to occurrences that happened after the 31st of March, 1943, which is the period covered by this report. The Committee itself accepts the position that there has been a considerable improvement in the control of defence expenditure and I would like to explain that instructions have been issued covering all the matters dealt with by the report. We have issued instructions from time to time covering financial control; those instructions have gone out in bits and pieces and very often officers who have received them have been moved or promoted or sent to other work and the persons succeeding them have not known about them. Now we shall draw up a consolidated list of instructions covering the wholè field and that 1st will be available to any officer at any time so that in future there will be no excuse for any officer not knowing how he is to handle his accounts. An important aspect of financial control lies as has already been pointed out, in the keeping of proper records of liabilities created by various sections of the Defence Department and the Director-General of Supplies. This matter is also receiving special attention and I have directed that a member of the staff of the financial secretary shall personally visit each section in the near future to satisfy himself that satisfactory records are being maintained, and I can give the House the assurance that suitable action will be taken to clear up the financial difficulties. In regard to the resolutions, Mr. Speaker, I should like briefly to indicate to the House what we are doing in that connection. Resolution No. 2 deals with the question of corrugated and flat iron temporarily held in custody by the Director of Fortifications. The work of ascertaining full details of the receipts and issues of this important material is nearing completion. The hon. member asked what has been lost. The figures are not available yet, but they will be available shortly. As was stated in evidence before the Committee considerable difficulty has been occasioned in this connection by the fact that the shipping documents which dealt with these particular consignments were not consistent in their units of measurement and a great deal of work has been necessary to overcome this aspect. There were certain consignments which were of such dimensions and the railways were in such urgent need of getting back their trucks that with the limited staff we had to take delivery of this corrugated iron in a way and dispose of it in a way which in normal times and under normal conditions we would never have done. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that awkward accounting problems have arisen. There is no doubt as far as this iron is concerned we shall be able to get to the bottom of exactly what has been done with all that originally came. Where material has suffered deterioration it has been due rather to lack of proper storage facilities than to any lack of care. There again we got such a flood of stores for war purposes that there was nothing like enough shed accommodation throughout the country to admit of its being put under proper cover as would have been done in ordinary times. At the present it is not admitted that the losses that have occurred through pilferage were occasioned by avoidable circumstances, but as the matter is still sub judice, nothing further can properly be said at this stage. It is necessary to correct the erroneous impression that has been gained that other stores under the control of the D.G.S. are in like case to the corrugated iron above-mentioned. That is incorrect, as is also the impression that there has never been any stores control in D.G.S. As was stated before the Select Committee, the volume of stores has now grown to such dimensions that at the end of 1943 it was considered essential by the D.G.S. to establish a central stores authority. There again, manpower was the difficulty, and, as the hon. gentleman knows, that difficulty has grown worse rather than better as time has progressed. But, in spite of these difficulties, a central stores authority has been created and a very competent staff is gradually being built up. These stores were formerly controlled by individual sections responsible for the use of the relative material, but, as I have explained, the central control now established will be a much more complete guarantee of a closer touch being kept with what is actually occurring. I should like again to emphasise before leaving this point that there are at present no grounds for concluding that abnormal losses of material have occurred or that in any one case there are losses of a substantial nature.

You have no right to make that statement.

I make it, and perhaps the hon. member can take me to task later on, if that statement proves incorrect. In regard to the proposal made by the Select Committee (Resolution 3) that there should be a quantity survey I am glad the Committee accept the position that any attempt to provide a quantity survey of works already complete would be an impossible proposition now, and would result merely in a waste of time and money. The suggestion that a running survey of buildings and works should be undertaken in future is noted. Every endeavour will be made to carry this out, but I must point out that it may still be impossible to carry this out, due to the fact that the D.F. and C.W. has not got the trained personnel—quantity surveyors—necessary to do so at his disposal. While he has a number of such personnel on his staff they are fully occupied in preparing specifications and bills of quantity for current works. So far attempts to secure quantity surveyors in private practice have been unsuccessful. Resolution 4: The necessity for furnishing the information required by the Controller and AuditorGeneral as quickly as possible is fully understood, and every practicable effort is being made to meet his requirements. The Accounts Department of D.G.S. has not neglected this particular matter, but, due to staff difficulties and the many resignations still being experienced, the limited available qualified staff necessary for the preparation of this information has had to concentrate on keeping current work up-to-date in order to avoid a major breakdown. As regards progress made in the finalising of agreements between annexe managers and the D.G.S., the current position is that sixteen agreements have been signed; the terms of two further agreements have been settled and the final documents are in the course of preparation for signature by both parties; as reported by the Select Committee, in three cases formal contracts are unnecessary; of the remaining three cases one is still the subject of further negotiations in view of recent alterations to the circumstances, and two have arrived at the stage where finality has been reached on all but a few points. The Department will watch the position during the year and bring it to finality. It must be emphasised that the discrimination to which the Select Committee refers (Resolution 5) was not intentional. The arrangement under which the largest suppliers were to be paid at cost plus 10 per cent. was made at the end of 1941. In 1942, however, there was a trend towards lower profit rates and the first determination for cigarettes on the cost plus 7½ per cent. basis was made on the 15th May, 1942—in respect of one of the smaller suppliers. At that date the Department of Price Control did not have occasion to review orders placed with the largest suppliers, and it was not until 19th August, 1942, three months later, that such a review took place. The Department of Price Control felt, however, that it could not then retrospectively revise the arrangement made with the largest suppliers at the end of 1941, but it decided to apply the 7½ per cent. rate to them as from that date. Following discussion of this matter before the Public Accounts Committee, representations were made to the largest suppliers, who, it must be noted, had no previous knowledge of the fact that for a period they had enjoyed a higher percentage profit than their competitors. In response to our representations, the company readily agreed to refund to the D.G.S. the difference between 10 per cent. and 7½ per cent. on the cost of orders placed from October, 1941, to 19th August, 1942, thus bringing them in line with other members of the trade and eliminating the discrimination to which the Select Committee had drawn attention. In conformity with the Select Committee’s request, the D.G.S. will re-open the matter of fixed price orders placed prior to October, 1941, and the outcome of these negotiations will be reported in due course. Meantime it is necessary to reiterate that in the acquisition of cigarettes prior to October, 1941, the policy of the D.G.S. was similar to that adopted by departments of the Government in peace time, viz., calling for tenders and accepting those most favourable. It is reasonable to suppose that that policy, having regard to the quantities involved in each particular case, yielded suppliers a margin of profit rather less than those normal to the particular trade or industry. It was not until a later stage of the war, following experience gained by the D.G.S. from cost investigation, that a more or less general policy of payment based on actual cost was adopted, whether the goods supplied were standard articles, branded articles, or entirely novel productions. Resolution 6: While it is still felt that in the light of all relevant circumstances, and in particular the disallowances under the D.G.S. costing system of overheads actually incurred, the profit rates hitherto allowed to the tyre companies are not unreasonable, it is agreed that the D.G.S. Price Controller will negotiate with the companies with a view to reducing profit rates, and at the same time eliminating the difference between external and internal supplies These negotiations will be put in hand immediately. Meanwhile I would reiterate that there was never any intention on the part of the Price Controllers to discriminate between external and internal supplies, their object being rather to secure a special discount on portion of the purchases than to establish differential rates for different Governments. It would appear that insufficient emphasis has been placed on the financing charges in these contracts which are in fact heavy. Special arrangements had to be made in connection with overdraft facilities for the companies to finance the volume of turn-over required from them for military purposes, and it is well-known that interest is not an admissable item of cost in contracts for supplies to the D.G.S. Resolution 7 : Now in regard to the question of Bellman Hangars, here again the impression has been created that on the Bellman Hangar the manufacturer makes a 10 per cent. profit, and that that profit is more or less guaranteed. Let me explain what are the actual facts. The Select Committee’s report infers that the contractors are receiving 10 per cent. on the turnover on all their war supplies contracts. That is net so. The Bellman Hangar contract is the only one which yields a 10 per cent. maximum on cost, not on turn-over. It may not be as much—it cannot be more. A maximum of ten per cent. on cost. And the over-all profit earned by these companies on all war supply contracts is very much less. The contract for armoured cars in particular has been linked up with the contract for Bellman Hangars. It seems to be implied that there are the same contractors for both jobs, and that the profit on armoured cars is 7½ per cent. and 10 per cent. On the armoured cars contract there are many other contractors although it is true that some of those contractors are also involved in the Bellman Hangar production. The two main contractors who are responsible for the initial construction and final completion of the cars and who are responsible for more than 70 per cent. of the production receive a 5 per cent. profit on cost. The second group receives 7½ per cent. and certain contracts involving labour only have been placed at 10 per cent. Approximately 70 per cent. of the work on armoured cars contracts is carried on at 5 per cent. These are true facts and the impression created that 10 per cent. covers everything is entirely erroneous.

As usual.

I can only repeat that so far as D.G.S. Price Control is concerned, the Bellman Hangar contract was regarded basically as a fixed price contract subject to limited variations and accordingly that the contractors accepted the risks attaching thereto over a long period. In particular they accepted the risk of fixed overheads irrespective of the volume of production. It is admitted that to date actual circumstances have operated in their favour, but that may well change in the future. It is not quite accurate to state that it was agreed that the contractors “should be paid a maximum profit of 10 per cent. on cost”; the actual agreement was that if the stipulated fixed prices should result in a profit of more than 10 per cent., the excess would be refunded; if, however, they resulted in a profit of less than 10 per cent. the Government would only pay the fixed price. Not all sub-contractors in the group earn 10 per cent. on costs and the average profit is therefore below that figure. Whether a reduction to a fixed rate of say 7½ per cent. would lead to an all-round saving is a matter that will require investigation. In the past, contracts generally have been placed primarily with regard to profit on cost, but the question of capital employed has not been entirely ignored, more particularly in recent times. It is considered doubtful whether this country has yet reached the stage, from an industrial development and accounting standpoint, where the full application of turnover-capital principles can be fully applied. The principle involved, however, will receive consideration by the D.G.S. Price Controllers, but regard must necessarily be had to the important question as to whether suitable qualified accounting staff can be obtained to put the principle into practice. Resolution 8: In general it is not the practice of the Government to assist manufacturers in the financing of contracts for war supplies, though variations in special circumstances are sometimes made. In the two cases specially mentioned in the Select Committee’s resolution, it must be pointed out that, while overpayments were made as the result of provisional prices exceeding those finally determined, it is most improbable that at any point of the time the companies were in fact indebted to the Government. The Auditor-General’s report makes it clear that in the case of Bellman Hangars, the so-called overpayment of £275 000 was reduced by set-off to £71,811— which was refunded by the company. Taking account of sums owed to the company on other concurrent contracts, however, it is unlikely that the company was ever actually in the Government’s debt. The same is true in the case of tyre supplies where the sums due to the companies in respect of each month’s supplies were greater than the amounts due for refund following each quarterly determination of costs. As at 25th November, 1943, for example, the amount due to tyre companies by D.G.S. was approximately £200,000. In regard to Resolution 9, I should like to point out in this connection, as was reported in the evidence given before the Select Committee, the balance on this account of £13,887,116 at 31st March 1943, had been reduced to £10,732,658 at the 29th February, 1944. This latter figure has now been further reduced to £8,837,587 and allowing for a number of accounts now reaching finality it is expected that in the very near future the balance will be reduced to £6,000,000. I would point out, however, that so long as the war and the policy of letting contracts on the basis of “cost to be determined” continues there must inevitably be an irreducible minimum balance on this account. It is a matter of some difficulty to estimate what is the reasonable, irreducible minimum, but the figure is likely to be of the order of £5,000,000 to £6,000,000. In regard to Resolution 10 relating to the omission to adjust profit to the ruling rate in the case of certain contracts, I would stress here again that the reason for varying conditions was, I am assured, that owing to the special circumstances of the case it was held by the Director of Fortifications and Coastal Works that confusion would result from having two forms of assessing profit operating at the same time with one firm. I would also point out that the saving to the Government resulting from the new terms of contract, i.e. altering the original 8⅓ per cent. on cost to 10 per cent. on labour and 5 per cent. on materials, was originated by the Director of Fortifications and Coastal Work himself. The committee admits that the alteration resulted in a considerable reduction in cost to the Government. The department is nevertheless endeavouring to recover from the contractor referred to by the committee the difference between the profit paid to him under the old terms of contract and the new agreed rate. Regarding claims for wages and method of payment (Resolution 11) whilst it must be admitted that the officers were wrong in signing the certificates as worded, consideration should be given to the fact that control was exercised by a series of test-checks, which it is contended, was all that was possible with the staff available. It should be possible in future, with the reduced building programme and the staff now available, to ensure proper witnessing and certifying of pay sheets. Instructions are now to be issued by the department dealing with the certification of accounts and documents covering these payments generally. I have also carefully noted the resolution of the Committee (No. 12) conveying their views on profits paid on wages of labourers not engaged on costplus work. The Director of Fortifications and Coastal Works still contends that his action was in order. I am personally anxious to have this matter cleared up, since it came before me in my capacity as Chairman of the Defence Authorities Committee, and I can give the House the assurance that it will be fully investigated. With reference to Resolution 13, payment of wages for time not worked, I have noted the views of the Select Committee and instructions will be issued that they will be complied with in future. Resolution 14 deals with electrical wiring in camp buildings. Resolution 15 relates to compensation to biscuit manufacturers for defective liners for Army biscuits. I am in agreement with the Select Committee in this matter. There is no doubt that Treasury authority should have been obtained before payment was allowed. Acting in perfectly good faith, and as a result of negotiation, representatives of the Director-General of Supplies agreed to refund 50 per cent. of the expenditure incurred by biscuit manufacturing firms in connection with the reconditioning of liners. Apparently it was not realised by the D.G.S. organisation at the time that prior Treasury authority should be obtained before settlement was effected. There is still one claim which has not been settled, and in view of the treatment accorded other biscuit manufacturing firms it is proposed to ask Treasury to authorise settlement on the same basis. Directions will now be given that in future the principle of obtaining Treasury approval in all similar cases must be strictly adhered to. In connection with staff difficulties in the army pay sections, Resolution 16, I have already dealt with that in my more general remarks. I have said all I can say on the question of staffing our pay section at the present time, but I should like to make it clear that in recent months there has been a definite improvement. A large number of combatant soldiers who for health and other reasons are no longer suitable for remaining at the front are being made available and can be turned on to this class of work. In regard to the delay in replying to audit queries (Resolution 17), instructions have already been issued that special efforts are to be made to expedite replies to all communications from the Controller and AuditorGeneral. The present position in regard to outstanding replies is as follows: From 1940 there are still outstanding replies to twenty communications. I think that is probably because we cannot find any records or references; so these twenty cases may remain permanently outstanding. From 1943 there are 79 cases outstanding; there is nothing in respect of 1941 and 1942. From 1944 we have 34 outstanding. In addition, the financial branch has on hand four formal queries and 178 informal queries. Delay in sending replies to the Auditor-General has often been due to the fact that the queries covered a number of departments, and the matter has to be circulated to them before the query is replied to. I regret having kept the House so long, but I wish to have these facts on record.

It is perfectly clear that we have had to deal with the Acting Minister of Defence today. While listening to the Minister, especially having had the opportunity of hearing the evidence before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, it became perfectly clear to me that the Minister himself had not read the Auditor-General’s report, nor the evidence given before the Select Committee. In his capacity of the Minister responsible he should have done so in view of the fact that he knew that he would have to reply to this debate. What we got from the Minister was the Minister’s voice, but it was the writing I think of the Under-Secretary for Defence. We recognise that the Minister was placed in a very difficult position, but one does expect him to realise his responsibility and to go through the evidence and not smply come here and read out a series of statements which he has received from the Under-Secretary for Defence. That was the impression we received. In reply to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) he said that the hon. member had greatly exaggerated things, and he told him that rather than make a lot of loose statements he should have done this, that or the other. All the statements of the hon. member for George which the Minister described as “loose” statements are backed up by the evidence. I listened very carefully to the hon. member for George and I didn’t hear him say one thing which was not backed up by the evidence contained in the report. The Minister says, for instance, that the mistakes made by the Director of Fortifications were comparatively trivial. I want to point out to the Minister, however, that in the Select Committee’s report and the majority of the members of that Committee are Government supporters and the report has been approved of by them, the following was stated on the subject—

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 13th May.