I move—

1. (9) The Board shall in exercising its functions have regard, as far as practicable, to the requirements of uniformity’ in the matters concerned.

In connection with this amendment on Clause 3 I just want to express my thanks to the Minister for his willingness to insert the amendment. I think is is only fair that I should for the sake of clearness explain what the amendment contemplates. The amendment has two things in view. In the first instance it contemplates securing uniformity as far as vocational training by vocational schools, trades schools and training colleges is concerned. The amendment reads as follows—

This is an important provision. It does not state that the Board or the Minister can take the requirements of uniformity into consideration when exercising their functions, but here we have a particularly important provision that the Board in exercising its functions must as far as practicable consider the requirements of uniformity in the matters concerned. There are especially two requirements of uniformity to which I particularly want to draw attention. The first is that the Board should see that we obtain uniformity throughout the country as far as our vocational schools, trades schools and training colleges are concerned. I would just like to add that there are representatives of the Department of Union Education on that Board now; thus, as far as uniformity of syllabi is concerned there are State authorities on that Board at present. I trust that they will make it their special concern that we place those vocational schools on a uniform basis throughout the country and that we do not only place it on a uniform basis, but on a basis which will offer training so that more recognition will be given in future to the training provided by such schools. I make a strong point of it, and I do think it is the general opinion in this House that there is a great future for competent artisans in South Africa. One must be properly trained, and one should have a standard for the whole Union. One should not have a lower standard of training at one place and a higher standard at another. There should be a standard of which not only the Union of South Africa but the whole world would be proud. Secondly, uniformity is not only suggested as far as training colleges are concerned, but uniformity is suggested regarding the apprenticeship of apprentices in certain specific trades. In the past one had a difference in connection with wage rates, in connection with working conditions, in connection with practically everything. An apprentice who, for example, is apprenticed to the carpentry trade at one place is not treated the same as an apprentice who is apprenticed to the carpentry trade at another place. As far as wage rates are concerned, there are different rates of wages in adjoining towns in the country. During the debate on the second reading I referred to the difference in rates of wages which existed for apprentices in the same trade, for example in Bloemfontein and Kimberley, two towns that are situated so close to one another that you could travel from one town to the other in two or three hours. There a difference in rates of wages existed. It will be the particular task of this Board also to obtain a standard basis regarding rates of wages and contract of apprenticeship for apprentices, as well as other matters incidental to this specific trade where it is necessary that there should be uniformity. I trust that we will get that standard uniformity throughout the country. Finally, by way of good advice I want to tell the Minister that we expect that he with his Board will not regard this Apprenticeship Act from the point of view of the limited area of the Rand with the interests with which he concerns himself and over which he is more concerned but that he will consider this matter from a broader national viewpoint, as it particularly affects the interests not only of a specific portion of the population, but of the entire population as a whole. Provision is also made in the Bill for representation on the Board in particular as regards the interests of the country. We would like to see that, as far as that is concerned, there should also be uniformity throughout the country, one standard for the whole country. There should not be one standard for the Rand and another for the rest of the country. We would like to have one standard, so that we could look back with pride on the legislation which we adopted.

Now that we have the Bill complete as it has emerged from the Committee of the whole House, one is able to appreciate better the importance of this board, because the House will be asked, as we proceed, to approve of further amendments which make a number of matters in this Bill conditional on the approval of this board. When one comes to analyse the constitution of this board there is a matter which I wish to raise. This is a board which will consist of the Minister and ten other members. There will be the Minister, the Secretary for Labour and the Registrar, three of them. Two shall be nominated by the Minister of Education “for their knowledge of matters relating to technical training”; that is five. Two shall represent “the interests of prospective apprentices in or from rural areas”; that is seven. Two shall be appointed “for their special knowledge of matters relating to apprenticeship”; that is nine and one shall be appointed to represent employers and one to represent employees. I think, Mr. Speaker, in regard to sub-section (d) the two members to be appointed for “their special knowledge to matters relating to apprenticeship,” it is a very nondescript term. I do not know what type of person could be appointed to satisfy the requirements of (d). I think in an important matter like this to have only one representative from the employers and only one from the employees is quite inadequate representation on the board. It means that out of a board of eleven members, there is only one member representing the employers and only one member representing the employees; and I would like to suggest to the Minister that sub-section (d) be deleted. I think it is rather meaningless, and the representation of employers and employees should be suitably increased, to at least two in each case, or preferably three, even if it means the size of this board being increased. We would then have a board numbering say thirteen members including the Minister; there would be the Minister, the Secretary for Labour and the Registrar—three representing the Government, three representing the employees, and three representing the employers. I feel that this would give a better balance to this board, because I believe that in future this board is likely to play an important part in the operation of this Bill. I ask the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration.

I am very glad the hon. the Minister took the whole House into his confidence and that he eventually got so far as to establish a National Apprenticeship Board. I can tell the Minister that where I came into contact with people who were connected with apprentices and people who are in the trade, they were very pleased that such a board had been established. But what rather alarmed me in connection with the whole matter was that there was an instruction by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) which he was to propose and there was also an instruction proposed by the Minister. The instruction of the hon. member for Boshof contained the functions of the Board while the Minister’s instruction had more to do with the constitution of the Board. Then it was agreed that the two would be joined, but now I see this morning that the functions of the Board do not appear in Clause 3. I hope the hon. Minister will tell us how he is now going to act in connection with the instructions. We adopted an amendment this morning which the Minister proposed and which virtually amounts to this, that the Board will as much as possible take into consideration the requirements of uniformity. But we do not find a stipulation of the functions as contained in the instruction of the hon. member for Boshof—

All these things should have been in the Bill and I shall be very sorry if the Minister or his Department had made a mistake. The functions should have been included in the Bill. An agreement had been reached that it would be so, and I hope the Minister will rectify matters in the Other Place. Otherwise it means nothing. The Minister may perhaps when he appoints the Board by way of regulation state what functions the Board has to execute, but another Minister may come along and may lay down entirely different functions by way of regulation. I hope the Minister will still alter it. It is a serious matter.

First of all I would like to compliment the Minister on the way he has piloted this Bill through the House. He has shown a commendable willingness to listen to constructive criticism, and I think that he will pay heed to the criticism that has been offered by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). In looking through the composition of this board we do find that the people who are vitally interested, that is the industries and the trades concerned, do not appear to have sufficient representation, and I think therefore that sub-section (d) which reads—

In reply to ….

Under the rules of the House the hon. the Minister has no reply.

Am I not able to say anything now?

No, not now. The hon. the Minister has moved an amendment and the mover of an amendment is not entitled to reply.

Amendment put and agreed to.

New Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 4, 8, 12 (Afrikaans), the omission of Clause 14, the new Clause 15, the amendments in old Clause 15, in Clauses 16, 18 and 19, put and agreed to.

Amendment in sub-section (3) of Clause 22 put,

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Minister complied here with the requests of the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) and myself. When I read the amendment which he proposes, it appears that the position is not the same as suggested by us.

I had consultations in connection with this amendment just as I had in connection with the instruction.

I did not see the amendment.

Just like I consulted the hon. member in connection with another matter, I consulted the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell in connection with this matter.

This amendment still gives the power to the registrar, except that he now has to consult the Apprenticeship Board in connection with the prospects of the apprentice to secure employment after he has completed his apprenticeship. The old Bill has such a Clause. The amendment of the Minister of Labour is now that the registrar must, on advice of the Apprenticeship Committee, recommend whether there will be prospects for the apprentice to obtain employment, while in the Bill itself it lays down that the registrar has to decide alone. He has to do it alone now on advice of the Apprenticeship Committee. In the old Act this provision appears, and I want to read it in English—

We would like to have it in this Bill again. We do not want the registrar or the committee to predict what is going to happen in the future As the section now stands, and even as amended, it means that the registrar and the committee have to speculate on the future prospects of apprentices to obtain employment. We are no further than what we were. The hon. member for Houghton apparently did not follow the legal consequences of this amendment as it is proposed by the Minister. It only ensures that the registrar, after he had consulted the Apprenticeship Board, will decide whether the apprentices should be apprenticed in view of their prospects to secure employment. I think the Minister of Labour should rather go back to the old Act in which it is laid down that the number of apprentices may not be limited in order to limit the number of artisans in future.

The registrar will attend to that.

It is now laid down in the Bill that when an apprentice applies the registrar can refuse registration of his contract, because he is of opinion that there will not be work available for the apprentice in five or six years’ time. I want to quote a case to the Minister of a boy who was matriculated and very badly wanted to enter the mechanician’s trade. He applied for an apprenticeship but he could not get it. He comes from the country and the reason advanced was, inter alia, that there might be trouble in regard to his accommodation. A member of his family undertook to provide for his accommodation and despite the guarantee, he could not enter into a contract of apprenticeship. I think that cases such as that are totally unjust and that that sort of thing should be put a stop to. It is that kind of influence, to keep the trade only for a certain circle, which we have to eliminate in future. Where such guarantees are given the committee should immediately assist such a boy to enter into a contract of apprenticeship. I am very sorry that the Minister is not prepared to go back to the old Act. He can tell us what difficulties there were and why the old Act did not apply. I would like to see the old section restored.

I move—

1. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph (2) of section twenty, the registrar may, in addition to any other ground on which he may lawfully do so, refuse to register any contract of apprenticeship if the committee concerned has reported that in its opinion it is not in the interest of the prospective apprentice to register the contract, and he may, in coming to a decision under this sub-section, have regard, in addition to any other circumstance, to the prospective apprentice’s prospects of obtaining employment in the industry concerned at the expiry of the contract.

I second the amendment. This amendment does give effect to the point that I had raised. Mv problem was that under the old Act the decision of the Inspector of Apprenticeship to refuse to register a contract was subject to the approval of the Apprenticeship Committee. Under the new Bill which is before the House the provision making the decision subject to the approval of the Committee was done away with and I asked for it to be restored. The point the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) makes is not quite in accord with the point I made, and the Minister undertook to accept my amendment, which does give effect to what I wanted. I don’t think there is any seriousness in the case of the hon. member opposite. Restriction can only come about by refusal to register a contract and whether that refusal is based upon the number of apprentices in a trade or whether it is based upon future prospects, it still becomes the same refusal. In the amended clause the refusal can only be given effect to if the Committee agrees to it. My objection to the clause was that the registrar is asked to exercise a prophetic genius. He is asked to say whether some years hence the prospects of employment of an apprentice would be favourable or not. Now, Sir, that aspect and the decision generally to refuse to register a contract must be dependent upon the decision of a Committee, the members of which must know the position and be well acquainted with it. Furthermore, the decision of the Registrar is subject to appeal under Clause 29, and that clause has also been amended now so that if the parties are not quite satisfied with the appeal to the Minister, they can go still further in the prosecution of their case than an appeal to the Minister. I think these facts, when taken together satisfactorily settle this difficulty and for my part I am satisfied with the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

The amendment proposed by the Committee of the whole House dropped.

The amendments in Clauses 27, 29, 30 and 31 (Afrikaans), put and agreed to.

In Clause 32,

I move—

I would like to explain this amendment, Sir, and why I put it in. In the old clause I had to consult with the Board and the Minister for Education before I granted a licence. I could withdraw a licence without any such consultation. I have now put it in that I have to consult on that also.

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 32, 36 (Afrikaans), 37, 40, 41, 44 and 45, put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

I object.

Third reading of the Bill on 9th May.

I move as an amendment—

1. (c) by the substitution for paragraph (f) of sub-section (4) of the following paragraphs:
   1. “(f) any property exceeding in value one hundred pounds passing under a donatio inter vivos made—
      1. (i) in the case of a deceased not referred to in sub-paragraph (ii), by the deceased and taking effect within two years prior to his death; or
      2. (ii) in the case of a deceased who was married in community of property, by the deceased or by a spouse who was so married to the deceased, and taking effect within two years prior to the death of the deceased, to the extent to which the property would, if it had not so passed, have formed part of the estate of the deceased;
   2. (g) any property exceeding in value one hundred pounds passing under a donatio made by a body corporate while it was controlled by such person and taking effect within two years prior to his death;” and I undertook to consider this point. It deals with a case where a donation took place within two years prior to the death of one of the spouses. The object is to ensure that in the case of such a donation only half of it would count as part of the estate.

I am glad the Minister recognised the reasonableness of the matter and that he altered it. It seems to me it will meet the position. I only want him to consider this point that there will be unreasonableness if the Minister does not rectify the matter. For a period of two years certain estates had to pay estate duty because of the judgment of the Transvaal court in the Cohen case. All the years before that judgment the estates did not pay that duty. For a period of two years the estates had to pay the duty, and today they need not pay, and one feels that to a certain extent an injustice had been done to estates. It cannot mean much to the Government, but because of the judgment of the court, which established a position which was never the intention of Parliament or the Department of Inland Revenue, a number of estates had to suffer during those two years on account of the judgment. I hope the Minister will rectify the matter. I do not know whether it is necessary to add here that the amendment will be applicable to the past, but will the Minister give us the assurance that such cases will be considered.

I have considered the point which the hon. member has now raised, namely, the possibility of giving this provision retrospective effect, but the difficulty I have experienced in this connection is this; we will not only have to repay something in certain cases, but it will also mean that we will have to claim money in certain cases which we would not otherwise. Before the Cohen case, where such a donation took place within two years prior to the death of one of the spouses, that donation was considered as half made by the husband and half by the wife. Thus, if the donation is made by the husband and the wife dies within two years, then half of that donation is considered as coming out of her estate. Under the Cohen case judgment we did not charge that half to the estate of the other spouse. Therefore, if we have to refund in the one case we will have to claim a further amount in another case. In any case, there are very few cases, but it will be extremely difficult to go back to other cases where the second member of the married couple is already deceased, and I hope my hon. friend will not insist on that point because it will case trouble if we have to claim money again.

I recognise the difficulty, but where an error has been committed I feel that the Minister should treat the matter sympathetically, and state: “See here is a reasonable case ; this estate had to pay more ; we are prepared to refund that money. It means much to those left behind in this case and it cannot mean much to the State. Leave those cases alone where it will be necessary to claim more money, but let the Minister undertake to go into the matter and to refund that amount ex gratia.

I shall be glad if the Minister will clarify a few further points in connection with this clause. This is very involved legislation. If one does not deal with the administration of estates every day, it is difficult to grasp all the implications of the proposed amendments immediately. Here the Minister proposes to tax a company where the head of the family transformed the family into a company and transferred all the property of the family into the name of the company. We are entirely in favour of this alteration, because if an estate duty is levied, the door should not be left open to evasion of the duty. To that extent we are in agreement, but we shall be glad if the Minister will tell us what the effect will be. There are a few things which we do not understand. Assuming an estate is worth £100,000. The family forms a company and all the property is transferred into the name of the company. The head of the family retains a controlling interest in the company. Assuming he retains 55 per cent. of the estate in his hands and distributes the rest amongst his heirs. He distributes 45 per cent. amongst them. Let us take such a case. A company is formed; the head of the family distributes 45 per cent. of the property to the rest of the family and he retains a controlling interest of 55 per cent. In other words, he distributes £45,000 amongst his children and retains £55,000 in order to retain control of the company.

When does he make the distribution?

During his lifetime.

Does the £45,000 belong to the company?

Yes, everything is transferred into the name of the company. Assuming the man dies within two years after the formation of the company, then, if I understand the Bill correctly, the whole of the property, the 45 per cent. as well as the 55 per cent., is subject to estate duty. But assuming the man does not die within the two years. What would the position be in that case? Would the 45 per cent. which is distributed amongst the heirs be exempted from estate duty? That is so, is it not? We shall be glad if the Minister will explain the position to us.

When do the children get the 45 per cent.?

After his death. After his death it is sold to the rest of the family at a nominal sum. He may say, for example, that every child should pay £100 in order to inherit the £55,000.

They get it after his death?

The 45 per cent. is divided amongst the children in the form of shares more than two years before his death. That portion is therefore entirely exempted from duty?

Yes, it is exempted from duty; they get the shares before his death.

In the case of the £55,000, as I understand the Bill, that sum, whatever the nominal figure at which he bequeaths it to the heirs, is subject to estate duty. That I can understand. But I should like the Minister to consider a third case. Assuming the assets of the company consist of A shares and B shares. The holder of the A shares controls the company. The amount in respect of A shares is nominal. Let us say it is £5,000 out of £100,000. But the man who has the A shares, has the control. He distributes 95 per cent to the members of his family more than two years before his death, but he retains the control of the A shares. What happens in a case of that nature when the man dies, if there are A shares and B shares in the company? It seems to me that this man avoids the duty which this Bill contemplates. All one has to do, is to form a company with A shares and B shares.

Did he divide those shares amongst his children?

Yes, he divides the shares amongst his children more than two years before his death. He divides 95 per cent. of the estate amongst his children. He retains only 5 per cent. But he holds A shares and that gives him control of the company; he is the boss; although the children hold 95 per cent. of the shares, he can keep the interest which accrues on all the assets for himself.

No, they receive the interest on their shares.

That could be arranged in the articles of association of the company.

Are there such cases?

I have been informed that it does happen. Let us assume the interest or the revenue derived from the property is £5,000. Let us assume that is the annual income derived from the property. The head of the family bequeaths 95 per cent. of the shares to the heirs, but he retains 5 per cent. He appoints himself as governing director at a salary of £5,000; in other words, he retains the usufruct, if one may call it that, of the whole estate during his lifetime.

In that case the value of the shares which he retains would be the amount which would fall into the estate.

Let us assume it is a nominal amount.

But it is not nominal in this case.

He occupies a position in the company. He does not receive any interest, but he is the governing director. He appoints himself as governing director at £5,000 a year which takes up practically the entire income derived from the property. He therefore has the full usufruct of the income during his lifetime; and that brings me to an important point. The Minister now diffentiates between the man who forms a company and the man who does not form a company but who distributed all the assets amongst his children two years before his death, retaining the usufruct for himself. In the second case, where the man did not form a company but distributed all his assets and only retained a usufruct for himself, estate duty is payable on the full value of the usufruct on his death. Why does the Minister differentiate between the one case and the other case? In this case by forming a company and only retaining A shares, the man pays a salary to himself which takes up the entire revenue derived from the property. Why has it not been laid down that where that happens the value of the usufruct will be taxable in the same manner as in the case of a man who without forming a company divides all his possessions amongst his children and only retains the usufruct for himself? Here the Minister is differentiating.

In the first case the man distributes his money amongst his children more than two years before his death, and in that event he has no further control. In this case therefore the money belongs to the children and it is right that it should be regarded as not forming part of the estate. But in the second case the individual still retains full control of the money. He does give a share in the company to the children, but he retains full control of the property. His shares may only have a nominal value. He may have A shares of a nominal value of £5 in his possession, thereby retaining full rights over a property of £100,000. But what is brought into his estate is not the nominal value of the shares, but the actual value.

What would it be in that case?

I cannot say that. It depends on the circumstances. The full value may be £100,000. But the point is really this. It is not the nominal amount of the shares which he holds which have to be taken into account, but the actual value must be determined according to the procedure which is laid down in the Death Duties Act. As the hon. member knows various provisions were incorporated into the Principal Act which laid down how the value of property was to be determined. It was laid down in these provisions that it would be the value of the controlling shares held by the person. I am of opinion therefore that we are meeting the point which the hon. member mentioned. I think the hon. member has discovered something which does not exist. If at a later date it appears that there are loopholes in the Act, we shall close them.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I feel we should delete sub-paragraph (vii). I want to say briefly why. I think the hon. Minister is making a mistake in meddling with the Act of 1925. In the original Act of 1922, where the marriage was in community of property and one of the spouses died, estate duty was payable on half the estate, and on the death of the surviving spouse estate duty was payable on the remaining half. In 1925 it was altered, and it was then provided that where the marriage was in community of property and the husband and wife made a joint will and had a joint estate, estate duty would not be payable on the death of the first-dying spouse, but only on the death of the surviving spouse. I think the Minister is making a mistake in meddling with that provision. I look at the matter in this light. There was a very good reason why this amendment was made in 1925. Let us assume that the huband and wife jointly built up a farm. The husband did not build up the farm on his own, but did so with the assistance of his wife. On the present land values the farm might be worth as much as £40,000. When the husband dies, the wife may be left with a number of small children; she has to carry on the farming. At the moment the family is in a very weak position. The wife has difficulty in taking the place of her husband and coping with the farm, because the children are not yet in a position to help. She has to hire people to assist her with the farming operations. But the State now comes along and claims estate duty on one-half of the estate, that is on £20,000. That means that the wife has to lay her hands immediately on a sum of £900.

On an estate of £40,000?

Yes; the duty is payable on half the estate. The market value, in terms of the ruling prices, may be £40,000. She has to find £900 immediately. How can she get it? By disposing of a portion of the farm; and from that moment the farm is less profitable and economic. She has to sell her sheep or cattle or some other asset, and by doing so she loses an asset which contributed to the value of the farm. For that reason it was laid down in 1925 that estate duty would not be payable on the death of the husband.

No.

In terms of the Act of 1925, if the marriage is in community of property, no estate duty is payable when the husband dies. Estate duty is only payable on the death of the wife.

Estate duty is payable on half the esate on the death of the husband.

That was the position under the original Act, but the Act of 1925 altered it.

No. I do not think the hon. member fully understands the position.

It was changed in 1925.

The position, as I understand it, is that under the present Act and also under the Act of 1925, estate duty is payable in such a case on half the estate upon the death of the husband. The only question then is what to do in connection with the usufruct which the widow enjoys. When it ceases to exist should it be subject to duty? The object of this Bill is only to state more clearly that when the surviving spouse dies, estate duty will be payable on the value of the usufruct which she enjoys and which now ceases to exist. It only deals with that. The position remains unchanged in that respect. That was the nosition under the Act of 1925, and it is still the position today.

Then the Minister should explain what is meant by these words on page 6 of his memorandum—

That is in the estate of the surviving spouse, not the estate of the first-dying spouse.

It was not clear to me.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4 put and negatived.

On new Clause to follow Clause 3, The MINISTER OF FINANCE : I move—

1. 4. Section ten of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for paragraph (e) of the following paragraphs :
   1. “(e) by virtue of any disposition made by any such predecessor or by a spouse who was married to such predecessor or by a body corporate deemed to be controlled as provided in sub-section (5) of section three by such predecessor whereby such property or interest therein is deemed; under paragraph (e), (f) or (g) of sub-section (4) of the said section, to have passed on the death of such predecessor; or
   2. (f) on the death of any such predecessor, by virtue of a disposition made by a body corporate deemed to be controlled as provided in sub-section (5) of section three by such predecessor at the time when the disposition was made.”.

This merely has the effect of creating machinery for the application of the principle agreed to in the previous clause.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On new Clause to follow Clause 5, The MINISTER OF FINANCE : I move—

1. 6. Section twenty-three of the principal Act is hereby amended by the addition after sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (b) of the following sub-paragraph—
   1. “(v) as to any property which passed under a donatio falling within paragraph (g) of sub-section (4) of section three, the donee;”.

Agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I should like to move an amendment to the first schedule, in connection with the scale of estate duty—

I moved in Committee of Ways and Means to substitute £300 by £675. That would have brought the figure back to £15,000. The House voted against it, and I now move to increase the rebate from £300 to £600.

I am sorry, but I shall not be able to accept this amendment. We have frequently discussed this matter and I adhere to my proposal, as contained in the Bill.

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

Upon which the Committee divided :

Ayes—69 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

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.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Noes—27 :

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment dropped.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to,

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments to be considered now.

Amendment in Clause 1, the omission of Clause 4, the new Clauses 4 and 6, put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading of the Bill on 9th May.

I should like to avail myself of the half-hour rule. We are living at a time in which public health receives a great deal of attention. Public health is coming into its rights to a certain extent as far as the public is concerned, and as far as the knowledge of the public is concerned, it is approaching its rightful place. I just want to point out that the place which public health occupies in the life of the nation was regarded as very important even 400 years ago. As far as legislation in that connection is concerned, it dates back much further, because we have the health laws of Moses in which it was stated that certain infectious diseases had to be reported. He made laws which provided that such diseases had to be reported.

You surely do not expect me to strike the rock.

The Minister would achieve undying fame in South Africa if he were to emulate Moses in that respect. I say that public health occupied an important place in national life even 400 years ago, and we find that Desiderius Erasmus who was a philosopher and not a medical man, expressed himself as follows—

That would be the Minister and the Government of today—

I know that today physicians are no longer held in such high esteem. Nevertheless I am convinced that with all these additional health services, they play one of the most important roles in connection with the health of the people and also in connection with feeding; and that they play their role in these matters in order to promote the happiness of the people. And but for the fact that we are at war, we would be a step nearer that goal. This is an important year in the development of the standard of national health in South Africa on which we decided years ago. There was delay on the part of the various Governments which were in power in South Africa. Last year a National Health Commission was appointed to report on the steps which may be necessary in order to improve on the bad conditions which prevail at the present time. It is clear that it will be a comprehensive report and a very important report which will go into all the aspects of health problems. I should like to have this assurance from the Minister, since he will probably receive the report within the next month or two, that he will see to it that there will be as little delay as possible before the report is published. My object is that we could then proceed to do those things for which we have waited so long. I want to know from the Minister whether the large number of problems awaiting solution and in regard to which important recommendations will be made, will be dealt with during the recess, within the scope of the Commission’s report. I want to ask that we should take practical steps with the least possible delay, after the Minister has had an opportunity of studying the report in its broad outlines. I should not like us to come together next year and find that that was not possible as a result of delay in dealing with the report in its various aspects. The report will undoubtedly recommend important changes in the system of medical services. I do not know what the report of the Commission will be, but I know that this matter will certainly be touched upon. I want to point out to the Minister that he will have a busy and strenuous time during the recess if he really wants to devote sufficient attention to the important questions which will be raised in the report. My argument has always been that there should be a continuous investigation, coupled with a commission which is in continuous session; in other words, not only a single investigation and thereafter delay and perhaps no action. I am convinced that the work which will follow on the report, if we really take it seriously, will demand a bigger health department. It will require an extension of the department. I think there will undoubtedly have to be a permanent board within the Department of Public Health, a board consisting of experts, not of outsiders. I have not much faith in temporary commissions and committees which are appointed. They are valuable in certain respects, but I think permanent officials should have control of the whole scheme. As I have said, I cannot anticipate the decisions of the Commission of Investigation, nor do I want to do so, but the Minister will in all probability find that we will have to decide how we are going to make provision for medical services for that large section of the people which cannot afford it. I should like the first question to be dealt with during the recess; that it should receive the immediate attention of the Minister. It has been clear to us for a long time that we in South Africa require at least another thousand doctors. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) may say that we need another 6,000 or 4,000 doctors, but I am tentatively putting the figure at 1,000. Even then it is clear that the extra 1,000 doctors, who will represent only the initial stage of the improved position, will have to be State doctors. A further 1,000 doctors in South Africa, on the discharge of the 800 doctors who are at present in the Army, will not be able to make a living here. There is not room economically for another thousand doctors but it is necessary that we should have the services of those thousand doctors. The Minister cannot, of course, immediately appoint a thousand doctors in the service, together with the 3,000 or 4,000 nurses and 400 or 500 social workers and another 300 or 400 native assistants who would have to assist these people. That cannot be done immediately, but what I want is that we should make provision for the first step at an early stage. If the Minister says that it seems that we shall be able to appoint 100 State doctors to the service every year, so that they may be placed in areas where there are no medical services today or where there are not sufficient medical services for the poorer section of the community, we would be in a nosition to take the necessary steps to train an extra 100 doctors a year in South Africa, apart from the 200 who are required to complement the normal wastage through death and retirement from the ranks of the medical profession. We could make provision for another hundred every year …

Is that to make up the shortage of a thousand doctors?

Yes, so that we would have an extra thousand doctors in ten years’ time. I put the figure at a very conservative level, but if we want to progress more rapidly and if we want to make provision more rapidly, we should know from the Minister at an early date what developments he expects in the near future, so that the necessary provision can be made in our medical schools. We might have to establish one or more additional medical schools. I do not want the position to arise in South Africa in the medical sphere which arose in the case of other professions or trades where we continually had to import large numbers of people to do the work. We have the material and we can do it if we get the necessary support in this direction. A different type of doctor will have to be trained, and I want to refer to that only in passing. We do not want a doctor who only cures disease. We must have doctors who are trained to cope with the health conditions of the people in the area where they are stationed—the conditions under which the people work, the conditions under which they live and the type of house in which they live. The doctor in that area must be able to look after public health in that area; he should also be able to give advice to the organisation in charge of the anti-tuberculosis work; he must be able to give advice to the organisation in charge of venereal diseases, and he must be able to give advice in connection with the hospitals to be established in that area. The doctor in the area must have sufficient knowledge to be able to do that. I say therefore that if we want to give one doctor to every 2,500 people in South Africa, together with the number of nurses and social workers who would be required to organise the doctor’s work, it means that we would have to appoint hundred doctors to the service every year for a matter of ten years. But if we want to progress more rapidly, we should know well in advance so that the necessary provision can be made. Then there is the question of the training of native and coloured doctors. There too, provision should be made. The position today is not altogether satisfactory, but I leave it at that because this can be more appropriately discussed under the Vote of the Minister of Education. When the National Health Commission reports they will probably report fully on the hospital services required in the country, the clinics which will be required for this country; and the Minister will probably find that the hospitals in South Africa are not established scientifically in those places where they are needed, but in those places where the public displays enough enthusiasm and where the public takes sufficient interest to ask for a local hospital. But if there are no such people in the area who come together and try to stir up local interest in the matter, nothing is done and the hospital is not built. Then I want to say a few words in regard to central control. Central control of public health includes the control of hospitals and clinics as well as all other branches of public health. You will find that the report of the National Health Commission will in all probability go into the question of the divided control which exists at the present time. They will certainly go into the question of divided control, and if I know anything about the matter, I say at this stage that their report will probably contain a condemnation of divided control as far as public health is concerned, which, time and again retards and renders impossible any progress in the measures which we want to take. I have often referred to this question. The present Minister of Finance strongly emphasised it in the past, and I think the Minister will get the best information in regard to this matter in this report, and I hope that this question will be gone into seriously so that we shall know by next year in what respect we will have to make farreaching alterations in order to rectify the position. The report will in all probability deal with other important aspects of health, such as the nutrition of the people. Fortunately we have awakened to a certain extent as far as this matter is concerned during the past ten years, and we have made some progress. I think this matter should be an integral part of the Department of Public Health and that there should be a special division of that Department to deal with nutrition. It is clear that the scope of that Department will have to be enlarged. The machinery will have to be created for many big changes as far as public health is concerned. I do not want to enlarge at this stage on the question of a State medical scheme. I just want to point out that we will have to study this matter intensively in the course of the year so that we shall be able to do something practical next year and come forward with plans which will be implemented by the necessary financial provision. The Minister will have to consider whether we can continue with the meagre sum which is available for public health at present. I think he will have to consider whether we should not have a special health tax in the future. In any case the Minister will have to go into the report of the National Health Commission during the recess so that we shall know next year where we stand, and if there is any criticism to be made against the report, that would be the appropriate time to do so. I believe, however, that a great deal of spade work will have to be done, so much that the Minister’s time will be fully occupied. Now I should like to refer to one aspect of hospitalisation in South Africa, and that is the absence of adequate provision for the treatment of children and small children in hospitals. The nation’s health is very important. The health of the old people is important; the health of the middle-aged people is also important, but the most important section of the work in the sphere of health is amongst the children, from the time of their birth until they reach the age of fifteen years. Provision should be made to combat diseases amongst children so that their health will not be impaired for life. I want to ask the Minister to pay particular attention to that aspect of the matter. Unfortunately the Minister is not directly concerned with hospitals. He has no direct control of hospitals. That is a further indication that we should come to a clear understanding in regard to divided control. Whether or not the provincial system should continue to exist, in any event legislative machinery should be created by the Department of Public Health, even though it has to be controlled through the Provincial Councils. Provision should be made for all aspects of public health. It is not beyond the scope of human ingenuity to devise some system or other under which the Department of Public Health, through the provinces, can exercise control in regard to these matters. We are not jealous of local powers and the power of divisional councils. They were brought into being through administrative machinery. But we dare not allow that to stand in the way of the work which must be done and allow it to prevent the necessary steps from being taken. I have pointed out that nutrition is of the greatest importance. That it is an important part of the task which rests on the department. In this connection we proceeded rather haphazardly in connection with the school meals. We voted money but an impossible position has been created with regard to the execution of the plan. I know that any scheme causes difficulties at the outset, but we can at least do our best to eliminate those difficulties. Under the present feeding scheme a meal is provided to every child in theory for approximately 2d. per day irrespective of his domestic circumstances. In this connection we have gained experience in certain places in South Africa. Reference is made in the report to Milner Park. An experiment was made there. But we have an older example. At GraaffReinet we have been giving meals for 24 years on school days. It cannot be done at school by the teachers. If the onus is placed on the teachers, they are placed in an impossible position. They have to find accommodation where the children can be fed, etc. We have gained experience and we know how it should and can be done. The method which is followed at present is not the correct method. From the point of view of public health it is necessary that a full meal should be given to children who are certified by the medical inspector of schools to be children whose health suffers because they do not get sufficient food; but it is unnecessary and wrong to give meals to hundreds and thousands of children of people who are able to take care of their children. In GraaffReinet we have applied this system for years with excellent results under the guidance of physicians. The physicians regularly examine the children at school and they decide when a child should be fed by the centre. The feeding centre is in a building which was erected by charity, and there is seating accommodation for a hundred children. The food is not cooked by the teachers but by a woman who has been appointed at a certain salary to cook the midday meal. The children march from the various schools to the building and there they are given a, meal. It is only for children, however, who are recommended by medical inspectors. I think we should take our system into review. Then I just want to refer to the dangers of enteric fever which has again assumed great proportions. It is a disease which has been known in South Africa for a long time; the fever is caused by the bite of a bug. We were faced with this disease many years ago, and today it has been re-introduced, apparently through returned soldiers. It is stated that there are hundreds of cases. I do not know whether that is so. People are inclined to exaggerate in these matters. It is stated that there are hundreds of cases in GraaffReinet alone. I do not know whether that is an exaggeration, nor does the department know. In any event, this disease is caused by the bite of a bug—not the ordinary louse which causes typhus—and I think early steps should be taken to de-louse the people and the buildings and places in which they live. We are also faced at the present time with a big epidemic of typhus in the Transkei. We get those outbreaks regularly and there are many cases, especially in the locations. As far as that is concerned, I think it is more a matter for the Department of Education than for the Department of Public Health, because if the lice are removed from the body, the disease will be avoided. If the lice are exterminated, the disease will not occur. I take it the people who are undernourished are more susceptible to this disease, but I am not quite sure of that because I know of cases where Europeans came into contact with this disease, and the bite of one louse was quite enough to give this disease to a strong and healthy person. There is only one other matter to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention briefly, and that is that throughout the country propaganda is being made by certain nurses that the conditions under which nurses have to work are poor, that their hours of duty are too long and that their pay is too low. The Department of Public Health only controls a certain group of nurses; the Provincial Administrations are the authorities which give the lead as far as the pay of nurses is concerned. One finds that if one Provincial Administration increases the salary of nurses, the others usually follow suit and introduce better conditions. That shows clearly again how desirable it is to have Union-wide control. There should be uniformity under the Department of Public Health. I mention this because the country is made to believe that the conditions under which the nurses live and the salaries which they receive are matters which are controlled by the Medical Council. The Medical Council, under the Act of 1928, has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with the salary scales and allowances of nurses, nor even their hours of duty and the conditions under which they work in hospitals. We can discuss the matter here, but I am afraid the Minister of Public Health will say that it is not his fault. I just want to point out, however, that the charges against the Medical Council are not justified. I want to remove that misunderstanding. It is stated in this propaganda that the Medical Council does not take sufficient interest in the nurses and that conditions have developed in the nursing service, in consequence of that, which are unsound and wrong. The onus does not rest on the Medical Council. I cannot charge the Minister with this, because he is not responsible for it either. But there should be a central authority which will bear the responsibility, and I hope that one of the fruits of the investigations of the National Health Services Commission will be that central control will be introduced in this connection, even though the administration will come under the Provinces. I admit that this is a thorny problem; it is almost like a prickly pear, but it must be tackled. [Time limit.]

In terms of a constitutional fiction the Minister is supposed to be responsible for the policy of the Department. But where the Minister has been wholly engaged in dealing with grave matters of national importance, and where he has been in the hands of senior officials in a scientific department, one, I think, is entitled to criticise the permanent official so that the House may know the facts and judge them accordingly. The indictment against the Department covers charges of indifference and failure with knowledge of the facts, to take adequate and timeous steps to deal with the typhus epidemic amongst the natives and I feel it is the duty of those who are interested in these matter to bring the facts before the House. The Public Health Department is one of the most important in the country and there can be no room in that Department for any who indulge in laissez faire or are incapable of handling these problems when they arise. The basic facts are that typhus has been progressively in evidence for many years; secondly, an outbreak of unprecedented dimensions has been raging for the past twelve months. The questions I want to put are, first, was the Department aware of the fact; secondly, what steps were taken, and thirdly, were those steps timeous and effective? With that factual background I want to refer to the Report of the Public Health Department for the year ending 30th June, 1943, and see there what is stated in that report on this question of typhus. The whole subject is dealt with in 18 lines but those 18 lines contain matters of great importance and are pregnant with suggestion. It starts off by saying that the incidence of typhus has been considerably greater than in recent years and proceeds—

In a report of this kind we should have something a little more than a bare statement of the facts but such as it is it does contain food for reflection. In the first place it is common cause that typhus follows in the footsteps of starvation. Last year it was commonly known that there was starvation and the prospects for this year’s crop are not favourable. Last year 167,000 bags of maize were imported into the Transkei and this year it is anticipated that 300,000 bags would be required. Now if we are serious in tackling this matter one would have thought that in the first instance there would have been a consultation between the Public Health Department, the Native Affairs Department and the Agricultural Department, in relation to the mazie position. One can hardly believe that such a consultation did not take place in view of the fact that the price of maize this year has been fixed at 16s. a bag which is nearly 100 per cent. more than it was five years ago and when we know that that maize will have to be retailed there at a cost of nearly £1 a bag. The report of the Department itself indicates very clearly that the Department has knowledge of the conditions there and it seems to have dealt with the position by the casual remark that conditions are just as they used to be. I assert that from May, 1943, up to the end of December and early January of 1944 repeated reports were made from the Transkei to the Health Department and repeated requests were made for assistance and equipment. I also assert that during that period from May to December nothing was done except ordinary routine work. I want to ask the Minister to enquire from his Department, whether these reports were received and if so what steps were taken in that connection. I suggest that nothing was done and I am bound to say I think that this neglect is almost criminal. In January, 1944, to the best of my knowledge, there were only one full time European assistant in the whole of the Transkei and the Ciskei and two part time assistants and I assert that there was no equipment worth talking about. In January, 1944, I received an urgent communication from the Transkei Branch of the S.A. Medical Association asking me if I would draw the attention of the House to the grave situation. I emphasise that in order to show that the questions which I put in the House were not put at the instance of people who do not know the facts. One question I put was—

The reply was—

Dr. Cluver, a former Secretary for Health and Director of the South African Institute for Medical Research, having had his attention drawn to this statement, said in the course of an interview—

That was a statement made by a most responsible officer and we would like to know what the reply was of the Health Department. I would like to ask how it is that if deverminisation is the most effective preventive that between May, 1943, and January, 1944, no steps were taken to equip the areas with sufficient and efficient equipment because as I have said before at January, 1944, there was no equipment worth talking about. [Time limit.]

I wish to make a few remarks in connection with Item D, District Surgeons. You see, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion these district surgeons are under-paid. A salary of £1,000 per annum is deplorable compared with the earnings of the colleague of the district surgeon and then I must add that the difficulties which the district surgeon has to contend with are many. Geographically his position is very difficult. Sometimes district surgeons have to travel as far as 200 miles to see a patient.

And sometimes even further.

Yes, and sometimes even further. I have in mind the district sturgeons in the North Western districts. Compared with the income of their colleagues in the medical profession, their work is more or less charity. My information is that the Department of Public Health has in its service approximately 351 district surgeons. Some of them are fulltime employees, others part-time. My colleagues, the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), will perhaps not agree with me when I say that the remuneration is insufficient, but at any rate they will agree with me when I ask the Ministér of Public Health to make all the district surgeons full-time district surgeons. I also wish to ask the Minister whether he will not agree to an enquiry into the system of District Surgeons with a view to (a) the increase of their remuneration and (b) making all the district surgeons full-time officials.

I was glad to hear the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) speak in regrad to the wages paid to nurses. I would like to inform him that we owe a deep debt to the hon. Minister who brought about the conference some time ago in Pretoria which I hope is going to be of great utility in the future. For a long time past it has been the custom for the provinces to compete one against the other for nurses and the consequence has been that these young ladies want to go to the places where they get the most pay. The consequence of that was that some of our hospitals were bereft of their personnel. It is absolutely necessary to have nurses in the hospital perhaps even more so than the doctors because the doctors give advice and the nurses have to carry out the work and be constantly in attendance on the patient. At this conference of which I speak it was decided that nurses no matter where they were should be paid on a scale equal to that pertaining in all the hospitals and in future no further increases of pay should be agreed upon unless it was done by the united action of the four Administrators. I understand there is to be another conference in July and I hope the outcome of that is going to be to further implement the work done at Pretoria. Among other things at Pretoria a resolution was passed which asked the Government to subsidise the hospi tals, or the provinces, to this extent, that instead of having one probationer nurse to perhaps every five or six, sometimes eight, patients, that that figure should be brought down to one probationer for every two beds. The object is to create as quickly as possible a much larger force of trained personnel and in that respect I hope the Minister will subsidise the provinces still further. I am in hopes that instead of having the present system of training whereby a nurse is trained in the hospital where she works, that the theoretical training should be done in college, that we should recognise that a nurse should be of a higher standard altogether than has been the case heretofore. There are many -ologies and -isms and so on which are now coming into force and it is necessary for these ladies to be much better equipped mentally than they were in the old days. In saying that I am not asserting that there are not many very excellent nurses as far as ordinary work is concerned, who have not gone through that stage I suggest. I am not belittling their services in any way. And I should like to see the Minister subsidise a few colleges, these colleges to be situated as near as possible to large hospitals, say a half a dozen of them, and a girl would join the hospital in which she wishes to serve and would do her work there, but her mental training would be done in the hospital under the bloc system which is in vogue in Norway, Sweden and Great Britain and also here at Groote Schuur. The bloc system is this: the girl training in a hospital is taken out for periods of six weeks at a time and sent to some other establishment, and is relieved of her ordinary duties, so that she has an intensive course of intellectual study for a period of six weeks at a time. She would have 2 spells of six weeks during the first year, one spell of 6 weeks in the second year and two spells of 6 weeks in the third year. In that way they have found at Groote Schuur that they have a tremendous advantage. The girls who have been under that training have passed their examinations better; there have been practically no failures and quite a number of passes with honours, and I hope this will be followed up further. We notice that in the up-country hospitals, that is in the smaller hospitals there is no chance of a nurse being trained by Sister Tutors, and even the lectures she gets from a doctor are often not too good.

Oh, oh.

I say they are not too good always, and how can you expect a man who is a general practitioner, who has never done any lecturing, when he is suddenly put to lecturing these girls to make a success of it, whereas if you have these people concentrated in a college you get the very best. All the new ideas would be inculcated there. Besides that, many of our nurses, when they are trained, get into a rut. A girl gets into a ward, or she is given charge of certain wards, and she stays there year after year, and she gets thoroughly stale in the general work of nursing. I should like to see every nurse from time to time take a refresher course at these colleges so that she is kept up-to-date, and besides that I should like to see at a college like that special courses for girls who want to take the administrative course. It is very difficult to get matrons because a matron’s duties are so multifarious today—they have to do somany things that it is most difficult to get women who are thoroughly trained and can command the respect which they should command in hospitals, and to run a hospital in an up-to-date way.

Do not these things appertain to the Provincial Council?

No, because in the Provincial Council Hospitals only the acute sick are attended to, but nurses are required for all kinds of things, other than for Provincial Hospitals, and it is the duty of the State to see that these girls are properly trained and that is why I plead that the State should make some arrangement with the Provinces whereby they can subsidise the Provinces for the cost of the hospitals. The Provinces can do the remainder. But I want this system introduced so as to make the nursing profession more attractive, and better, and to have nurses who are more highly qualified. These places would prove a great benefit especially in the country districts. I should like to see a girl so well trained that she can take her place not only as a District Nurse but as a super District Nurse in the country districts. She would be able to look after the health of the children in the schools—she could look after conditions in towns in regard to dietetics; she could give attention to social welfare matters; she would be able to do a great deal in regard to malnutrition.

I hope the Minister will accept the suggestions made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) and the hon. member Rondebosch (Dr. Moll). They gave the Minister very sound advice which I hope he will accept; that is in connection with district surgeons. They asked the Minister to make district surgeons full-time officials. We do not know yet what the recommendations of the National Health Services Commission are going to be. I would just like to say that in the Transkei the position with regard to typhus is not too good. I know what the conditions are there because that area adjoins my place. I think we are very much indebted to Dr. du Pré le Roux. He gave a detailed account of the position and he succeeded in waking up the Department to a certain extent. The position is deplorable. We have medicine for animals, but we have no medicine for human beings. I think that the Secretary for Public Health, Dr. Allan, can be congratulated on the drastic way in which he acted. They are now taking steps on a very large scale to destroy the lice. I received a letter quite recently from a friend of mine who lives in the Transkei. He writes that every single hut is now being disinfected. They are being sprayed systematically and no native is allowed outside unless he has been properly disinfected. This is a dangerous disease; it is carried over the length and breadth of the country and it is necessary that drastic steps should be taken. We may congratulate the Department on its action and we hope that it will continue to purge South Africa of this lice-fever. One knows what the position is in the rural areas today There are country towns where there is no medical practitioner. In my area there are vacancies for medical practitioners. From time to time applications are invited in the Government Gazette. In every edition I see that applications are being invited.

There are 41 vacancies in the whole of the Union.

This is not a healthy state of affairs. The people in the rural areas have no petrol and tyres today. They cannot go to the doctor; the doctor must come to them. Something will have to be done about this. We should not wait until it is too late again. Something should be done to have these men appointed immediately. I hope the Minister will take steps to fill these vacancies.

There are 26 vacancies.

My hon. friend over there who is a doctor says that there are 41 vacancies. The Minister says there are 26.

You will have to believe the Minister.

Mention has been made here of the Medical Council. This seems to me to be a very autocratic council. They have done nothing. They should have done certain things long ago and they should have roused the Department to activity. I want to differ on this point with the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) who states that the Medical Council has done wonders. They may have done wonders but I fail to see what they have done. As a matter of fact, I think they have done practically nothing yet. I am glad, however, to see that our friend is now the Chairman of that Council. I hope that in future he will do his duty in connection with this matter. With these few words I merely want to say that we should take into account the future of the nation and if we do not give proper attention to the health of the nation then we will never succeed in building up a nation. We should not wait until it is too late. I understood that in the past there were not sufficient funds, but now the funds are there; there is money galore. Let us do this now and tackle the matter in the proper way. If we do that we will be able to build up a healthy nation. I am glad to see that the medical men in the House have woken up. In the past they very seldom spoke. Now they all want to speak. I do not know whether all of them are medical doctors, because today there are so many doctors that one does not always know in what subject they are doctors. In any case, we are indebted to the doctors who draw the attention of the Department to the defects existing in the country and who insist on the remedying of those defects.

When I was stopped by the time limit. I was trying to indicate what action had been taken in the Transkei— which apparently the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) did not understand. Following my question, a telegram was sent to the Prime Minister by an influential European gathering, to this effect—

I am bound to admit that when the full facts about the Transkei came to the knowledge of the Minister steps were immediately taken and the Minister of Native Affairs proceeded to the Transkei and steps were taken to organise against the disease. The disease had already taken severe toll. One of the chiefs told the Minister of Native Affairs: “When we report to the magistrate and tell him that we need a man to do the work in our locations, that man is 100 miles away.” Let me tell the Committee that kraals have been completely emptied by the epidemic before this officer arrived. Now what did we find? People were ready to undertake the campaign, but there was no equipment available. The necessary typhus vaccine was not available. Fifteen teams were organised with a view to undertaking a deverminising campaign, but these teams could not function. In the early part of April only five teams could undertake the work simply because the necessary equipment was not available. Yet the Department was fully aware of the position for months and months. The intervening periods should have been used for providing vaccine and deverminising equipment. I should like to draw attention to this. I feel that an attempt has been made to cover up the position. On the 29th March there appeared a statement in the “Cape Times” to the effect that this disease had spread more widely still, and concludes with these words—

That is interesting in view of the fact that on the 1st April the following statement appeared in the press, having apparently been authorised by the Department of Public Health—

That seems to me an amazing statement to make in view of the fact that 1,700 people had died in January from the disease. I cannot understand what the purpose of this statement was. Who was being deluded, the public, the Minister, or the gentleman who wrote the article? Then there appeared in the “Argus” a report about fresh outbreaks in the Crown Mines, at Springs and in other parts of the country, clearly showing that the disease was tending to spread beyond the territories of the Transkei.

What was the number of deaths alleged to have occurred in January of this year?

According to the press report it was 1,692. The general reaction of the public to this sort of thing is indicated by a leader which appeared in the “Natal Witness” on 15th March, 1944, and from which I will quote—

The “Natal Witness,” I submit, is not a paper that makes wild statements, and I think we may regard that statement as defining the general reaction of the public towards this position. I feel that though there may be a duty on the Minister to defend his department whenever attacked, he is bound in these circumstances to represent the true position in this matter, and that he will take steps to see that this thing does not occur again. I have, Mr. Chairman, dealt specifically with typhus, as the facts of this outbreak are immediately before us, but I have reason to believe that the dangers of venereal disease and of tuberculosis are just as grave as in the case of typhus. The passage of the report dealing with venereal disease shows an extraordinary increase in the number of people affected. We find in the report for 1943 that the patients treated in hospitals numbered : Europeans 728; non-Europeans 17,000; while 46,000 people were attended in clinics. The total number affected was 303,000. The increase in the figures for non-Europeans is largely accounted for according to the report, by the inclusion of the figures for Johannesburg that were not available the previous year. That seems to me an incredible statement. The disease, I am informed, is rife in the Transkei today, and I am also credibly informed that there is only one clinic dealing specifically with the disease. [Time limit.]

It is quite evident that the criticisms levelled at this Vote from all sides of the House boils down to one factor, that the total amount of the vote, £1,236,500, is still insufficient for the health services of the country. It is no use criticising the Minister for administrative difficulties which exist between the provincial authorities and the central Government. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) put forward some constructive proposals, but these are all points which he said should be reserved for future policy, once the report of the Public Health Commission is before the public, and that we have now to confine our criticism to the actual points raised here. In this Vote I quite agree that the position of the native territories today is one that causes some anxiety, and that comes back to the important matter raised in this House on former occasions that until such time as we have vital statistics throughout the country, we shall never be able to judge the true position of the native territories, and no one will know the exact conditions prevailing there and whether an epidemic is liable to occur or not. We are absolutely dependent on vital statistics, and therefore it is most important and one of the primary things to be done in this country—even before attacking the further spread of the epidemics—to make it compulsory that vital statistics should be kept for the whole of the people of the country.

We have been asking for that for years.

So have we; we have been asking for them for years. There is no doubt, I think, that the Minister is fully alive to the fact that there are certain problems that need close attention. One is naturally glad to see that there is some improvement this year in the advances from Loan Account to hospitals for tuberculosis at Worcester, Beaufort West and Cape Town. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Cape Town hospital has been on the book for many years, but nothing has happened. I do hope there will be no excuse for not going on with the hospital at Worcester immediately. There is no doubt there are many black spots in South Africa in regard to tuberculosis. Living conditions, of course, play a large part in its incidence. Tuberculosis is a social disease; the social background is of great importance. One feels that the conditions prevailing today in the so-called locations at Mossel Bay and Riversdale are appalling, and that the mortality figures are increasing.

Only in Cape Town.

Yes, in Cape Town but only among the coloured people. The death rate in Cape Town amongst the coloured people is seven times greater than among the European people, and that is putting it mildly. Another point I should like to make is this, that there has been difficulty in getting X-ray equipment in South Africa. I see here that X-ray plant is to be installed at Bloemfontein for the tuberculosis hospital. But here in Cape Town we have had difficulty. Initially a contract was accepted in America to provide X-ray apparatus, and actually we have information that the plant was ready on the docks in America to come to South Africa, but owing to some difficulty connected with transport, and the arrangements for priority, the plant never arrived, and it will be a very good thing if there can be co-ordination from the Public Health Department with the other departments that have to deal with vital apparatus in this country. I put that forward as a suggestion to the Minister, and I am confident that he will do his best to see that certain necessary equipment will be granted priority above all other things when they are essential for the health of the people of South Africa. Finally, I should like to put in my plea with that advanced by the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) and the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) in regard to the salaries paid to district surgeons and in respect of other full time appointments for men and women in the health services. I have noticed that the department has been advertising for a medical officer at £700 a year. I think-even at the salary of £700, when a well-qualified and experienced person in the profession is asked for, is on a very low scale, and it is not a figure that will attract the very best, and when you are dealing with the povertystricken classes you want the very best. Therefore I appeal to the Minister, if it is in his power, to increase the salaries of full time medical officials in his service.

I would like to get some information regarding a few points. I see that mention is made here of five hospitals for lepers. I would like the Minister to make a statement in connection with the position regarding leprosy. There appears to be an increase in the number of Europeans as well as coloured persons and natives who suffer from leprosy. Not so very long ago it was claimed that this disease could be totally eradicated and it was hoped that it would also be eradicated in South Africa.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

I would like to put two more questions to the Minister. The one concerns sub-head (2) of this vote, Public Health, on which money is being asked for an enquiry into the causes of blindness amongst natives. In the course of last week, prior to a collection which was held in Cape Town, a circular was issued of which I also received one and in this circular it was stated that there were approximately 30,000 blind persons in the country and the assumption is that the large majority of them are natives. For that reason I welcome the appropriation of this amount. But apparently this amount is out of all proportion to the extent and the importance of this matter. I want to ask the Minister whether he has any statistics at his disposal which he could communicate to the House, as to whether the extent of blindness is as large as it is being represented—namely that there are approximately 30,000 blind persons in the Union—and whether he has any information concerning the causes of this most deplorable state of affairs. In the third place I would also like to know from him whether any steps have been taken by his Department to combat this evil? The next question I wish to put to the Minister is in connection with sub-head (f) namely the prevention of venereal disease, and I think the Minister owes the House a reply. The Minister is asking here for an amount of £125,000 for the prevention of venereal disease in the Union. More than one hon. member has referred this morning to the conditions existing amongst the natives. Now I think that the House as well as the country is entitled to obtain from the Minister a statement of the extent of the conditions prevalent. Nobody will expect him to dwell in detail on the gruesomeness of this disease, but the amount allocated here for maintenance and for grants to the local bodies in no way represents the full amount of the expenditure. Neither is the amount asked for an indication of the social and economic results of this disease for the country. I will be glad if the Minister could make a statement to the House and say whether he is satisfied that the treatment of the cases which are reported is properly completed or whether his Department experiences difficulty in the treatment of reported cases to a final cure. The position fortunately is that all those who report themselves for treatment can be properly treated. Then I would also like to know from the Minister whether any measures are being considered to prevent the spread of this disease—which can only be by means of contact with other persons—as far as humanly possible. This is a gruesome matter and it is difficult to obtain statistics; but where so much money is being appropriated I think the Minister should take the House into his confidence.

Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that the Health Services Commissions’ Report is not yet available, and that when it is available, Parliament cannot consider it until next Session, I want to deal with another report which I have here in my hand, hoping to get some declaration from the Minister in regard to matters raised in this report. It is the report of a committee on the admission of students to the medical schools of South Africa. I might add that the report was drawn up by a committee appointed by the Minister of Education. Before I proceed with the matter of this report and its relation to the Health Services, I want to ask the Minister two important questions. What steps has he taken as the Minister in charge of the Department of Public Health in regard to the special report of the doctors set out in this document I have here? Secondly, what provision has he recently planned and what has been planned since 1914 for the immediate transition of the Army Medical and Hospitals and Nursing Services from a war to a peace basis in order to obviate delay in our demobilisation plans, and to provide what was left out of the Minister’s statement on demobilisation, namely, the training of personnel and the necessary capital construction? These are necessary to meet the needs of our people, desperate as they are, in regard to medical services, hospitalisation, rural health services and the training of nurses. This report is based on the assumption that one doctor would be sufficient for every 2,500 of the population; and that therefore it would be necessary for an annual output from our medical schools of a maximum of 300 trained men. Another conclusion drawn from this policy of limiting the doctors to that excessive number of the population is that no new medical schools will be necessary in the future. No explanation has been given, Sir, as to how the maximum laid down in the report, that is 4,000 doctors for the Union, will be sufficient to meet the health needs of the Union and deal adequately with 2,000,000 whites and 9,000,0000 non-Europeans.

Order! I think that must fall under “Education.”

Mr. Chairman it is essentially a matter for meeting public health services.

The hon. member may proceed.

It also raises the question as to how these 4,000 doctors can be distributed equitably throughout our wide spaces to meet the needs of all sections of the population. Nor does the report give us any indication as to how we are going to measure up to the needs in connection with hospitalisation and nursing services, and how these services are to be built up. Take the case of Estcourt. There we had at one time one doctor—I am not sure that the position is any better at the present moment—one doctor to service an area of 2,000 square miles of country with a mixed population of some 15,000 people. The only solution obviously is to go all out for a State medical service, if not for the Union as a whole, then certainly for the rural areas, and to establish a central school of nursing for each of the provinces. I don’t want to labour these points very much; but there is one matter which is of very great importance; it has significance in the Province of Natal, a part of which I represent, and that is the establishment of a non-European medical school. The committee I have referred to was opposed to the establishment of such a school on the grounds that the number of native students offering, bearing in mind the low standard of education attained by natives generally, would not be sufficient.

I am afraid that is definitely a matter to be discussed under the Education Vote.

I shall then pass on to deal with the need for such a medical school. The Medical Association has repeatedly urged and emphasised the need for a non-European medical school in the Durban area. There we have a native hospital with well over 1,000 beds. The Geographical position is excellent; and the general conditions are also suitable for the establishment of a school for the study of tropical medicine. Now I want to ask the Minister, in relation to the other two questions I have put, whether he has any information to give the House regarding this medical school for non-Europeans for the Union, as well as the wider plans he may have prepared in his Department in the interests of the health of the people. There is one other matter I want briefly to deal with. That is the question of malnutrition, which was raised by the hon. member fór Transkei (Mr. Hemming). I am sure hon. members were impressed by the article in a recent issue of the “Medical Journal” by Mr. J. F. Herbst. He pointed out that the physical deterioration of the native people has gone on until out of 400,000 examined for recruiting recently 70,000 were rejected as physically unfit. He ascribes the condition of these people to the deleterious effects of the food position. We have had a very heavy outbreak of typhus in the Transkei recently; and he ascribes that mainly to famine and overcrowding, applicable to both man and beast. In connection with malnutrition I want to recommend to the Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Public Health, a plan which was put forward by a Natal scientist of distinction, a veterinary surgeon, Mr. WatkinsPitchford. He suggested that we might link up our remedies for malnutrition with our plans for de-stocking in order to stop soil erosion. His plan briefly is this: that there would be compulsory purchase of surplus cattle by the State; and the State would take, say 5 per cent. of the surplus at a time, turn the animals into desiccated food or tinned meats and return them in that way as food to the native population either for sale or for free distribution among that section among which malnutrition is most pronounced. He claims for that plan that it would assist in the problem of the rehabilitation of the natives, that it would lessen the incidence of typhus and tuberculosis and other diseases by combating malnutrition. I want to recommend to the Minister that he take the advice of Mr. Watkins-Pitchford in this matter. He has come forward with this plan, and now offers his services freely to the Department in any capacity in which the Department may think him useful. I commend his plan to the serious consideration of the Minister.

I should like to reply to some of the very interesting points which have been raised in the course of the debate this morning and this afternoon. May I first of all, say to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) that the question of educational facilities for non-European medical students is a matter in the hands of the Minister of Education— naturally the Department of Public Health is concerned indirectly and certainly directly in so far as the carrying out of Health work is concerned—but the actual machinery for training falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Education, I know that strong representations have been made to him from Natal. It has been suggested that a medical school for non-Europeans should be established in Natal. He is going into these matters, for naturally one will have to have regard to proper facilities for the training of natives and coloured doctors in any health scheme for the future. The hon. member also suggested that I had left out of my Demobilisation statement any reference to health facilities that might be given to ex-servicemen, their families and their dependants. But the hon. member recognised, in view of what he said, that no large-scale advance on the present position can be made until we have the report of the National Health Service Commission. I shall deal with that in a moment. I do not want to do so at this stage except to say this, that quite obviously we are linking up with our demobilisation proposals, and with our proposals for social security in South Africa, the provision of adequate health, hospital and dental services in this country. It was not so much a case of an omission, as the case of the proper place in which to deal with that particular phase of this national problem. Before dealing with the very helpful and constructive remarks of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) I want at once to place before this House the facts, as I understand them, in regard to the typhus position in the Transkei. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) presented a very strong and severe indictment against the Public Health Department. He painted a very grave picture indeed, a picture of inaction, of neglect, in fact of criminal indifference on the part of the head officials of Public Health. Now I want to examine the facts as he put them before the House. He was supported in respect of one of his alleged facts by the hon. member for Durban (Berea); that hon. member said that the outbreak of typhus in the Transkei is one of the greatest in our times. I shall deal with that. Before, however, examing the facts, may I just say a word or two, not in mitigation—if there is anything to mitigate, if there are any shortcomings on the part of the Public Health Department—but rather by way of appreciation of the efforts that have been made by the Secretary for Public Health and his officials during these five very difficult years of war. The Public Health Department has been almost crippled through staff difficulties. Twenty-five per cent. of the full time staff have volunteered for full time military service. Of its full time medical officers 12 have been on full time active service, and only recently have we been able to secure the return to civilian duties of some of these officers. The staff have been working long hours under great difficulties. The Secretary for Public Health has had no holiday for the past five years; the same cannot be said for some high officials in the Transkei, one of whom, at least, took a month’s holiday last December when typhus was supposed to be such a burning question.

Tell that to Piet van der Byl, not to us.

I want to be quite fair. He is a Public Health official and he is not the responsibility of my colleague. An attack has been made today on what I might term the Head Office of the Department of Public Health. The hon. member for Transkei said he was not attacking me but the Department, but I want to say that I accept full responsibility for my Department and I am not prepared to shelter behind the departmental officials. I accept full responsibility for what the head of my department does. That is the position in regard to the staff. The head of the department and his staff have been carrying on under tremendous difficulties, and have been rendering the most loyal service under these conditions. Now the hon. member for Transkei has said that this outbreak of Typhus in the Transkei is an “unprecedented” one. The hon. member for Berea said it was the worst known in modern times. Up till 1917, Typhus was not recognised in this country. It had not been officially recognised as a disease. We now know as a result of medical enquiries and research—research by a number of eminent practitioners—that Typhus—a disease responsible for many severe epidemics overseas—was probably introduced into South Africa in the 17th Century. Dr. Laidler, who is recognised as the authority on South African medical history, suggests that the disease was introduced by the “Medemblik” which arrived in Table Bay in 1666, the year following the great plague in London. In 1909-1910 Dr. W. Girdwood and Dr. R. L. Girdwood reported cases in the Kentani district which they diagnosed as Typhus, but unfortunately they were not supported, and it was not until 1917 that the Cape Province Health Department accepted that Typhus did exist in the Transkei. Since 1917 the disease has been recognised as endemic in the Transkei, with periodic flare-ups. The worst outbreak was in 1920 when 11,276 cases with 1,791 deaths were reported. During 1921 numerous cases occurred in Cape Town and in the old Ndabeni location, where the disease was rampant. There was another severe outbreak in 1923 when 7,099 cases with 755 deaths were reported in the Union, and in 1934 and 1935 further sharp outbreaks occurred. The year in which Typhus was least prevalent was 1941, when 714 cases and 176 deaths were reported. There is no doubt that Typhus has been endemic in the Transkei for the past 25 or 30 years.

And in the Ciskei.

To a much more limited extent. We find that 5,165 cases of Typhus fever in the Union have been notified since the 1st July, 1943, of which only 403 have been recorded in respect of cases elsewhere than in the Transkei and Ciskei Territories, so the present outbreak might be said to have been confined to these territories. It is quite correct to say that this outbreak has been confined to the Transkei and the Ciskei.

It was raised in the House in 1942.

It is curious that it was raised in 1942, because we find that in 1941, the year for which figures were available, we had the lowest incidence of Typhus in our recorded history. In 1941 we had the lowest figure recorded, namely 714 cases reported with 176 deaths. I do not dispute, however, that the matter was raised. But if it was raised in that year, there were certainly no facts on record to show that it was assuming any large proportions.

Your own people say it started in 1942; I have the report here before me.

It certainly started in 1942; there I agree with my hon. friend. In 1942 the position became worse. But if my hon. friend says it was raised in 1942, it could not have been raised very seriously in the House.

It was, by Mr. Gilson.

My point is this : that only the 1941 figures would have been available by the time the 1942 session was in full swing, and therefore one would not have had figures of an alarming nature to act upon at that time. I shall give the figures. In 1942 the figure was 1,546 compared with 714 in 1941. Is that alarming? Let me take all the figures? In 1917 the number of reported cases was 3,785; in 1918, 2,708; in 1919, 4,828; in 1920, 11,226; 1921, 9,157; 1922, 2,592; 1923, 7,099; 1924 2,122; in 1925, 1,144; in 1926, 1,135; in 1927, 895; in 1928, 3,031; in 1929, 1,480; in 1930, 1,782; 1931, 1,541; in 1932, 1,550; in 1933, 2,125; in 1934, 5,956; in 1935, 6,826; in 1936, 1,605; in 1937, 1,007; in 1938, 982; in 1939, 1,273. Then we drop, and in 1940 the figure was 841; in 1941 it was 714; in 1942, 1,546; in 1943, 2,919. The point I want to make is this, that these figures show conclusively that over the course of all these years Typhus has been raging at periodic intervals in the Transkei. The position up to the end of 1943 was no worse, in fact it was relatively very much better, than it has been in the Union in certain other years. But the Department of Public Health stepped in at the end of 1943, and started a campaign. It has embarked upon an all-out campaign to try to eradicate this disease. But what does the department get when, after all these years when apparently very little has been done, it now launches a campaign to stamp out the disease? It gets what is colloquially known as a “kick in the pants!” The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) has said that this matter was serious during last year, and that, until it was brought to my notice at the end of the year, nothing was done about it. He alleges that earlier there was failure on the part of the Department to deal with the matter. If the hon. gentleman is correct, if the matter was so serious, if it was of so conspicuous a nature before the end of last year, why did not the hon. member approach me or approach the Department? Why did he not do that if it was of such a burning nature?

He has condemned the Department for being criminally negligent. Why is this the first we have heard from the hon. member? He has never approached either me or the Department over the matter until this year. If it was so serious why did he not do that?

I am not defending myself; I am accepting responsibility. I feel, however, that a very grave and serious allegation has been made against my senior departmental officials, and I want to know where the hon. member got his information from. He tells the House that between May and December, 1943, complaints were made, but nothing was done. I am informed by the Department that requests were made for additional manpower assistance, and that native aids were made available and the engagement of European personnel was authorised. At a later stage complaints were made in regard to the blowlamps used in connection with deverminising, and the Department did its best to deal with those complaints. The suggestion made today that nothing was done is not borne out by the information given me by the Department. Yet we get no thanks when we decided to embark on the large-scale extermination of typhus. That is the objective of the Public Health Department at the present time. We want to stamp out this disease by deverminisation and by inoculation, and by other means as well. When we made a start there was difficulty in acquiring suitable boilers for deverminisation purposes. A certain official alleged that he had patented a boiler, and we were told that we would have to pay that official £3,000 before he would produce a single boiler. He had designed his plans in Government time. We were not prepared to be held up to ransom, and we proceeded to make our own boilers according to Government specifications. I have a letter from the health officer in the Transkei where he says that there can be no question of the Department infringing the patent, as the design that was acted upon by the railway authorities in making these boilers was as old as the hills.

The boiler only cost 18s. 6d.

Why did that stop you?

The boiler that was prepared in the Salt River Works cost more than that. It cost between £5 and £10.

The boiler you are using now costs 18s. 6d.

That is not correct.

It is correct, because your Department says so.

My hon. friend is referring to twelve temporary boilers which were made out of old scrap by the Public Works Department, and which have not been entirely satisfactory; we were told by the senior health inspector in the Transkei that they were not satisfactory, and that we should manufacture boilers according to the design of the local typhus inspector. We, however, consulted the railway authorities who have given the pubic health authorities every assistance, and artisans of the Salt River Works worked overtime during weekends in order to produce boilers which cost between £5 and £10. Since then we have been producing a heavier type at a greater cost. The demand was at first made that the boilers to be sent down to the Transkei should be according to the design of this particular official, and that, I believe, would have cost £50 for each boiler. We were not prepared to do that, and we proceeded to have boilers constructed by the Railway Department to meet our needs. Those are the facts, and the suggestion that the Department has remained idle, and that it has not been prepared to step in and assist, is unjust. There were, initially, difficulties in regard to staff and equipment But not only did the Railway Department come to our assistance most readily, but the Department of Defence also came to our assistance. We have been able to send an additional five doctors to the Transkei, four of whom were made available by the Department of Defence. One of the five is a fulltime district surgeon who was on holiday from the Rand, and who readily agreed to go to the Transkei when we asked him to do so.

The Department of Defence has also made available motor lorries and motor cars, as well as personnel in connection with the transport, and we are in a position today to carry out deverminisation on a very large scale. The hon. member for Transkei quoted from a press report, in which it was stated that during the month of January, 1944, there were something like 1,600 deaths in the Transkei. The number of deaths for the twelve months up to June, 1943, from typhus in the Transkei was 521; that was for the twelve months ended June, 1943. We have asked for official figures in regard to deaths since 1943. The number for the twelve months ended June, 1943, was 521. A reply that has been received from the Department of Census—and I should like to give it as a whole, because the figures obviously are not accurate, but hon. members will be able to see on what they are based. The Department of Census states that statistics are tabulated every six months, and that the registration of native deaths in rural areas is not compulsory. The figures from 1st July, 1943, to 22nd April, 1944, were extracted from the records in the office of the Director of Census, but as the information is dependent on statistics furnished by magistrates, too much reliance cannot be placed on them. I assume, for the moment, that any guess or estimate will have been received from the chief magistrate. This telegram refers to certain deaths in other provinces, and then it goes on to deal with the Transkei as follows—

In other words this telegram, which has been received from the Department of Census, gives the total number of deaths amongst non-Europeans in the Transkei since 1st July, 1943, until 22nd April, 1944, as 1,923; that is the total number of deaths from Typhus. Admittedly that figure is not 100 per cent. accurate, because we do not keep vital statistics, but’ it certainly goes to show that the alleged number of 1,600 deaths in January, 1944, is grossly exaggerated, to say the least of it.

Are the figures arrived at on the same basis as for the previous year?

I assume so. At any rate, let me say this, that the medical inspector in the Transkei has never as yet informed the Department of Public Health that 1,600 natives died from Typhus during the month of January, 1944. The latest Typhus information I am able to give the House is contained in a telegram we have received from the medical inspector at Umtata. As at 29th April, 1944, he gives the number of natives deverminised during that month at 33,853, immunised 9,151, the number of deaths at 5, and he states that the number of new cases is 70, and the number of fresh outbreaks during April, 23. The number of natives deverminised since 1st July, 1943, was 112,483, and the number of natives immunised since 1st July, 1943, was in the neighbourhood of 100,000, of which approximately 80,000 are in respect of the Transkei. I hope hon. members will realise, therefore, that the Secretary for Public Health and his officials are not only fully alive to the danger there, but that they are doing what has not been attempted during previous outbreaks. They have now embarked upon a campaign to wipe out this disease entirely. Deverminisation is the only way of wiping out Typhus; immunisation will help for a while.

The root cause is malnutrition.

I quite agree with my hon. friend. We are doing what lies within the province of the Public Health Department to exterminate this disease. We know that there are other factors such as malnutrition, ignorance of hygiene and matters of that sort that have to be dealt with. There is need for proper health propaganda amongst the native community, not merely in regard to the louse and deverminisation, but a need for health propaganda in regard to hygiene and we have to make available to these people the necessary protective foodstuffs. All that is part and parcel of a national campaign. What I do say is this : that to suggest that at the present time we can lay all the blame on the Public Health Department for what is happening is unfair, and unjustified by the facts. The Secretary for Public Health and his senior officials were those who initiated this anti-typhus campaign in the Transkei, and I do think that they deserve from the hon. member, who represents the natives in the Transkei, something more than an unwarranted allegation that they have been guilty of criminal neglect. I come, now, to the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). He has made a number of very useful suggestions to the House in his survey of health conditions. He pointed out, very rightly, that public health is at last coming into its own in South Africa, that the public as a whole has become alive to the fact that we have to do a great deal more than we have done in the past. It was the appreciation by public opinion of this fact which obviously led the Government, two years ago, to appoint the National Health Commission. But there has been, in the course of the past ten years, a growing appreciation of the necessity for more concentration upon health matters and a greater public expenditure upon health services. Again I would say this to hon. members, when the department and the Government is attempting to bring about a new order of things, do not suggest that because these things do not happen in a moment, or over a weekend, that we are being dilatory. I would remind the House of what the postiion was ten years ago, when the annual Government expenditure on Public Health was £473,340. That was in the financial year 1934-’35.

How much of that was spent on buildings?

No, this was all on public health work, except possibly certain grants to tuberculosis hospitals. This sum, of course, does not take into account the health expenditure by local and provincial authorities. In the year 1935-’36 the Public Vote was increased and this was due to my colleague, the present Minister of Finance, who was then Minister of Public Health. There was a progressive increase in the Public Health Vote of quite a spectacular amount. That increase has been continued during the war, despite war expenditure. Not in one single war year have we reduced the vote for Public Health, but, on the contrary, we have increased it. Compared with £473,340 in 1934-’35, we contemplate an expenditure this year of £1,300,000, an increase of £826,660 over what was spent 10 years ago. In the year last before the war £768,570 was spent by the Government on Public Health; and for this year, as I have said, we contemplate spending £1,300,000, in other words an increase of £531,430 during the war years. I do not suggest for one moment that this is by any means sufficient. Quite obviously it is not. We are all ad idem on that particular point. But I do stress the fact that, despite the difficulties of the war period, the expenditure on Public Health has progressed. The department’s officials have carried on with the task of making health services available, and we have in fact, during the war period, increased the vote by over half a million pounds. Obviously it is no use speculating on what the National Health Commission is going to recommend, but I may inform the House that I hope to have the report in my hands within the next two or three weeks. That Commission has been set a tremendously difficult task, a task of first rate national importance; it has been given a constructive task to do on behalf of South Africa as a whole, and I want to say at once to the hon. member for Stellenbosch that neither the Government nor the Health Department intend to delay when that report is received. There will naturally be a delay of perhaps two or three months before the report is issued to the public as a whole. It will have to be translated and printed, but I am quite prepared to let my hon. friend, the member for Stellenbosch, in his capacity as president of the Medical Council and as a member of the Public Health Council, have an early copy of the report. What is more, the Department of Public Health has already taken steps to ensure that there shall be no delay, once the report is in my hands, in implementing at any rate certain recommendations which we anticipate may flow from that report. It will be remembered that the sum of £50,000 for Health Centres was made available for the vote of the Department of Public Health in the last budget of the Minister of Finance, in order that the earliest possible beginning might be made with the development of national Health Centres. As was intimated by the Minister in his budget speech, provision was made for consultation with the Commission which gave us its assurance that such a scheme would fit in with its general proposals. That £50,000 was put on the estimates merely as a token vote, but it was put on the estimates in order that we should be able to make a start at once, without any delay. I expect that several of the Health Centres will be in operation in various parts of the country within the next five or six months. Capital expenditure will be reduced to a minimum so that the major portion of the funds available will be utilised in the provision of personnel, whose first duty will be the promotion and maintenance of the health of the people in their homes, rather than the treatment of established disease for which services are already available through the district surgeoncy system and by the hospitals. We want to make a start. Hon. members have referred to the district surgeoncy system and the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. Bosman) has asked that their emoluments should be increased and their services made full time. These are matters which we may have recommendations about and this may have to be implemented in the days ahead; but we certainly cannot do that at the present time, because there is a shortage of district surgeons. We have vacancies at the present time for 26; we cannot get doctors to take them. Let me also remind hon. gentlemen of this, that while the district surgeons’ advertised salary generally averages £400, the Health Department is yearly paying out to district surgeons, in respect of transport allowances, amounts well up to £1,000 a year. Apart from their salary they also have allowances in respect of travelling.

A shilling a mile.

Yes. In the country districts these men do a great deal of travelling, and they do not need the whole Is a mile. In other words, they do receive something by way of travelling allowances which in effect, augments their salaries. That is in respect of both full time and part time district surgeons. If we were to insist that all district surgeons were to be full time officials, we would probably get fewer applicants than we are getting now. It is part of the attraction to a young doctor to accept a post as district surgeon, that he can undertake private practice. In any event, quite obviously, there will have to be changes. The appointments we make at present are temporary appointments for the duration of the war. When the war is over we propose to re-advertise these posts in order to give everyone an opportunity, especially the medical men who are in the fighting forces—an opportunity of applying. I hope that we shall be able to fill all these posts at that time. The hon. member for Stellenbosch has also asked me what is the position regarding relapsing fever. About three years ago there was an outbreak of illness in the Postmasburg district, in the North-West Cape. This was diagnosed as relapsing fever, the carrier of which is the tick. The fever is one which rises and then subsides and then returns; therefore it is known as relapsing. Recently at Kimberley, we found non-European troops suffering from this fever, and the particular tick which causes it was found in native houses in Kimberley. The matter is being dealt with by the Medical Officer there. At Graaff-Reinet also, there were recently cases of undiagnosed illness; bloodsmears were taken and we found that it was relapsing fever. That has also been dealt with. The hon. member has referred to the school feeding scheme. The general administration of it is in the hands of the Department of Social Welfare, but I will bear the hon. member’s remarks in mind. He also referred to nurses. It is perfectly true that provision for nurses salaries is not the responsibility of the Medical Council nor that of the Department of Public Health, and in that respect I cannot agree to the vote of no confidence which the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) sought to move in respect of the hon. member for Stellenbosch. I acquit him and his Medical Council; they have no responsibility in this matter, nor has the Department of Public Health. The Department did call a conference in Pretoria at the end of last year to which the hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) referred. We went into a number of these difficulties concerned with nurses and the nursing shortage; we have taken them up with the provincial administrations, and I hope that hon. members on both sides of the House are going to help me put through a Bill dealing with the nurses at the end of this Session. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) has referred to the difficulty of obtaining X-ray equipment. The Department has been in contact with the Controller of Medical Requisites and I am informed that these supplies are now becoming available. We are hoping to get a number of miniature X-ray sets to deal with tubercolosis examinination. The question of vital statistics has been raised. The other day, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) I said that in my capacity as Minister of Public Health I had for the last four years been trying to persuade myself, as Minister of the Interior to bring that about, and I was accused of levity. Perhaps I should explain. It is quite obvious that everyone agrees upon the necessity for the compilation of these vital statistics in respect of the native population. The Department of the Interior, which is responsible, has tried to institute a system for compiling these vital statistics, but staff difficulties have so far proved to be insuperable. I would remind hon. members that a year or two ago, when we took our last quinquennial census, although we had decided to take a census of the natives we had to abandon that because of the manpower position. But before I left the Department of the Interior, one of the things which I asked them to place on a high priority in their post-war work was the institution of a scheme for the recording of vital statistics amongst natives. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has asked me to give some details in regard to the position of leprosy. The hon. member will find the figures in the last report of the Department of Public Health. He will find there that the present total number of lepers, male and female in the Union, European and nonEuropean, is 2,262. The incidence of leprosy among Europeans has lessened in the course of the last few years. There is no doubt that more patients are ready to go to leper institutions for treatment than in previous years, due to a change of policy on the part of the Department. “Burnt-out” lepers are now released on probation to their homes from time to time. In the old days if a person went to a leper institution, he or she was there for life. That is not the position today and, as a result of this new policy, we find a greater radiness on the part of the people to submit to leper treatment than before. Finally, reference was made to the question of tuberculosis. Despite our difficulties we have been proceeding with the building of additional hospitals. During last year we have been able to have an 18 bed hospital at Springbok erected—that is for coloureds. On the 15th of this month, the military authorities are vacating 100 beds at Nelspoort, 75 per cent. of which will become available for civilian patients and the other 25 will be reserved for military pensioners. During the course of last year, we built 102 beds for coloured tuberculotics at Rentzkey’s Farm in the Cape Peninsula. And the Department also made available to the City of Cape Town 72 beds normally used for quarantine purposes. During the last 12 months, therefore, we have given the City Council 172 beds. We propose during the forthcoming year to supply an additional 102 beds at Rentzkey’s Farm at a cost of £50,000. At Beaufort West we are proceeding with 60 beds, 30 for Europeans and 30 for non-Europeans; at Worcester 50 beds, 25 for Europeans and 25 for non-Europeans. At Umtata we are providing 100 beds for natives. At Van Rhynsdorp we have started an experiment with a central administration block and quarters for nurses, and surrounding it with a number of reed huts were T.B. patients can be isolated. At Mossel Bay we are enquiring into the possibility of putting up a 100 bed hospital for T.B. patients.

What about Oudtshoorn?

We have considered that, but we are not able to proceed with the building of such an institution there and that is why we have moved to Mossel Bay as a possible centre for the treatment of patients from the South Western Districts.

Would it not be better to have it at Ladismith?

The Department has its eye on a number of military camps which it may take over for hospital purposes after the war. There is a military camp at Oudtshoorn, and we therefore do not want to embark on heavy expenditure if we may be able to take over these places after the war. I want to say again that I do hope that the City Council of Cape Town will, within the shortest possible time, take advantage of the facilities provided by the Government for the building of a tuberculosis hospital. The plans, I now learn, have been submitted to the Public Health Department. This matter has been hanging on for a long time. We have had the money on our estimates for some time, and I think we have now shifted the onus to the City Council of Cape Town.

I listened with attention to the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) and I wish to associate myself with him wholeheartedly. He spoke here as Chairman of the Medical Council and also for himself and I feel convinced that the points he raised were most important; but I am disappointed that he did not speak in stronger terms of sufferers from tuberculosis. If we look at the annual report, we find the number of persons suffering from tuberculosis shown, for the years ending 30th June, 1942, ánd 30th June, 1943. The figures given there are really appalling. The numbers given are 14,780 for 1942 and 17,163 for 1943. If we compare that with the disease following next on tuberculosis, namely, typhoid, then we find that the figures were 3,850 and 3,970 respectively for these two years. There is thus an enormous difference between the number of persons suffering from tuberculosis and the number suffering from typhoid. Now we come to the number of deaths from plague. In 1942 it was 79 and in 1943 there were 77. The number of tuberculotics is given here as 17,000 and then I assume that all the cases have not been attended to by medical practitioners; most probably there will be a further 5,000 who received no treatment from medical practitioners. We assume that the 3,000 patients who suffered from typhoid were treated medically. In that instance we find that there were fewer deaths, but on the other hand we find that a very small percentage of tuberculotics recovered. I feel that we are dealing with a most serious matter when we talk of tuberculosis. I feel that in the past we have not done enough to combat this disease—which causes such a large number of deaths—in the proper manner. Of these 17,000 tuberculotics only 3,305 are taken into sanatoriums and hospitals. We may assume that the total of 17,000 tuberculotics is an under-estimate ; there are most probably 20,000 or 25,000 sufferers from tuberculosis. We have a sunny climate in this country; we have the best opportunities of fighting this disease of tuberculosis. It can be eradicated. If we are so much concerned about the eradication of stock diseases and are prepared to spend thousands and tens of thousands of pounds to that end, then it should also be possible for us to eradicate this menace. Scab, for instance, has been eradicated. It is something of the past. Is the life of the people of South Africa of less importance than the life of a sheep or an ox? I maintain that we are doing more to save the lives of cattle, to protect our property, than we are doing to save the lives of the people. Take the question of the prevention of tuberculosis. How many hospitals have we? We have Nelspoort, Rietfontein, King George V, Springbok and then we are also doing something to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. We should have many more hospitals and sanatoriums. I am glad to hear the Minister say that the erection of more buildings is being contemplated, but we hope that these are not merely pious promises. We should take forceful measures in connection with this question of tuberculosis which is a serious menace to the whole country. Too little money is being spent on the prevention of tuberculosis. In this annual report I find the following amounts expended: Nelspoort, £59,320; Rietfontein, £21,000; King George V, £32,000; Springbok, £4,120 and an amount of £7,955 in connection with the prevention of the spread of tuberculosis. I say that is too little. More money should be spent on the prevention of this dangerous disease.

But what about maintenance. Those amounts are for the buildings, not so?

Then I come to the causes of tuberculosis. I want to submit here that one of the most dangerous causes of tuberculosis is the abuse of alcohol. Those who take liquor, particularly the coloured people and the natives, drink too much and then they go and lie in the rain in the veld and in that way they contract the disease. Another cause is poor housing. Whole families are herded together in small places. A fire is made in that small house. The smoke affects the lungs of the children. That is one of the points the Minister should give his attention to, namely the housing of the coloured people and the natives. That is one of the main causes of tuberculosis. Look at our tuberculosis patients. Howmany have I not treated; if I have seen one, then I have seen hundreds. Patients who suffer from tuberculosis usually do not like other people to know that they have tuberculosis. Particularly the coloured people do not want to take the least precaution to segregate themselves; they all eat together, they drink together and they sleep together. The result is that I have seen with my own eyes how in a whole family the one after the other dies, just because they will not admit that the disease is contagious. This fact, namely that tuberculosis is most dangerously contagious should be most prominently and urgently brought to the notice of the coloured people and the natives, especially in the reserves. All the other diseases are curable to a certain extent, but tuberculosis is incurable. Hence the large number of cases. This is a menace not only to the poor section of the population, but to the household of the hon. Minister himself. [Time limit.]

I would also like to bring a few points to the notice of the Minister. The first one is in connection with the climatic allowances to officials in my constituency. I raised this matter with the department and they informed me “that the matter had been investigated and that they feel that no change was justified.” This sort of reply is very vague and we are tired of it. In Barberton, for instance, we have officials of different departments. We have the police there, the gaol, the railways, certain officials of which are housed there. The Railway Administration gives its officials in Barberton a climatic allowance. The department of the Police and of Prisons refuses emphatically to pay such an allowance. The matter has repeatedly been brought to the attention of the department, which has to make the recommendations to the Public Service Commission, which has to approve of the allowances being granted. The officials of the Railway Station, of the Police and of the Gaol all live together and the one receives an allowance and the other does not. The one department realises the necessity of such an allowance and the other does not. The argument used sometimes is that Railway officials go down to the Low Veld during the night and that for that reason the payment of an allowance is justified. But the same argument applies in connection with the Police and the prison warders. The prison warders have to be on duty during the night and they go out to unhealthy parts where the prisoners are given work to do, and neither are the prisons protected with mosquito gauze. The police have to go on patrols at any time of the day or night and they have to go down to the location to see that order is maintained, but they get no allowance. The climatic allowance is paid to certain officials and not to others. The same position applies to the employees at the sawmills at Elandshoek and Godwan River. The saw-mills are situated a quarter of a mile from the Railway Station and down in a valley. In this valley there is losts of water and the soil is marshy and it is consequently a dangerous place for malaria. But because the boundary of the farm Berlin runs through this valley the Public Service Commission does not see its way clear to recommend that the officials employed at the saw-mills be given a climatic allowance. Another matter I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister is the serious increase of the incidence of measles amongst cattle because no medical supervision is exercised over the natives. The time has come that the Department of Public Health should care for the health of the natives in this respect by giving injections or by dosing them. The incidence of measles has assumed such dimensions that serious losses are being suffered whenever cattle from the native areas are purchased. We would like to see the Department of Public Health co-operating more fully with the Provincial Administration and seeing to it that where they have large gangs of workmen on the roads that proper facilities be provided for the natives so that they do not use just any place on the farmers’ land with the result that the cattle pick up the measles. We feel most strongly on these points. The climate in our area is very warm and we have to be very careful.

I wish to take up with the Minister the question of medicinal preparations made under German patents. The Minister no doubt is aware that his department is at the present time dealing with the matter to the extent that they had a meeting of the representatives of the Pharmacy Board and the representatives of Bayer Pharma Proprietary, Limited, that company being a subsidiary company of the I. G. Farben Industry, which owns 50 per cent. of the shares of the local company. The meeting, I understand, has been adjourned for the puropse of meeting the Custodian of Enemy Property and the Registrar of Patents, and to that extent I am in agreement with that procedure. But in the meantime we are now faced with this position, that under the existing regulation there are other companies who are being compelled to enter into agreements with Bayer Pharma Proprietary Limited in order to self the corresponding product; and in order to enter into that agreement they have to pay 5 per cent. to this company and have to abide by other conditions. The point I want to make to the Minister is this, that whilst the meeting that has been adjourned is in the air, he should consider recommending to the Registrar of Patents that he change the amendment he passed on the 23rd January, 1942, wherein the regulation says that the Registrar cannot issue licences to any other company for the corresponding product where a licence is held with the Custodian of Enemy Property interested. I think the Minister could easily have the regulation amended and delete the words “Where the Custodian of Enemy property is interested.” If he did that he would place Bayer Pharma Proprietary Limited, which is a firm of which 50 per cent. of the shares are held by this German company, the I. G. Farben Industry of Germany, the biggest chemical company in the world …

Can we do anything more than the Pharmacy Board has done?

Yes, you can. If the Minister would take it up with the Registrar of Patents—I do not know to what extent the Minister of Justice comes into it—and if they revert to the position in force prior to the 23rd January, 1942, that would remove from this company the advantage that they now enjoy over British and American companies. I think that ought to be done. I may say in the discussion, at which the Secretary for Public Health was present, when a representative of I. G. Farben, Mr. Fisher, of Fairbridge, Ardeme and Lawton, was asked a question whether he would agree, while these negotiations were going on, to revert to that position, he point blank refused; although he said that he did not want discriminatory action taken against the company he represents, his company actually holds an advantage. I say to the Minister that he ought to take this up and not delay it longer. It has been a burning question in the pharmaceutical world. The public is not aware of its implications because there has been no desire on the part of the board to embarrass the Minister or the department, but patience is being exhausted and something ought to be done. I think the Minister ought to realise this, that the company concerned is a company which actually was a colossus in the chemical industry. The I. G. Farben company was actually one of the first to finance the Hitler Party prior to its accession to power in Germany. It is a company that is suspected today, and was suspected before the war, in conjunction with certain other companies, in the United States; a company that right through has shown itself to be concerned in the first place with world domination through a German Hitler regime, and secondly through a cartel system. The President of the United States, in dealing with this question, has openly stated his opinion with regard to the I. G. Farben Company, and yet we have in South Africa today what is known as the Bayer Pharma Pty. Ltd., in which 50 per cent. of the shares are owned by the I. G. Farben interest, although it is true that for the moment the shares are in the hands of the Custodian of Enemy Property. But this company is not today making it any easier for the supply of corresponding products to be made. It seems to me that we are being faced with a position like this : That representatives of British companies and of American companies are not in a position to go the Registrar of Patents in order to secure recognition for their process for the production of a corresponding article which may perhaps be better, but at any rate would be equal to the article made by the Bayer people, with this difference, of course, that the name they finally have on their product is different. Therefore I want the Minister and I want the House, to appreciate that we have this position. We are in effect allowing tremendous profits to be piled up for the benefit of the I. G. Farben concern, unless of course at the conclusion of hostilities these profits may be otherwise disposed of under the conditions of the settlement. Nevertheless at the moment these profits are being piled up for the benefit of Bayer Pharma Pty. Ltd., half of whose shares, as I have said, are in the hands of the I. G. Farben Company. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister will immediately take this up and have that part of the regulation again amended, so that the regulation will be restored to its original form, a certain amount of relief will be afforded. I should like also to point out to the Minister that, since the war commenced, in Great Britain over 1,000 of these patents and other patents owned by German companies, have been entirely cancelled and licences have been given to other firms who are in a position to supply the corresponding product. The Department is well aware of the position. I am not blaming anyone but I want to say we have reached the stage now when it is verging on a public scandal. May I point out this also that the agreement which the Bayer Pharma Company make with the people who humble themselves, so to say, enough to go to the company and say: “Well, we are in your hands, the Government is not able to help us, we come to you and say we have got the corresponding product and will you allow us to sell it on the South African market?” I say that that agreement is made with people who are compelled to submit to it. I also want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that these goods are in South Africa, they can be sold much cheaper and they are equal in every respect to the other product, so there is no question about their being a cheap imitation. These are the conditions which this agreement I have referred to imposes—

1. (1) That the licence shall be operative from the 17th September, 1942, being the date upon which the Supreme Court granted the order assigning the patents to our clients.
2. (2) That the period of the licence shall be the duration of the present war. The extension and terms and conditions of the licence after the duration of the war could be reconsidered, at that stage in the light of the conditions then prevailing.
3. (3) That you pay our clients royalty at the rate of 5 per cent. (five per centum) on the cost price free on board of the products.
4. (4) That the prices at which you sell your products in the Union will not be lower than our clients’ prices for their corresponding products, subject of course to the provisions of any relevant price control or other Government regulations.

There you have the position that we have today. British firms and South Africans are compelled to make a private arrangement with this company, 50 per cent. of the Shareholding in which is in the hands of the German company.

I would like to reply to my hon. friend, the member for South Rand (Mr. Christie). The matter which he has raised is really not one germane to the Department of Public Health; it is a commercial matter more appropriate to my colleague, the Minister for Economic Development. The hon. gentleman will remember that earlier this year the Pharmacy Board wrote to the Public Health Department about this matter. It felt that the Department was the proper channel to use in communication with the Government. At a later stage I heard that my hon. friend, the member for South Rand, had raised this matter in the House, either in the Part Appropriation Debate or on some other debate—in fact, I think he has raised it twice before. He will remember that I asked him to see me about it. We have been in consultation with the Secretary for Public Health, but it is not a matter in which I, personally, can help him, except to be a channel of communication with those who are appropriately concerned. I understand that, as the result of consultations he had with the Secretary for Public Health, a meeting has been arranged to take place as soon as the Session has concluded, in Pretoria, between the representatives of the Pharmacy Board, the Custodian of Enemy Property and the Registrar of Patents; and I think the hon. gentleman will admit that that is as far as I can go. All the Department of Public Health can do, I imagine, is to state whether the products produced locally are suitable for local use. They cannot go into the complicated details as to whether this company is under foreign control and should be under the control of the Custodian of Enemy Property. That is a matter which will have to be fought out on its merits. We act as an intermediary, and we are prepared to do that and to expedite a decision as far as possible.

I would like to say a few words in connection with the position caused by malaria in the Northern Transvaal. The report of the Department of Public Health for the year ending July, 1943, refers to a particularly favourable position as far as malaria is concerned. It is stated in this report that during that year the climatic conditions were not favourable for the continued hatching of the malaria mosquito. The prevalence of the disease was smaller than during the previous 12 years. Certain local authorities have evolved an efficient organisation for the prevention of malaria. The department gave considerable assistance and advice in connection with the establishment of an organisation for the combating of malaria. The necessary staff has been trained and the work of the department in districts such as Pietersburg and Tzaneen has met with success. But now the difficulty is this, that this year we have exactly the opposite state of affairs. As a result of the heavy and excessive rains not only in Northern Transvaal but in the Northern Province, the position with regard to malaria is particularly serious. Our information is that the position amongst the Europeans was and is very bad, but that it is particularly bad amongst the natives and our information is further that hundreds of them have succumbed to malaria. What is a great pity is that when this epidemic started no provision was made for the usual precautionary measures such as quinine, pyagra and other spraying remedies, nor for the necessary sprayers with which to combat the malaria mosquito. These precautions should have been taken. I put a question to the Minister and he replied that sprayers will shortly be available and I hope that they have already been sent there. I would like to know from him what the position is and whether they now have all the means of combating this disease. But in general I wish to emphasise the fact that it is necessary for these requisites to be kept there and not only this, but that these requisites should be supplied free of charge. The fight against malaria and the malaria mosquito is not only in the interest of the person himself or his family, but it is a matter which concerns the whole nation and the whole nation will benefit from the prevention of this disease. The people who live in the fever belts and who make the sacrifice in order to make those areas inhabitable, perform a task which is in the interests of the whole nation and they should be able to obtain the different materials necessary for the combating of the disease free of charge, namely, the quinine, pyagra, spray pumps, etc. In the past poor people have received the quinine free of charge, also for their servants. But apparently quinine was unobtainable or almost unobtainable. I understand that at one time it was unobtainable and the result was that the natives could not obtain this remedy and the farmers themselves could only obtain it with great difficulty. I want to express the hope therefore that the Minister will provide the people in those parts with the necessary remedies for the combating of the malaria mosquito and malaria itself, free of charge. I wish to say a special word of thanks to Dr. Annecke and his staff who has practically developed the new basis for combating the malaria mosquito, who spread the knowledge amongst the people in that area and who made it possible for the European to build his house in those parts in such a way that malaria is no longer the danger it has been in the past. But of course his staff is inadequate. They cannot do the work properly. We have the difficulty to contend with in that area that the poor people are not in a position to have a decent house built and if these people do not have a proper house then the position with regard to combating the mosquito is very difficult. I am glad that the Minister of Finance is here now and I want to ask him and the Minister of Public Health to go back to the old system of making available the small amount of £50 to a bywoner or to an indigent settler or poor farmer for the erection of a decent small house and then also to make the condition that gauze should be fitted to the house so that it may be mosquito proof. It has been proved that this system is a great success and I want to ask the Minister to go back to that system especially in those areas where malaria is very prevalent. In the Soutpansberg it has been particularly bad this year. I understand that the position amongst the natives in the Soutpansberg was and still is particularly critical. In the case of the Europeana we should assist the people to get proper housing. But the natives have no desire, of course, to live in a house. They want to live in huts or rondavels and a scheme of this nature could of course not be applied to them. As far as the Europeans are concerned it can be done, hoewever. In Pietersburg we have a full-time district surgeon. But now the difficulty is that his assistant is only part-time and with the ten thousands and hundred thousands of natives that have to be treated by them, as well as the poor whites who cannot afford to go to a medical practitioner, we find that it is impossible for those two persons to cope with all the work. There is a shortage of district surgeons. But here we have a district surgeon and the request I am making now is that the assistant district Surgeon should also be made a full-time official. At present he is only part-time; he has his private practice and it is only when he has time to spare that the assistant district surgeon can help the district surgeon in his work. This year, with the very serious outbreak of malaria, the position was that these two persons could not cope with all the work that was expected of them. Then I wish to say a few words in connection with the institution for lepers at Bochem. I want to appeal to the Minister to improve the remuneration of the people concerned. We who know those parts are aware of the fact (and the Minister of Finance is also aware of this) that this institution was established practically as a charitable institution. The missionary family, Franz, started this institution and one cannot express one’s thanks too strongly to the Franz family for what they did, not only for this institution, but for the whole of the Northern Transvaal. The people in those parts appreciate this to the fullest extent. They are practically still in control of that institution. The Superintendent is still Mr. Franz. His salary is £400 while no single Superintendent of any similar institution draws the same salary. The nearest salary to his is £600 and then it goes up to £700 and £800. They are all different amounts, but considerably higher than £400. What also seems strange to me is that only the amount of £400 is shown here and that no provision for increases has been made whereas in other instances we find that provision has been made for increments. I happen to be acquainted with the particular circumstances of this case. I know that the family of this person lives in Pietersburg while he lives at the institution as the Superintendent. His expenditure is doubled because it is obvious that there is no school for his children at the institution. He has to use the whole of the £400 to keep his children in a decent skool. The inistitution is further under the charge of Sister Schultz, who belongs to the same family. She is called a Sister here, but she is prac-She is called a Sister here, but she is pratically the Matron of the institution. Thousands of natives are treated there from time to time. If she leaves there is nobody to take her place and the result is that she is not able to take leave. So you see that this person has to carry this large responsibility. She has practically to be the doctor and she gets a salary of £150 rising to £195. She gets £37 as a climatic allowance and then she gets 1s. per day for lodging. I feel that where a person is doing such responsible work—she has been there for more than 30 years now—it is scandalous that she should now still be working for £12 10s. per month. I think that the Minister will see to it that these people are given much higher salaries as an acknowledgement for the services they have rendered. [Time limit.]

The Minister in his reply this afternoon has just confirmed what we have thought for the duration of the war, and that is that at this late stage he would have his eye on the abandoned military camps for his future hospitals. I maintain that these hospitals should be based in those areas where you have the masses of people requiring hospital treatment, and because of the geographical situation of the Eastern Provinces, and because Eastern Area did not get anything in the way of military camps or hospitals, or any other consideration, they are placed in a most unfortunate position—they have been overlooked. I happen to represent the best part of a quarter of a million natives and also a large European population and I consider the Eastern Province is entitled to better hospital services than are at present given to it. We are at this stage anticipating the presentation of the report of the Public Health Commission and I am extremely pleased to hear that we may expect it to be in the Minister’s hands in the next three weeks. Now may I add this. I want to express my appreciation to that Commission for what it has done so far. I sincerely hope its efforts will be made the best use of and that its findings will be put before the House by the Government in the most practical way by the introduction of legislation next Session. In the meanwhile we should do everything possible to prepare for switching over to put into effect the Commission’s recommendations. Excellent services have been put in by the Commission. The amount of work may not be realised, but may I as one who saw them at work say that they did many things which did not actually fall within their province, but they did those things to satisfy themselves as to the conditions which prevailed. Now let me get on to the question of the diseases about which we have been speaking chief among which are typhus, scarlet fever and measles. As is well known to this House these diseases are to be found where you have the densest masses of the people. These diseases have swept through these areas and taken a very heavy toll—heavier than the figures given by the Minister indicates. Because without compulsory registration of death, and without compulsory registration of birth, how is it possible among a mass of people where they bury their dead and they do not want anyone to know about it for fear of a post mortem—how is it possible to get anything but an approximate figure. From my experience I can tell you that the Minister’s figure is very far below the actual figure. I don’t think that figure actually represents typhus fever. We had an epidemic of scarlet fever and measles not long ago which took a heavy toll—equal to the figure which the Minister mentioned for typhus alone. Those are facts. Now I again have to voice my dissatisfaction about the system that still continues. I know the Minister will say he can do nothing until the report comes in, but these diseases are allowed to sweep throughout the country and then your local authority is held entirely responsible for the state of affairs which exists. First of all one has to depend on charity, and when charity cannot meet the case then your local authority has to meet the deficit of the health services. While you have that state of affairs, you will never be able to deal with an epidemic which ravages this country in the way this last epidemic has done. There is one other important item and that is in respect of the £50,000 placed on the estimates. I sincerely hope that part of that amount will be made available for what I think is a great necessity as far as the rural areas are concerned—the purchase of ambulances and mobile vans which can go into the heart of these places where these diseases are rampant, 40 or 50 miles away from the nearest medical practitioner. These diseases lie dormant and then flare up. In regard to ambulances may I suggest that in your future service you should have provisions under which ambulances can draw on rural areas, can serve the rural areas, to take people to the large hospitals. At present they have to be taken in by trucks because of the scarcity or lack of ambulane services. If you are going to have your small towns providing clearing stations for your hospitals then it is essential for every small town to have an ambulance for the purpose of clearing patients from the rural areas to the large centres. Finally, I want to ask the Minister if it is not within his power to eliminate the “dungeon” in Kingwilliamstown used at present for venereal disease. This dungeon is in charge of a coloured person older than the dungeon itself. The conditions are such that I cannot describe them. May I commend to the Minister for his consideration the policy adopted by the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) under which the municipality has provided rondavels in which families infected with venereal disease are treated. These families are kept there for 6 weeks, they are attended to—they are fed by the Native Affairs Department, the district surgeon gives them their injections for 6 weeks. I do not know whether the system is original, but it has brought about wonderful improvements. Where the district surgeon used to have 50 patients each week he now only has tive. Wherever you have natives seriously affected I would suggest that you put them into such environments where they can live in such rondavels and have injections provided in the way I have suggested.

What I am going to say here today, I am saying, of course, as a layman, but the matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister is the question of the dangerous stage which venereal diseases in South Africa has reached. We who live on the platteland, far away from all conveniences, can testify to the fact that the large majority, especially of the coloured population, is suffering from venereal diseases. The medical practioner is powerless. He gives an injection today and perhaps another one in a month’s time, because there is no compulsory injection. This disease has assumed such serious dimensions that it has become one of the major points discussed every year by the Agricultural Congress and I am glad that the Department of Public Health agreed two years ago at the request of the Agricultural Association of Carnarvon that the medical practitioner could give injections for ten weeks in the division of a certain Divisional Council. I think that that should do a lot towards the prevention of this disease. But this disease will not be checked until such time as proper precautionary measures are applied; that is to say, the housing scheme should be improved. The position with regard to housing is most deplorable today. There is one district in my constituency in which during the past year there has been 300 cases of measles, 96 cases of pneumonia and in November and December of last year there were 20 cases of typhoid. That proves that there is something radically wrong with the health conditions. Then there is also the question of tuberculosis. This disease is taking a turn now which we did not expect. I feel that whereas the State is prepared to grant large sums of money in respect of stock diseases, it should provide much larger sums of money in order to combat the diseases of the people. In this connection I would like to advocate that in the thickly populated areas, especially on irrigation schemes, mobile nursing services should be provided; that is to say, there should be nursing services which would regularly visit these thickly populated parts. The only duty of this nursing service should be to apply precautionary measures and to give injections. I also wish to echo what other hon. members have said about district surgeons and what I particularly wish to advocate is that the district surgeons in the smaller districts should receive better pay. In the larger centres it is not difficult to find a district surgeon, but in the smaller places where the income is not big the Department should offer an attractive salary in order to obtain district surgeons there. Then I want to make a plea for a larger contribution on the part of the State in respect of nursing homes in these country towns. The position is that the nurses are there, there is also a medical practitioner, but there is no place where the patients can be treated. Only recently when there was a serious outbreak of pneumonia and measles, the magistrate of Williston was compelled to send some of the patients to the hospital in Victoria West and that is why I want the contribution on the part of the State to be a much larger amount in respect of the establishment of nursing homes in such country towns. I want to draw the attention of the Minister and his Department to the seriousness of this position and to the fact that these contagious diseases constitute a danger which may enter the homes of each one of us. Some of the most prominent families have already been stricken and they had to incur considerable expense in order to save their families. I want us to regard this as a most serious matter, as a danger which may affect the health condition of the whole nation and the State should be prepared to grant sums of money for the prevention of these dangers which may enter the homes of any one of us. For that reason I feel that I could not let this opportunity pass without drawing the Minister’s attention to the seriousness of the position.

I move—

Agreed to:

HOUSE RESUMED :

As my speech was interrupted by the time limit, I think it will be necessary for me briefly to link up with what I said before in connection with this important Bill. And that is that we on this side of the House regard this Bill as of great importance because it affects the post-war position. Throughout the war we have said that although everyone cannot be held responsible for the problems created by the war, the future nevertheless burdens us with the problems which arise from the war. When a Bill such as this one comes before the House, it is, with a view to what I said, necessary that the execution of it shall take place in the right spirit. The failure or success of such a measure will depend upon the spirit and attitude in which it is approached and to obtain the right spirit and attitude it will be necessary that the right relationship be established and perpetuated between the different groups of the people in regard to it. In that connection I just want to mention the various groups of the nation again. There must be the correct relationship between those on the battlefield who will return to the fatherland and those who remained here in the fatherl and, whether they were against the war or in favour of it, and thirdly, the right relationship must be established between the employers and the employees in regard to the execution of the Bill. To achieve all this it is necessary to have the right perspective. It is a measure which imposes future duties on people, and consequently you have to determine in advance what the effect of the measure can be. It is consequently essential that the responsibility of the State in regard to unemployment be determined. It is necessary that the State should hold itself responsible for all unemployment, not only for returned soldiers and war workers but also for those who did not take part in the war, also those who were opposed to participation in the war and did not want it. The Government is responsible for the problems which resulted from our participation in the war and for the dislocation which took place and which will occur in the period immediately following the war. For that the Government must accept full responsibility. The attitude taken up by this side of the House is embodied in a motion which we introduced before the Select Committee—

It is going to be very difficult for any government or Minister to draw the line of demarcation between where war work started and where it ceased, because after all the whole community is drawn into the war and the whole nation is burdened with the burdens in connection with the war, also in regard to the position after the war. Therefore it is not right to differentiate and discriminate between the part of the population which is in favour of the war and the part which is opposed to it. In this connection I just wish to refer to the fact that at this time it is easy to come along with slogans to try to influence people in a certain direction and three kinds of preference can be mentioned. You can speak of preference for those who were soldiers and those who were war workers. But it will be important to know how the preference is to be applied. Will there be a special kind of preference for those who were on the battlefield, will there be a special preference for those who under very difficult circumstances were prepared to make the greatest sacrifice for their conviction, while the same preference will be given to war workers who in some cases make more money as a result of the war than they would ever have done otherwise, who were in a position to make more money than ever before? Will discrimination be made as far as they are concerned?. I just wish to establish what the duties of the Government are. I wish to Point out what the Bill which came before the Select Committee was like and the improvement which we could effect. Last time I started and said that this Bill should not be a separate entity and should not be executed under a separate Minister and a separate department. This whole matter of the re-employment of soldiers should form part of a co-ordinated demobilisation plan. In this regard I wish to refer to what Col. Werdmuller, Chief Recruiting Officer, said at a meeting on the 16th February, 1944. He complained about the unwillingness of people to join the army and said—

He complained and said—

He also emphasised that people are making use of the war position to make more money than ever before. We say that this legislation should form part of a co-ordinated demobilisation plan. You must see to it that you create a state of peace and tranquility, not a state of affairs which causes conflicts. That is why it is necessary that the problem should be treated as a whole, that the question of demobilisation be tackled as one large entity. I warn the Minister that if he is not careful, you will experience a terrible chaos after the war is past, also with regard to the placing of people. The one department will shift the responsibility onto another and that department onto a third again. In that way you will get dissatisfaction over the whole country. Our point of view is that all who want to work, haVe a right to work and that for all should be cared in the dislocated situation which is expected after the war. But if you are how determined to discriminate as regards soldiers and war workers, let those receive special consideration who actually made sacrifices as against those who were On the home front and made more than ever before. How should the Bill then have been according to us? In the first place we sought from the Select Committee a resolution instructing the House that the Government should collectively accept responsibility for the unemployment which may arise. We did not achieve this. We obtained from the Select Committee a resolution which was taken at the instance of this side of the House arid which is embodied in the second report of the Select Committee, that the Government should accept responsibility for all who are discharged as a result of the application of this Bill. When men return from the war and are placed in employment and other people as a result become unemployed, then the Government should also accept responsibility for such people. In the third place we obtained that there will also be a link between the administration as far as this Bill is concerned and the Department of Demobilisation on the other hand, and that is that out of the eight members of the board at least one will be an official who will at the same time be a member of the Directorate of Demobilisation as long as it exists. We have obtained that the officials who will be appointed in connection with this Bill will be bilingual. Now I want to approach a matter in regard to which there was unanimity as far as I can recollect, and for which no provision is made in this Bill. The Minister was to have made a statement about it here. It is in connection with agriculture. It is necessary that we speak candidly. The farming population feels concerned about the position that coloureds and natives who return from service in the army are to be placed in the service of farmers on their farms. I think that it is the attitude of all farmers that you cannot expect that those natives and coloureds who were in the army and in many cases lived under other circumstances in the North, where a measure of equality existed, will cause trouble if they are placed in service on the farms amongst the other labourers and under conditions which are different to those which they knew in the army. A statement by the Minister in this connection is due to the House. He undertook to make a statement that as regard to coloureds and natives, this Bill will not apply to farms. Let me state openly that I resolutely refuse to have coloureds and natives who have been discharged from the army, on my farm amongst the ordinary labourers. I think that that is the feeling of farmers who are concerned in this matter on both sides of the House, and I think that the Minister should make that statement. If he does not do so, then we will experience a situation which will make the shortage of labour on the farms more difficult. A state of affairs will be created between farmer and employee which will cause conflict after conflict and which will cause a terrible dislocation in the production of the country. Our difficulty is that the Minister has not yet made this statement. We wish to point out a few essential things which we have already championed in the Select Committee, but which we did not obtain and for which we now want to plead here again. What we did not obtain from the Minister and from the Government is that the State must be prepared to accept the whole responsibility for all for whom work must be found. On a previous occasion last year, and also before that, the Minister of Lands made a statement that ground on the settlements will be given to returned soldiers, and in that connection he gave the assurance to the House that he will not at the present moment distribute land on the settlements but will do so after the war so that the soldiers together with the common citizens of the country will have an opportunity to apply for that land. That was the attitude formerly. It does not seem to be still the attitude at present. This side of the House did not object in the Select Committee and we do not now object to it that people who return from the war are reinstated in their former work. But we are opposed to Section 17 and Section 19, which bears relation to it, of the Bill which provides for the placing in employment of persons, not only in cases where they are returning to their former work, but also where they did not occupy positions formerly. In other words, under this section employers can be forced to employ people though those people were not formerly in their service. Herein it is provided that, if a particular area is proclaimed, employers in that area can be forced to employ a certain number of returned soldiers, and such a person shall not be able to employ any new workmen before he has employed the quota of returned soldiers which have been allocated to him. We maintain that the State and the Government should itself accept that responsibility and, according to the statement of the Minister of Demobilisation, he has to make provision for the people for whom he is responsible. Why do we have a Minister of Demobilisation and the plan which he announced here if under this particular Bill provision must be made for the employment of those people, not only those who were formerly in occupations but also for others. The Minister of Labour has declared that this Bill is only a page, and the major portion of the book the statement of the Minister of Demobilisation. Our side pleaded in the Select Committee and said that when coloured and native soldiers return from the army and they are replaced in the fields of activity in which they were formerly employed, proper care should be taken for separate fields of work because if it is not done, conflicts will take place if some of those coloureds and natives are placed in fields of work where they have to work shoulder to shoulder with Europeans and not only with Europeans in general, but shoulder to shoulder with that portion of the European population which from conviction did not take part in the war. If we are to create that state of affairs in the country, then we are going to plant the seed for one clash after another, and we will again experience those clashes and disturbances which took place on the Rand after the last war. That will be the inevitable result of that. Lastly I wish to draw attention to very important provisions in this Bill which concern a matter in regard to which we tried to obtain clarity in the Select Committee. We suggested in the Select Committee that where provision is made for the replacement and employment of returned soldiers—although it was not so clearly stated in our proposal, the Minister knows what I mean because we clearly mentioned it in our speeches—we clearly stated that in regard to the employment and placing in work of returned soldiers, we should in the first instance only make provision for Union nationals. We made that proposal in the Select Committee and we obtained the alarming statement from the Minister of Labour that he cannot accept it. He could not accept a proposal that provision should only be made here for the provision of employment for Union nationals, but as the Bill now stands, work can be provided for all persons who supported the Allies in their armies though they were not Union nationals. The Minister is venturing on very dangerous ground. We on this side can not sufficiently emphasise that as a result of the war we will get the state of affairs right through the world that people will be looking for proper work, and now we find that under this Bill the Minister can give work to people from elsewhere if they have served in the armies of the Allies. I reiterate that we will get a state of affairs throughout the world that people will look for work. Just as after the last war we will experience a state of affairs that depression will prevail and that there is an increasing amount of unemployment. Where an increasing amount of unemployment is revealed, it is more necessary than ever before that we must follow that policy in our own country to care for our own citizens in the first instance. We must in the first instance keep to our promise to our own citizens. It is therefore necessary that this Bill shall specially provide that it is the intention of this Government of this House and of the country to provide for work for our own boys before an attempt is made to provide for people who are strangers and who are strange to our national life—neople who are not Union nationals. I wish to say to the Minister that these two matters—the placing of coloureds and natives who were in the army, amongst the farming community, and the question of work being only provided for Union nationals under this Bill—are fundamental to us on this side of the House. We want to appeal to the Minister, where he would not do it in the Select Committee, to appreciate our point of view, and to make provision in the Bill as we suggested in the Select Committee. [Time limit extended.] I wish to thank the House for the concession: I shall not be long. I just want to refer the Minister to the fact that during the proceedings of the Select Committee, and also prior to that we on this side of the House generously did our share to improve this Bill as much as possible. There sits the Minister and he cannot deny it. He knows that that is the case; that he was able to appear before this House with an improved Bill is largely due to the fact that this side of the House contributed to it, and where we have been obliging towards the Minister, although we were and still are squarely opposed to the war, we have a strong appeal to the Minister to be obliging in regard to these matters about which we feel fundamentally and profoundly. The two main points about which we feel fundamentally and profoundly are these : We feel that, because we wish to obviate clashes, we do not desire him to take steps in regard to the replacement of people in work which will cause clashes between Europeans and non-Europeans, and it will definitely happen if the Minister makes the provision under this Bill that coloureds and natives from the army be placed amongst our farming population on the farms where we do not want them. In the first place we wish to avoid clashes, and we want to frame the provisions of the Bill so that it will not cause clashes. The second important point is this, that the Minister must in this Bill out and out and frankly state, not only South Africa first and always, but South Africa first for its own children. South Africa’s children will roam about looking for work and though they have not got work, the Minister can under this Bill provide work for people who are not Union nationals. Both in the form, nature and administration of this Bill much will depend on what the Minister is going to do, or not going to do, to create the right relation in the country I want to conclude by pointing out a few points which I briefly mentioned in my speech and I want to ask the Minister to be so kind to remove those few points, because they are points which in our opinion can cause trouble. If he lets the measure go through in its present form, then trouble is going to arise because the two spearheads which I mentioned are going to become dangerous in it. The first is that the Government must accept responsibility for all being placed in employment. The second is that it is necessary that all possible points where friction might arise and clashes occur, will have to be avoided both in the Bill and in the administration thereof, and only when this has been done will it be possible to apply this Bill in its proper form and will it bring happiness to the people for whom it is intended. In the third place provision must be made with a view to the deep-rooted feeling for separation between Europeans and non-Europeans which exists among a great portion of the nation. That feeling for separation is deep-rooted in the view of life of our nation and both in the Bill and in its administration that feeling will have to be taken into account. We know that in the history of our nation the disregard of that feeling has repeatedly given rise to trouble. Those troubles will arise once again in the future if that feeling for separation is disregarded. But if it is clearly guaranteed that that separation will be perpetuated in the future, then we will thereby create the peace and tranquillity which we are seeking. In conclusion I just wish to ask the Minister to reveal a spirit of good esteem and goodwill in his speech in Parliament on the second reading as well as at the Committee stage towards those peoeple who mean well with this legislation and who wish to co-operate with him, but who are opposed to the points I mentioned, and not to keep his eyes fixed on one small circle. He must extend his field of vision so as to view the whole nation, the platteland and the whole nation. I wish to reiterate that I was disappointed with the second reading speech of the Minister, because instead of fostering a spirit of harmony thereby, he made of his second reading speech a sort of misplaced war debate to eulogise a portion of the nation. I have no objection to his eulogising the members of our fighting services. We pay tribute to any man who has the courage of his conviction and is prepared to risk his life for that conviction. It is, however, not relevant. The Minister is more than that indebted to the House and he owes the House more in the future. He is under an obligation to foster a spirit of harmony by his action here which will be a guarantee for the execution of the Bill in a manner which will be in the interests of the country and which will not cause strife and conflicts. He must try to create peace and harmony and a spirit of unanimity. I want to ask the Minister to view the Bill from that point of view and not to be one-sided and keep only a small circle in view. He must not regard the Bill from the point of view of what he can do for the provision of employment from the point of view of his party, but in the administration of the Bill he must broadly keep the whole country in view. He must ;take the country as a whole into account. I want to ask the Minister to proceed with this Bill in that spirit, not to have regard to himself, because then he wont have regard to the people, and if he has regard to the interests of the people only and creates peace in the country, he will not have regard to himself.

I should like to thank the Minister for having introduced this Bill and also for the fact that he has consulted the various soldiers’ organisations in regard to the provisions of the Bill. One of the points raised by the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Serfontein) in regard to the displacement of workers is dealt with in the second report of the Select Committee and I have no doubt that the Minister, who was the Chairman of that Committee, will carry out its recommendations, one of which is to this effect, inter alia—

This Bill, as the Minister said, is carrying out a pledge which was given to the soldier, and it is, in the words of the Prime Minister part of Priority No. 1. I appreciated very much the way in which the Minister introduced this Bill and the way in which he referred to it as an attempt to carry out that pledge. I should just like to say a word or two on this point that the question of considering plans whereby a large number of soldiers could be absorbed should be encouraged. The general public should be encouraged to submit plans by which large numbers can be absorbed. I am going to refer very shortly to one plan which has come to my notice. It is a bona fide plan, and it is alleged that it will absorb 20,000 of our fighters, and that is why I mention it. I do not want to go fully into it—it can be more appropriately raised on the vote of the Minister of Commerce and Industries— it involves the erection of a factory, or factories, but what is claimed for it by its author, Mr. Ralph Leaver, is this, that it will be the means of adding a new industry to this country. It is a fight which has been going on for 33 years and the Minister has taken part in that fight. The question is that of the suitability of a certain wild tobacco in this country for making sheep dip. It is known as Nicotiana Rustico. It has a very high nicotine content. It is a wild tobacco and can be grown at 2½d. per pound and it cannot be used for smoking or for snuff.

I hope the hon. member will not pursue that too far.

No I shall not go into any details. I shall reserve details for a later occasion. I just want the Minister to go into it, and I am sure he will find that this particular tobacco has the highest nicotine content in the world. I have seen the analysis and in some cases it goes up to 12 per cent. There is a place at Hereford not far from Pretoria, where the settlement has met with great success. I ask the Minister to go into the whole question. May I just refer to the report of the National War Fund Conference, where the Chairman said that the schemes for absorption of soldiers should be put into operation as soon as possible and should not be delayed until general demobilisation. I think investigating officers should be put on to it and should interview the men who may be willing to go in for it. From what I am told the farmers who undertake the production of this crop will reap a ready reward. The person who goes in for this can reap a profit of £46 a morgen according to the estimates of the Agricultural Department. I shall deal with this further on the vote of the Minister of Commerce and Industries. I just want to mention it now for the information of the Minister in charge of this Bill so that he can enquire whether this scheme is feasible and whether it can absorb 20,000 soldiers, as claimed for it.

I am sorry that after the fruitful work of the Select Committee it is necessary for me to rise and talk on this Bill. But I have sat and listened carefully to the hon. Minister when he presented the matter at the second reading. I object to the manner in which some Ministers have of late presented important Bills on the second reading. We have had other Ministers who have stood up and said: There is the Bill, and there is an end to it. In this case the Minister rose and he went into the subject very clearly in order to explain to us how bravely our soldiers are fighting. I want to tell him that it is unnecessary for him to tell me that. I expect that from an Afrikaner; when he fights he will fight bravely. When he had finished telling us how bravely they fought he told us about the trade unions. He related what sacrifices they had made by admitting other people into the trades, and then he said that there were two principles in the Bill. The one is that persons who were in employment will be re-engaged; and the other is the quota system, and then he virtually said: Here is the Bill; you all ought to have read it and if you have not read it then you ought not to be here. That is the introduction that we had from him. I served on the Select Committee that dealt with this Bill and I would be neglecting my duty if I did not say today what a privilege it was for me to serve on that Select Committee. I have now been six years in the House, and I must admit this was the first Select Committee who did not allow themselves to be intimidated. They talked as they wanted to.

The Minister once said: If you do not do this then I will not bring up the Bill. I am almost sorry that it is not another Minister that presented the Bill; perhaps he would have done it better. This committee was a committee comprised of young people, some of whom have themselves served as soldiers, and every effort was made to be as reasonable as possible. There was no obstruction.

A very short time was allowed for a thorough examination of the subject. There was no time to make statements. Hon. members will recall that this Bill was withdrawn. That Select Committee was appointed to bring in a new Bill if it was necessary ; and as I have said, this was the first committee on which I have served in which party politics did not play the role it usually fills on those committees. Usually the party in power goes to the committee with a majority. The chairman of the committee belongs to the Government side, and if a member comes to light with something original the chairman says that the Government won’t have it, and then the members have simply to vote as the chairman wants them to. In this case members came forward with their original ideas, and they said what they wanted to say. I make bold to say that this Bill is a very great improvement on the original Bill. From the outset I want to admit that it was a difficult subject. I want to admit that, because it does not help to instruct the employer to take a person into his service for a year—that is what the Bill lays down— unless at the same time you establish the right relationship between the employer and the employee. After a year those people will again be on the street, and then you will not have the same measure of sympathy for the soldier that you have today. Consequently, it is a difficult subject. The employer should not be obliged under the provisions of the Bill to take the man into employment for a year, and then feel bound to discharge him. That does not help at all., You have to try to arrange it in such a way that the soldier will live in such sympathy with the employer that he will not stay there only for a year, but that he will stay there as long as he wants to. That is the reason why the Bill was such a difficult subject. Some members of the committee wished to create better conditions, but it does not help matters to say to the employer that he must take the soldier into his service for a year, that he must pay him so much, that he must work so many hours, and what the conditions of work are. If those conditions are not the same as the conditions of employment for his other employees, then you make the other workers discontented; and not only that, but you render impossible the correct relationship between the employer and the employee. The committee knew absolutely nothing about the Government’s post-war plans for soldiers. That was one of the difficulties that the committee had to contend with. We simply had the Bill before us, and that was all; and let me say clearly that this Bill is based on the existing Defence Act. The Defence Act of 1912 makes provision that where a person leaves his employment to go to war, his employer must restore his employment to him when he returns. All that this Bill does is to extend the period to a year. There is nothing new in the principle, and I cannot imagine that any employer will refuse to accept the soldier back in his service, even if he does not share the soldier’s views. But we have to appreciate that the Government did declare war, and the people confirmed that war policy at the first general election. Obligations have been imposed upon the State which must be carried out—either by the present Government or by a future government. Those obligations rest on the State because the Government declared war, and encouraged those people to take part in the war. Consequently the obligation rests on the State to make provision for these people after the war. In this Bill they do not make provision for them. All that they do is to off-load their obligations on to the employers. They say to the employers: “You must do this, or you must do that.” It is not the State that is caring for these people; in other words, they are shifting the obligation on to the employer. Well, there is naturally a duty on the employer. The Bill provides that the employer must accept the soldier back in his service, and I question, quite apart from the political convictions of the employer, whether he would refuse to receive the person back in his employ. No new principle has been introduced. The matter was discussed by the other side. All the members of the Select Committee participated in the discussion. They wanted to do the best they could with this subject, but on account of being in the dark over the other plans of the Government they were in the plight of a man making a car; a man who makes a wheel without knowing the thickness or the strength of the axle; he does not know what the body of the car is going to contain. Here the wheel we were building was a section of the programme in connection with soldiers. There was no co-ordinating plan. Actually the Bill was tossed to the Select Committee and they were asked to deal with it. When we enquired what the plans were, or whether there was going to be co-ordination we could get no answer. All that we could get was that the Secretary for Labour would be a member of the Committee, and he is also serving on another war committee. He will serve on both of them. In other words there is an absence of co-ordination in connection with post-war planning, and every department will produce its own legislation. That was a great difficulty that we experienced on the Select Committee; and I think that all the members of the Select Committee felt that we should know what the circumstances were going to be before we could proceed with this legislation. The Minister could not tell us. Subsequently, when the work was completed we would have to hear what the plans were. We have now before us a Bill which is designed only for the reengagement of soldiers and war-workers, and for matters pertaining to that. That Committee did its best. As appears from the report there was a difference of opinion over what course of action should be followed, and the question presented itself whether the Bill should be made applicable to all soldiers. We on this side took the line that we must look after our own people, not Hollanders, Englishmen and Americans. We should care for our own soldiers, and after that for our own people; and should there then be any work remaining, consideration could then be given to these other people. We expect to have a terrible depression a few years after the war, and if we have to look after Hollanders and Americans and English people who come to our country—because this Bill applies to every soldier who comes to our country—where are we going to be landed.

This is in your Land Settlement Act that you have accepted.

The hon. member seizes the opportunity to make a speech. The position is that on the Select Committee a proposition was made when the problem arose, and several members refused to vote. They did not wish to vote against the Government, and the voting was equal. One member on the Government side voted with the two Opposition members, and on the other side were the Minister and two Government members.

Not because they did not want to vote, but because they were not there.

They pushed back their chairs. It is a rule in the Select Committee that if you do not wish to vote you must push back your chair. The proper procedure is actually to leave the chamber. Two or three of the Government members refused to vote and pushed their chairs back. The voting was equal, and the principle was adopted by the casting vote of the Minister.

Not on that occasion.

All of us virtually felt that it was the duty of the State to care first for our own people. That is no secret. It is in the report. There was another point in connection with which we did not vote alike, namely with reference to casual labour on the farms. The Minister promised to make a statement in this House that he was not able to divide the control. We asked him why he allowed this to appear in the Bill if he could not control it. Without giving any reasons he replied: “I want that in the Bill.” I hope that he will now in his reply on the second reading give his reasons and carry out his promise to make a statement. Perhaps he has forgotten to do that. I hope that he will now make the statement that he is not in a position to regulate the farm labourers in a proper way, and that consequently the Bill will not apply to them. Then we felt that provision ought to be made in the Bill that where a farmer has bought a farm, on which there has been a number of natives or coloured people, he ought not to be obliged to take these people into his service. If he was aware of this obligation and purchased the farm with that stipulation it would be another matter; but if he did not know about it he should not be compelled to do that. The provision in the Bill is that the obligation is placed on him. In the Committee stage we shall make a proposition in that regard. There will be enough work for all who want to work. There is a great shortage of farm labour. It is obvious that everyone who wants work and who is able to work will find work. But what is the position? Some of the coloured men who returned had been located in Worcester and the farmers were notified that they could have them back. Not one of those coloured people consented to return to the farms. They said: “We are not going to return to farm-work because we have been in receipt of higher wages and have become accustomed to a higher standard of living, and we are not in a position to work for the wages that the farmers are able to pay.” What is the Minister going to do?

The farmers are receiving higher prices in respect of the increased costs of production.

We often hear that story. At the moment we are paying 4s. 6d. to natives as against 2s. 6d. before the war, and one doesn’t get anything more out of them. If the Government is prepared to subsidise farm labour as it has done labour on the mines we shall perhaps have some chance. Otherwise I do not see any. Presently we shall again have over-production, or rather I should say there will be under-consumption, of wine and fruit and other products. We know how uncertain the farmer’s prices are. One day the price of a bag of potatoes is £2, the following day £1 5s., and then still less. That is the position as affecting the farmers. The farmer cannot pay more for labour if they do not receive better prices for their produce. No one is in a position to pay £12 or £15 a month for farm labour. In many instances it would mean that he would have to disburse more for labour than the whole value of his crop. If we have to pay £144 a year for labourers we shall not be able to carry on. I would just remind the Minister of his promise to make a statement. It will not assist matters to bring a native on to the farm for twelve months under compulsion. That is just going to give rise to difficulties. If one is to have natives with communistic ideas on the farm, and they are going to exercise an influence over the other workers …

The old story.

It is easy to laugh. It appears sometimes that the hon. member laughs from nervousness. In any event, the position of the farmer is very difficult. If the Government makes it obligatory on him the farmers will have to take on these people but the usual provisions of the law remain in force. If a man does not behave himself the master can let him go. You will have endless difficulty. The native will go to a committee, and the committee will refer to the board— you will have constant trouble. It is not that we do not want to take the natives and the coloured people into employment. The position is simply this, that if there is not a true perception of the farmer’s position you are looking for trouble. There will be difficulties between the committee and the farmer, and between the board and the farmer and one does not know where it is all going to end. What is the Government itself going to do in connection with the provision of employment? We don’t know. What industries is it going to establish in order to provide work? We are not asking for money, but we ask that the Government should make provision that everyone who wants to work will be able to make a decent living. What is the Government itself doing in that direction? It does not help merely to give the soldier £200 or £250 and £15 for clothes. The money will be spent. What enterprises is the State going to establish? What is it going to do to provide employment for people who are out of work? You cannot give employment by legislation. The Minister now wants to prescribe quotas, that an industry for example should have 20 per cent. ex-servicemen on its pay roll What is the position if they are unable to get ex-servicemen for their purpose? Will they then have to let the factory stand idle? Then it is not only a matter of salaries and wages; you have loafers who have never been in permanent employment. The provision is made that if a man was in employment four months prior to his attestation he must be re-engaged. One may have had a man in employment for only a few days, or a week. Now one will have to re-employ him. I do not belive that the Minister fully realises the difficulties connected with farming. He has not a clear realisation of the difficulties of the problem-person. Most of them are ordinary labourers, but they are people who live from hand to mouth. They want only food and clothing, and they will only work when they are hungry. These are the sort of people that the Government is going to try to send to the farmers. This Bill is only a small instalment of the Government’s programme for the returned soldier. Everyone knows that if a soldier has gone off to fight then we should take him back into employment. Then I turn to the quota that is going to be laid down. I think that that is going to be laid down. I think that the Government would achieve more by trying to persuade the people rather than by using their powers to enforce the application of a quota. We have to realise that the proclamation of a quota is dependent on the Minister. He is not obliged to do this, and he may also revoke the proclamation. If another Government came into power, perhaps a labour government, they could rescind the proclamation and then the soldier would again be on the streets.

What proclamation?

The proclamation in connection with areas that have to engage their quota of soldiers. I maintain that this proclamation may be rescinded, while furthermore no provision is made in the event of such an area not being able to get enough men. These are all new features in this Bill. The Minister says that this section cannot be applied to the agricultural industry, because he has not the power to control. I do not know in what other spheres of labour he can absorb these men. He cannot use them for skilled labour, because there he would come into conflict with the regulations of the trade unions. These are unskilled men. Perhaps it would be a better solution if roads and other commendable works were undertaken by the State where these men could be given a start. It appears to me that this Bill does not make provision for that class of people. That is the smallest part of the obligations on the State which are contained in this Bill. I should also like to know from the Minister when he replies to this debate whether he is going to give us an exposition of this Bill, chapter by chapter, so that we may know what these committees and the board signify, and what their duties and privileges are. We want to know what they can do and what they cannot do. I think that the House is entitled to ask the Minister to tell us that. He did not do that at the second reading. He merely said that we were all in a position to read the Bill, and if we could not do that then we ought not to be present here. As far as that goes, we expect from the Minister in reference to any Bill that he presents, that he will investigate the subject thoroughly and communicate his knowledge of it to this House in a comprehensive way. I can assure him that in that case he will also receive more interest from this side of the House. When I began to speak there were only 21 members in this House. They are so sorry for the soldiers. They want to do all that they can for the soldiers, but here when we have an important Bill before the House affecting the soldiers the Government benches are empty. There were only 12 of them—12 out of 80 present on the other side. That is what the Minister may expect when he presents a Bill in that manner. The members on his side of the House know nothing about it, and now they simply have to go and vote on a subject of which they are ignorant. He will continue in that way until someone bluntly tells him that he is not satisfied with the way in which the Bill has been presented. When a Minister introduces a Bill of this sort that he will help to adminiter, then we are entitled to hear from him what his intentions are in regard to the measure. He should tell us what the duties of the proposed board are, and what are their powers. He should do the same in connection with the committees. Who is going to appoint these people? We should like to know that. It appears to me that this board will be comprised only of people who are appointed by the employers’ unions or employees’ unions. The State, whose duty it is to look after these people, has apparently no say. The representatives of the employers and the employees are all people who have to deal with that. The trade unions will, of course, have placed their representatives there, and their object will be to keep these people out of the trades. But what becomes of the soldier who wants to learn a trade? Will the Government provide for soldiers who want to undergo trade instruction even if they are over the age of 21 years, and even though they have a wife and children, so that they can learn a trade. Those are a few of the pertinent question to which I should like to have an answer from the Minister. I want to ask him kindly to regard this legislation and our opposition as serious, and not to make a joke of it. If I do this personally as a backbencher and as an ordinary member of the Opposition, it is still the right thing. But he is a responsible Minister, and we expect him to treat us decently aod courteously, and to accommodate us when he can when we propose amendments. Having regard to the present stage of the Session, we shall endeavour to keep our amendments down to a minimum, but we must move amendments where we anticipate that difficulties will occur in connection with the administration of the Bill. We are anxious to improve the Bill so that we may say that this is a Bill that we have made. We have helped in the Select Committee to draft this Bill with the exception of a few matters that we have mentioned here and in connection with which we should like an alteration.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me obvious, after hearing the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that some further explanation of the aims and objects of this Bill is necessary. The Minister virtually threw the Bill before the House. He gave, it is true, a soul-stirring description of the worthiness of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and merchantmen and stressed their claim to prior consideration in the matter of jobs when the war is over. But he made no effort to tell us just how this Bill will bring about this object. He made no attempt to explain what machinery will be set up nor how that machinery would work. He made no attempt to tell us how this new and better Bill differed from the original proposed Bill. If that had been done, Mr. Speaker, very many explanations now demanded, and rightly demanded, by the member for Swellendam and others would not have been asked for. It is a difficult thing to throw a Bill of this sort, which is by no means simple, before the House and say: “Soldiers, sailors and airmen deserve everything we can give them, you can read the Bill, there it is.” It is a very difficult Bill, I find it difficult and I defy anyone to read through it, even with the greatest attention, and get any clear idea of how it will function. I am not going to assume the mantle of Elijah but I will attempt to say what this Bill does and how it proposes to work. It is divided into two parts, the first part deals with the provision of work for soldiers who have pre-enlistment jobs to come back to. It is true that it does throw a responsibility back on to the employers of providing work for these soldiers; it really is a statutory form of War Measure 38 of 1941. That part of the Bill I don’t think anyone could have any quarrel with. It is true it may cause a certain amount of dislocation of labour because a soldier coming back may displace some other person who has been engaged in his place. But I think it has been commonly understood by anyone taken on in place of a soldier and it has been usually made clear to such a person that they are merely keeping the jobs for the soldiers who will return. The second part of the Bill is more difficult. That sets out to control and guide the flow of labour by a quota system” in such a way as to provide employment for ex-soldiers and war workers who have no pre-enlistment job to come back to. The machinery that is being built up to do this difficult task has as its “corner stone” the Soldiers and War Workers Employment Board. It is interesting to note that in the original Bill there was no machinery provided for co-ordination with the Demobilisation Executive Committee. Here is one of the most important changes brought about in this new Bill. We now have, as chairman of the War Workers Employment Board a representative of the Demobilisation Executive Committee. Until recently this co-ordination did not exist, and that is one of the main changes brought about in this Bill and is the most important one. On this Board there will be three soldiers’ representatives out of eight and as it turns out the chairman will be an ex-soldier too. Under the Board there will be local subcommittees and inspectors and the whole machinery will be administered by the Labour Department. Now this is where my first quarrel comes with the Bill and why I say the Minister has not done justice to it. It would have been natural I think after having set up the Soldiers and Warworkers’ Employment Board, and having explained the proportion of soldiers and employers on that Board—it would have been natural for the Minister to have said what the functions and powers of that Board are. But one has to jump all over the Bill to find out what these functions are. They are there—that is so— but they are nowhere clearly set out so as to make the Bill easy to read or easy to under stand. I think the Minister might have explained to us what these functions are. Clause 4 gives you the first of these functions—that is where you are told that the Board may at any time appoint, from amongst its members, sub-committees to investigate any specified matter and to report back to the Board thereon. And then one jumps to Clause 7, and there one sees that they can act in a consultative capacity with the Minister in establishing Local Employment Committees. Then one leaps to Clause 10, and one finds there that they have their main and only independent function which is to hear appeals from the local Committees. It is significant here that while in the original Bill it had been stated that the decision of the Board would be final, there is now a sentence protecting the Common Law right of the individual to Court review. In other words the ordinary Common Law rights of the individual, employer and employee, is protected. And the decision of the Board is not absolutely final. The next function one finds under Clause 19. Again the Board is to act in a consultative capacity with the Minister in regard to the number or proportion of employees employed by any specified class of employer in any specified industry or area—what proportion there shall be of persons who have rendered military service or who have rendered war service. And then comes the most important function of the Board, where they can show their own initiative, and that is in Clause 20, which says, that the Board may on its own initiative and at the request of the Minister from time to time investigate and make recommendations to the Minister in regard to the provision of facilities for the technical training of persons who have rendered military or war service, or who have become or may become unemployed as a result of the operation of this act or of economic conditions arising out of the war and the employment of such persons. Now this is something which they may do on their own initiative, and this clause makes it clear how necessary it was to insist on liaison and co-ordination with the Demobilisation Executive Committee because they have very much the same functions to perform themselves, and if we had not insisted on this co-ordination I am sure we would have had two parallel organisations working along similar but uncoordinated lines and we would have had duplication, confusion and, perhaps, chaos. Now I have said that you have to jump from one Clause to another to find out what the functions of the Board are. The same thing applies to the functions of the local Employment Committees. Nowhere is it set out clearly what their functions are and what they are supposed to do. One has to search to find out what their functions are. Whereas previously the soldiers had no representation on these committees they now have, and the local committees will consist of a chairman who will be an officer, probably the local magistrate, and two employers and two employees, one of each of whom will be a soldier. Now this is a change and it is a change which was suggested by the soldiers themselves. It was something which the soldiers in the Sixth Division wanted, and they notified the Minister and members of Parliament and I’m sure they’ll be pleased to have it. The main function of the committees which one finds after close examination is to make recommendations for the reinstatement of soldiers and to make “Orders” or variations of “Orders,” which are subject to appeal. The other function is to give soldiers, who have no jobs to go to, instructions or orders under which they can be engaged. There is no compulsion on anyone to take on a soldier or a war worker. These orders will set out the age, qualifications, the experience and conditions of pay and such relevant details and there will probably be a quota set for each trade or industry, and any soldier, ex-soldier or war worker can go along with this order, and an employer has a right to take him on or not. But if he takes him on he has to take him on in terms of the Order and on the salary scale set out. But there is no compulsion here and it should not cause great dislocation in trade. These men will find jobs, but until they do finds jobs they’ll be looked after in dispersal camps. The only compulsion on the employers is that as there is wastage in a man’s business, so he will have to take on a certain percentage of ex-soldiers or war workers to civilians. The Inspector of Apprenticeships under this Bill is under no obligation to do other than consult the Apprenticeship Committee. He does for apprentices what the Local Employment Committees do for ordinary employees. After testing and examination of the ability of the apprentice he can issue “Certificates of Competency” which must be recognised. The Minister was right in praising the trade unions for the part they have taken in this Bill. The powers given to Inspectors of Apprenticeship enable soldiers who have had practical mechanical experience in the army or have been trained under the C.O.T.T. Scheme to get the benefit of what they have done. There is the broad machinery laid down in this Bill. The Board is the cornerstone and the court of appeal. The Employment Committees, and the committees will be appointed throughout the country, and Inspectors—and Inspectors of Apprenticeship—with all their functions and powers—will be there to carry out the provisions of the Bill. Here is the machinery which the Minister is going to set up. Now I think the House will welcome some statement from him as to how this machinery will work. I seem to remember him saying that he would make a statement about agricultural labour. He assured the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that he had not got the machinery to enforce the employment of agricultural labourers who came back from the war and wanted to be re-engaged, and for that reason he said he would make a statement. Such a statement would go a long way towards removing the objections of the hon. member for Swellendam—but he has not yet made it. Now I want to deal with two parts of the Bill which rather alarmed me but might not have done had the Minister explained them. First, there is the definition of war service. The Bill says—

Now that is the sort of thing which the Minister might have explained. That definition is so wide that it includes any factory or business—including even the firm which makes, say bath plugs on a Defence Force order—any firm which did anything connected with the prosecution of the war. It might even go so far as to include the men who tried to blow up the electric standards on the Vereeniging road—they were employed on something “wat met die voortsetting van die oorlog in verband staan”, to quote from the Afrikaans wording. We would like the Minister’s explanation of how he intends to apply this clause. Does he intend applying it only to the industries controlled during the war, or does he intend applying it to every single type of industry? I should like to hear any hon. member mention any industry which did not do something connected with the prosecution of the war.

The advertising industry.

Surely they advertised for recruits. That is the first quarrel I have with this Bill. My next quarrel is with regard to Clause 11, sub-section 2 which says this—

Now that is a very significant section. It means that a man who has had seven years’ service in the army gets one year counted for promotion in his employment. If a man has had one year’s service he gets the same. I have a letter here which contains a comment of a member of the Chamber of Commerce and the Federated Chamber of Industries. Now this is the comment of a commercial man and it does show the attitude of commerce towards this Bill and towards the returned soldier. First I will set out the case. Assume the war will last seven years. Assume in September, 1939, A and B are each 18 years old, working for the same firm and each is getting £18 per month and an annual increase of £2 per month. In September, 1939, A enlists. In September, 1946, A returns after seven years’ soldiering. In September, 1945, B enlists. In September, 1946, B returns after seven years’ soldiering, say in Cape Town Castle. On reinstatement in the firm A will get £20 a month, B will get £32 a month which he would get in any case even if he did not join up at all. Immediately this case was placed before the Soldiers Group and the Commerce and Industries Group of the United Party, they realised that as this clause stood volunteers were evidently being penalised. The earlier a man joined up, the more he would be penalised. I will read the comment—

You move the amendment, and I will accept it.

Thank you, I will. It means altering just one word in Clause 11. Commerce and industry are prepared to accept it. There would be difficulty in trades in connection with apprenticeship, but I think the Government should keep in mind this attitude of commerce and industry towards the soldier—that they will accept the responsibility the Government has placed on them to allow every soldier to come back with no loss to himself whatever. There is one thing I would like to say in reference to this same clause, in reference to its binding an employer to keep an ex-soldier in occupation for one year. I feel that the end of that year will probably be the most dangerous period we shall experience after the war. For one year the momentum caused by war will probably carry on the prosperity of this country, and it will only be after the lapse of a period of one year or eighteen months, that we may have the beginnings of what may be a depression, and that will be the crucial time and the time during which we shall least want any beginnings of unemployment if it can be avoided. I would plead with Commerce and Industry and with employers generally, to be generous in their treatment of soldiers at the termination of that period of one year. I am sure that by that time the soldier will be able to re-establish himself, but if he has not done so I would urge employers to give two or three or even four more chances, if necessary, in order to ensure that the soldier remains adequately fitted in. I would also like to plead for the employee who left his job without the permission of his employer, and who therefore does not really come within the terms of this Bill. I know that the Government has set an example in this respect, and that employers generally will accept these men back because they have, after all, shown more courage than the men who awaited permission before they joined up, and that they will accord them the same rights as the men who went away only after receiving permission. I know that the hon. member for Boshof and certain other hon. members are somewhat alarmed, and that on the Select Committee they showed every desire to help to re-establish the genuine soldier who went to fight; but I think they have certain misgivings that those soldiers who stayed behind and did very little will get all these advantages. Well, I think that a provision like this is useful and necessary, because although it may result in certain undeserving people taking advantage of it, we cannot afford to make any discrimination at all, and it is better that we should accept five charlatans so long as we avoid missing one genuine case. I do think wé were right on that Select Committee in laying down definitely that the State must and does recognise the fundamental right of any citizen to have work, and that it is the responsibility of the State to find employment and to make every effort to ensure employment for everyone without any dislocation taking place, and particularly for any man who is thrown out of employment as a result of this scheme. I believe that they will absorb all the men who are found to be temporarily unnecessary owing to returned soldiers being fitted in. I am sure that this Government has expressed itself in no uncertain terms on the fundamental right of every man, whether a soldier or not, to employment and to the right to work, and the Government will have the energy to see that this becomes an accomplished fact.

I should like to say a few words in connection with this Bill. In this Bill the State comes along and ropes in the whole of the citizens to do its duty towards the returned soldier. On this side of the House we have no objection to every employer being made to do his duty towards any man and woman who wants work, but the State cannot just divest itself of its responsibility. Up to the present I have seen no plans that the Government itself is going to carry out to place the people in employment. We have not yet heard what the Government intends to do. We have not heard of concrete proposals for the establishment of industries for which large numbers of people can find employment. The country awaits development. A tremendous extension is required in connection with telephones; factories are required to furnish the material for constructing telephone extensions and for the provision of fencing material and machinery. There will be a big demand for tractors after the war. People will use tractors more and more, and other machinery will be required. Accordingly, the Government should announce its plans. What is being done to provide work for the people who must return to civilian life? We find that many of them will not return to their former occupations. This applies particularly to nonEuropeans who were labourers on the farms. The wages that they have received in the army have been higher than any farmer can pay. I want to ask the Minister what the policy is in connection with agriculture. In the past our labour legisation has always excluded agriculture on account of there being special work connected with it that cannot be connected with the ordinary rules and regulations that are applied in factories and industries. We often get the argument from those who are not acquainted with agriculture that too low a wage is paid for agricultural labour. Then they mention a round figure. A moment ago someone suggested that we should pay 6s. a day. What is the position in agriculture? If anyone working in a factory is responsible for letting his master suffer damage he can be punished, either departmentally, or he may be brought before a court. But in what way can a farmer punish a worker who does not do his duty with the result that the farmer sustains damage on account of his negligence. I may be an irrigator and have people in my service who have to lead water on to the land. By their negligence they waste a considerable quantity of water and let it run away and I suffer damage. There is no way for me to punish this person or to demand compensation from him. I have a shepherd whom I pay £6 a month, apart from all the extras that he gets, and owing to his negligence I lose 60 sheep. What can I do about it? It may represent a loss of £70 or £80, but I cannot obtain any compensation for the loss that I have sufferred. For these reasons agriculture was not included in these laws.

What is really the point?

That you cannot bring agriculture into this scheme. The farmer will be compelled to re-engage non-Europeans at higher wages that can be determined by the board or the committee. We feel that the Government should realise its own responsibility. It has made these promises to the people, and it should not seek to evade its obligations and transfer them on to the shoulders of the people. Furthermore, we raise objection to any soldier from outside South Africa having to be placed in service. We appreciate our duty and our responsibility towards our own people, but not towards people from other countries. I trust that the Minister will make this Bill applicable only to our own people who have participated in the war, and that he will exclude agriculture.

We again have this question of the re-employment of soldiers and war workers before us, and I want to say very clearly that this side of the House has no objection to returning soldiers or war workers being employed. We feel that many of these people have joined up because of their convictions, or perhaps because of pressure, and when they return to this country we feel that they are citizens of this country and they are entitled to a decent position the same as any other Union citizen. But we do object to the system and the method proposed by the Minister. The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) raised the question as to who was a war worker and who was not. It seems to me that when a Bill like this is brought before the House we should have more particulars supplied to us, for instance, of how it is going to be determined whether a man has been a war worker or not. It is most unsatisfactory that no such provision in contained in this Bill. What after all is war work? As I stated on a previous occasion, there are people who in very difficult circumstances have agreed to manufacture cups and saucers for the army canteens. Are the people employed on this class of work war workers or not? Then there is another type of worker who has done engineering work—very valuable work—but that work was perhaps only to the extent of perhaps 5 per cent. directly in connection with the war effort. Now who is to decide in such cases? The Minister is the man. Is not that putting too much power in the hands of one man, to allow him to make such important and involved decisions? We support this Bill in so far as it facilitates re-employment. But on previous occasions the Minister himself admitted that this Bill will only be of value for the returned soldiers and war workers if we have a great industrial boom after the war. If we have an industrial collapse the whole Bill collapses. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that for the past 200 years every war has been followed by a depression, and the higher the costs, the higher the expense has been, the greater the destruction caused has been, the more severe has the subsequent depression been. If we are to be guided by past experience, the Minister has to admit that on his own showing this Bill will be of no value at all. There is the question of the ex-soldier who is forced to take employment with A, B, or C. He is compelled to take a job which he hasn’t the slightest intention of working in. A committee is formed, and that committee has to decide whether or not the particular occupation will suit him. How can we, in the difficult conditions which will be facing this country after the war expect to reach the maximum production if individuals are pushed ad lib, into jobs for which they are either suited or not suited, but for which they have no inclination whatsoever? The other question which I regard as extremely dangerous, although the Minister has already said that he cannot apply the Bill under present conditions to agriculture, is that the measure according to the strict letter is applicable to agriculture. I have been travelling all over the country lately and I can tell the Minister that if he were to go to Wakkerstroom and explain the Bill as it stands now, he could bet as much as he likes that the Government would lose the seat.

Have you also got Wakkerstroom on your brain?

Agriculture does not want this Bill, and the Minister knows it; he knows that agriculture does not want the natives, who have been up North and elsewhere and who have been on a basis of equality with the white men, for service on the farms, and in this Bill an attempt is made to get such a measure on the statute book. Now let us look further at the repercussions which this Bill will have on the soldiers themselves. The Minister in his Bill allows employers to employ ex-soldiers from practically any part of the world. Apparently the country can be compelled to employ the Italians who are here now, because Italy is an ally now, and industries and agriculture can be compelled to employ them. And then I ask how can we, in the difficult conditions which will inevitably arise in this country after the war, tell the ex-soldiers who have lost all those years, men who have perhaps come back maimed and invalided, that this Bill will secure a livelihood for them? I am going to repeat that this special point, this fact that the Minister does not confine the Bill to Union soldiers, has caused the greatest dissatisfaction throughout the country. The public and the soldiers with whom I have discussed it simply cannot understand it. I am afraid that here I must range myself on the side of the soldiers. I cannot understand it either. I do not know whether the Minister realises that he is placing on the statute book a law which provides that we are to give employment to soldiers from all parts of the world—and we object to that, especially if we have to do so at the expense of our own soldiers. I fail to understand his intentions. They are vague, embarrassing and dangerous, to my mind. Then there is one last point I want to touch upon and that deals with the powers given to the Minister of Labour under this Bill. This doesn’t apply only to this Bill, for we find the same position in many Bills which are brought before this House, but it is particularly marked in this Bill in which the Minister of Labour is raised to the position of a dictator. We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds. We are shedding the blood of our people, of our young men, to fight dictatorship elsewhere, and if that is so why, then, do we, in almost every Bill introduced here, create not simply one dictator, but groups of dictators in this country? If we go into the details of this Bill we find that on every point the Minister has to make decisions like a dictator, and at the end of the Bill we come to the powers given to the Minister under which he can make rules and regulations. It is laid down there—

That is the Minister—

And when we come to (g), we find the following—

It seems to me that the purposes of this Bill may be anything in regard to the re-employment of soldiers and war workers, and if the Minister should at some future date happen to discover that there are certain aspects in connection with re-employment which he has neglected to include, then he can simply issue regulations, and those regulations can be placed on the statute book as the purposes of the Bill. In other words, this Parliament is a farce and becomes a bigger and bigger farce every day because it allows legislation to be passed under which twelve separate dictators are created. I want to protest emphatically against this, and I shall do so on every possible occasion. We are spending hundreds of millions on the war in fighting foreign dictatorships and in keeping dictators out of this country, and for the sake of this beautiful democracy of which we are such strong protagonists, but in our own country we are undermining that same democracy every day by Bills like this.

This Bill is divided into two sections. The first section deals with those who were in employment before they went on service and the second section deals with the others. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to Clause 8 sub-clause (1) in which he appoints the inspectors. I would like to ask the Minister to set the example to the rest of the country by putting in a clause that these inspectors shall be men who have fought for their country or at the very least that he shall have the soldier ratio of inspectors appointed similar to the soldier ratio that he asks commerce and industry and other employers to appoint. If you go from Clause 8 to Clause 19 you will find this clause reads—

I would urge the Minister to set the example by determining a very high proportion of servicemen to be inspectors under Clause 8 sub-section (1). Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I notice in Clause 17 that those men who have served for a period of less than six months have no provision made for them. I think that these men who have served for a short period and may actually be in the fighting line at the time when hostilities come to an end, should have the same protection as other soldiers. No protection is given them here as the Bill stands as at the moment. With regard to Clause 10, sub-section (1) and (2), I feel that in fairness to the employee some time limit should be given within which the appeal must be heard. After all I don’t see why the employee if he appeals and succeeds in winning his appeal should be out of employment for any length of time. Sub-section (2) of the clause says—

I think that he should not have to wait any considerable time. He is entitled to have a time limit applied, within which the Board must listen to his case. Then with regard to the section which deals with the time for apprenticeship training. I sincerely hope that this time will not be cut down in such a way as to effect the efficiency of the soldier, the efficiency of the artisan, so that that man suffers for the rest of his days. If it does take four years for a man to go through a proper training and if on account of his having served in the army he then only gets three years’ apprenticeship he will be handicapped for the rest of his days. In the meantime, however, many of these lads will have become men and may even possess families. I hold that it is the duty of the State to make up the salary of such a man so that he does not meantime suffer financially through being properly trained.

I want just briefly to refer to Section 9 (1) where the inspector is given the power at any time to enter any premises whatever to make such investigations and enquiry as he may deem necessary. I would also refer to Section 9 (4) (d) where if anyone hinders or obstructs an inspector in the exercise of his duty he shall be guilty of an offence. There has been introduced into our legislation recently, and for some time, a power to inspectors to enter private dwelling houses without previous notice, and if anyone obstructs or hinders such an inspector he shall be guilty of an offence. This power is not conferred on a policeman of any rank without a warrant and yet the inspectors are given the power to enter my private dwelling house, or your private dwelling house without any previous notice. I believe that a man’s residence should be private and that no provision should be enacted giving anyone the right to enter a private dwelling house without a warrant from a magistrate or a Justice of the Peace. I appeal to the Minister in this or other legislation to omit this clause or exempt private dwelling houses from such powers of the Inspector.

I only want to reply to one or two points made by the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel). He said in the first place that this Bill would undoubtedly fail in its purpose unless our hopes in regard to industrial expansion were realised. Well that may be so. But that does not cast any reflection on the intentions of the Government, on the intentions of the Government to give employment or provide opportunities for employment for soldiers by legislation of this kind or of any other kind. The Government, other than the government of a socialist state cannot, except to a very limited degree, itself provide employment. The limits within which this Government can provide employment are the provision of employment within the Public Service itself and those limits are very narrow. The Government has already intimated its intentions to provide such employment as it can by expansion in the Public Service. But that sets the limit within which the Government can actually give employment to returned soldiers. For the rest its powers are to promote the employment of soldiers by private enterprise, by those engaged in the commercial and industrial enterprises of which our economy is made up. And it follows naturally that if there is any breakdown in that economy, if there is any slackening in our industrial enterprises, that must react on our ability to reabsorb returning soldiers. So I fail to see in what way the hon. member for Gezina’s comment in any way reflects on this Bill. This Bill is doing all that lies in the power of the Government to promote re-employment. It is giving certain specific rights to returning soldiers, namely, the right to return to the job they left on enlistment. For the rest it provides machinery by which, broadly speaking, the soldier can obtain preferential treatment in the allocation of work as time goes on. But it is sufficient to say that it is the Government’s responsibility to see to it by whatever means may come to hand that industrial expansion does take place, because I agree with the hon. member that without it unemployment will be our fate. The second point I want to meet made by the hon. member for Gezina, is this: the hon. member expressed considerable anxiety on account of the fact that the Bill applied to agriculture. He seems to fear that farmers will be compelled, against their will, to re-employ returned natives and possibly other workers. There seem to me to be two replies to that. In the first place the hon. member overlooks the fact that there is no absolute obligation to give a man his preenlistment job. It is laid down in the Act that a soldier is entitled to such job, but whether he gets it or not is in the last resort a matter to be decided by an employment committtee. It is open to an employer, an ex-employer to appeal to a local committee and to put his case before that committee. And if he shows that he is not in a position, for whatever reason he may be able to show, to re-employ any particular individual who left his employment in order to join up, it is open to the committee to say in effect: “You need not employ this man.” That is the flexible machinery that has been designed—and I think wisely designed to prevent the very thing which the hon. member seems to fear, namely, the forcing of labour upon unwilling employers. That is precisely what I hope will not happen if the Bill is properly administered. The second reply to this apprehension of the hon. member that native labour will be forced on unwilling farmer employers is that it seems to me that his fears are entirely imaginary, based on an imaginary state of affairs which may arise after the war. The present situation as I understand it is that farmers are clamouring for labour on their farms, and there seems no reason to suppose that a similar situation will not arise after the war. There will still be—judging by the trend of events—a shortage of labour on the farms. So that broadly speaking, one imagines that farmers will be only too willing to re-employ these returned native servicemen, when they come back. But if they are not willing to employ them and show that they cannot absorb them for one reason or another, I have every reason to believe that their case will be sympathetically met by these committees which have jurisdiction to deprive the soldier of this particular right. Finally, I want to say a word about the hon. member’s reference to the powers of the Minister. He referred to the powers of the Minister as dictatorial powers. They are dictatorial powers, but we can comfort ourselves to some extent by reflecting that the Minister will make a very benevolent dictator. Not that that entirely satisfies me. I share with the hon. member for Gezina a certain distaste for dictators, but my reply to him on this point is this that, while I am ready to join battle with him in fighting for parliamentary rights against dictatorships, I feel he has chosen the wrong battleground in picking out this particular Bill as having conferred dictatorial powers on the Minister. If the hon. member will take the trouble to go through a number of the Bills which we have passed this Session, and through a number of those already on the Statute Book—some of which have been on the Statute Book for a long time—he will find equally dictatorial powers there.

Two wrongs don’t make one right.

No, two wrongs don’t make a right, but if we are going to raise this question of the excessive powers being conferred on the executive by Statute, then we should raise it as a matter of general principle—it is a matter which can be raised in regard to the whole quality and tenor of our legislation and it is not an appropriate moment to raise it on this Bill. There seems to me some sort of justification—greater justification for conferring these powers in a Bill of this kind—than in other Bills where similar powers have been conferred. After all is said and done, this Bill is in a sense a war Bill, it is a Bill designed to deal with a situation which has arisen out of the war, and it is hard to see how this Bill could have been administered skilfully and successfully unless fairly wide powers had been conferred on the Minister concerned. One could, I think, point to a great number of other Bills where the need for dictatorial and wide powers was far less than it is here. I am quite prepared to say to the hon. member for Gezina and to the hon. member for Swellendam that at some time if the matter can be raised as a matter of principle relating to the whole tenor of our legislation they will find me with them against excessive powers being conferred on the executive.

With regard to this Bill I share the misgivings of those who have expressed their concern as to the workability of its provisions. The powers of inspectors are very far-reaching, but these officials are not made answerable to any particular authority under the Bill. We seem to define merely the already existing powers which inspectors, divisional inspectors of labour, possess under other Acts without any particular relationship to the bodies we are constituting under this Act to do the executive part of the work. In other words, we may easily find after the last word has been said about this Bill that it was rendered unworkable because the inspectors are not answerable to the committees or the Board which is set up under the Act. In the first place there doesn’t seem to be any direct link between these boards and the inspectors in regard to the instructions which they may receive, nor are the inspectors made subordinate to the Board or Committees.

It seems that the Board is going to be dependent entirely for the proper performance of any work which it wishes to carry out, upon the goodwill of the inspectors. There is nothing to say how those instructions shall be communicated to the inspectors or whether any limit may be placed on the time within which those instructions are to be carried out. Altogether the liaison between the inspectors and the Board which we propose to set up is very defective and not likely to prove efficient when brought into operation. We have to rely on the Department of Labour to see that certain things are done, but we must realise that where we are dealing with soldiers whose employment is an urgent question to be attended to, we require something more speedy and something more direct than being dependent on a fraction of the Department’s time for the work that has to be done. The Department of Labour is a very overworked organisation.

We have ventured to hope that under this Bill we shall have an organisation set up which is directly applied to the work of restoring men to their employment, and of obtaining employment for those who have not had it before they went to the war. I, in common with others, appreciate very much the attitude of the trades unions towards men who may possibly not have fulfilled a complete period of apprenticeship and who are yet to be allowed to enrol in the trades union organisation of the country in spite of the absence of this full qualification. When we come to the question of restoring to their employment men who have had pre-enlistment employment, I think there is a very bad defect in this Bill inasmuch as it merely seeks to make statutory the position which was decreed by the emergency measure of 1941. In some correspondence that I had with the Secretary for Defence about a particular case, he wrote back to me to this effect—

The case about which I was concerned was one in which a very wealthy corporation or company had first of all demanded the resignation of one of their employees because he had got married without the permission of his employer. This particular young man was at that time serving in the army, and he had been through the Abyssinian campaign. He was at that time engaged in fighting in Libya. He was being served with notices and registered letters sent to him by his employer demanding his resignation because he had got married without the permission of that employer. I remonstrated about this matter to the Secretary for Defence. I had a complaint from the man’s wife who was serving at that time in the Free State, and I wrote to the Secretary for Defence—

There was this anomaly that as a married man he was entitled to a smaller contribution than he had previously received as a single man, and that placed him in a position of indebtedness to his employer to the extent of something like £39. That seemed to be loss enough without the demand for his resignation. His resignation was being insistently demanded by registered letter, and with the concurrence of the Secretary for Defence I had an interview with his employers and pleaded with them to regard this as a case where the action of this young man would be condoned, and for the demand for his resignation to be withdrawn. I pleaded in vain. What happened then? The young man went to Tobruk, and he is one of those who was captured and taken prisoner-of-war to Italy. Whilst he was in Italy his wife received information that he was no longer retained on the establishment of his employers, but that he had now been regarded as discharged because of this question of his having got married without the permission of his employers. I again interviewed his employers in 1943 and in view of his altered circumstances and the fact that he was now a prisoner-of-war—one of those who probably suffer most on behalf of their country—pleaded again for his dismissal or his discharge to be rescinded, and for his being retained on the establishment of employees, or at any rate to be allowed to continue his employment until he should return from being a prisoner-of-war. Again I was unsuccessful. I offered to endeavour to refund the sum he owed, some £30 at this stage, and to repay that so as to ensure his re-employment. Again I was refused. What is the position under this Act of that young man? He has got to return to this country alive and well and offer himself for reinstatement before the penalties of this Act can be brought into force. He has to return from his being a prisoner-of-war, otherwise his employers will get off scot free. This man’s family—he now has a child—and his child and wife have suffered enough.

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 adjourned; to be resumed on 9th May.