I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I should like to refer very briefly to the news that has come through from the Italian front, in which we South Africans have a very special interest. I say very briefly, because it is the intention of the Government when the news comes through of the cessation of hostilities in Europe, to submit a formal and comprehensive motion expressing appreciation of the work of our troops.

Hear, hear.

I do not wish to anticipate that motion now, nor to say now what would be more appropriate to say then. I merely want at this stage to express the very great pleasure which that news has brought to us, and to give expression further to our very sincere appreciation of the splendid contribution which our South Africans have made to the very remarkable and noteworthy victory that has been won in Italy.

Hear, hear.

I want also to express our appreciation of the leadership they have received from that very great commander and fine gentleman, Field-Marshal Sir Harold Alexander, and I should like finally to say how much pleasure I am sure we all feel in the fact that the next-of-kin and friends of those who have been serving in those battles now know that the dangers to which they have been exposed have come to an end.

Hear, hear.

To me it seems that as the clause is here the Government is taking to itself the right under this Bill to take water out of the river by means of certain works. “Works” is defined in the Act and then we find in the schedule that it refers to works and appurtanent works on the farm Jantjesfontein A. This clause provides that with the said works an amount of water of 1,000,000 gallons per day can be taken out. If they can take 1,000,000 gallons of water out of the river, if the water is there, it seems to me that we cannot have objection to that, because I understand that the lower riparian owners, with certain differences, agree to permit it. But this morning I want to speak about the rights of the riparian owners above this place where the water is taken out, all along the Berg River. The right is given here to pump out 1,000,000 gallons, but the rights of the owners above are not protected by the Bill. In other words, it seems to me that if they have the right to pump out 1,000,000 gallons they can force the people above to let 1,000,000 gallons flow down.

How can they do that?

How will they pump it out if the water is not there?

But the Bill provides that they can pump out the water if it is there.

Then why don’t they say so? The owners above are not protected, and I feel it is my duty to mention the matter here. I think that in this clause provision should be made giving the owners above the pumping place the assurance that their rights will not be affected and that they will be protected as regards this matter.

Did you look at Clause 3? It is provided there that the water will be pumped out during times when the works are able to pump it out.

Ýes, but the works are not able to pump when the pumping plant is out of order. That is quite a different matter. If the Minister has no intention to affect the rights of people above the pumping place, what objection can he have against their rights being specifically protected in the Bill? I should like to have an amendment reading more or less as follows: “Provided the rights of riparian owners above the diversion point are protected.” That is all I ask. If you are of opinion that their rights are not affected, there can be no objection to such an amendment.

We cannot take the water before it has flowed past the riparian owner above.

You do not say so in the Bill. I am sorry that I have to differ from the Minister of Lands. I do not do so to cause trouble. I feel it is my duty as a member of Parliament to protect the rights of people as far as I can. The Minister of Lands is given the right to pump 1,000,000 gallons a day and the Minister says that that can be done when they are able to pump it. They are not able to do so if the pump cannot take out so much or is out of order. But I should like to protect the rights of the owners, seeing that by means of this Bill we are assuming Tights which under the ordinary law cannot be exercised. We are assuming rights here above what is provided by the existing law. I take it that the owners below are satisfied. I understand that they are satisfied except for certain objections which will be raised here. But seeing that we are here passing an Act which goes further than the existing legislation, why cannot we put the position clearly? If the Minister of Lands has no intention to affect the rights of the owners above, what objection can he have if we want to put it clearly in this Bill? I do not wish to force this amendment on the House but I felt that I should raise the matter here. I wish the Minister to state clearly that the rights of people above the diversion point are protected, and I want to know whether he will have objection to such an amendment. If he objects, I will not move the amendment, but I will then feel that I have pointed out to the House the danger existing for the upper riparian owners.

It is not in the least necessary to adopt such an amendment in order to protect the rights of owners above the works. The Bill provides that we can pump the water out at a certain specified place, and the water which we pump out there is water which has already flowed past the owners above. What protection is required then? We cannot deprive them of the water and I think my hon. friend need not worry about it. The water which we pump out there is water which has already flowed past the owners above.

That matter raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is one which has exercised the minds of my municipality at Paarl as also the minds of a number of the riparian owners to the Berg River. I am quite prepared to accept the assurance of the Minister that he has the right in terms of this Act, to pump at one particular spot only, water actually in the river there at any time. What our people feel is this; they do know that there will be future developments in the Saldanha area, supposing then there is not 1,000,000 gallons of water from where the pumping is to be done, supposing there is a dry year and they pump for all they are worth and cannot get that quantity of water. Will the Government not then turn round and say, here is the Act and we are entitled to get 1,000,000 gallons at this spot and riparian owners higher up must allow an additional flow to come down.

The Government cannot interfere with riparian owners above unless with the approval of Parliament.

If that be so I will accept the Minister’s assurance.

I wish to discuss a few other points, but in connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) I just wish to say that the Bill determines that the water can only be pumped at the place where the pump is situated. But the water is dammed, and if the water is pumped out it does not dam up so much. That is a matter which should be taken into consideration in connection with what the hon. member for Swellendam said here. The water comes down and if it is not pumped out it pushes up higher. The owners on the banks of the river know what their rights will be in future. I then come to another matter. If water is supplied to this area which is developing so fast it will very soon turn out that the Minister will require not less than 1,000,000 gallons per day. If the river then does not produce this water, and the places which require the water are so big that they need 1,000,000 gallons a day, what will the position be then? The Minister of Lands ought to make a reassuring statement. The workshops at Saldanha and Langebaan are expanding and the population is growing, so that within a short time they will not be able to do with less than 1,000,000 gallons. Supposing this pump cannot deliver the water, what will the position be then?

A new Act will have to be passed.

I wish to learn from the Minister what the Government’s intentions are in connection with this area. The object is to provide the whole area with water. Because an airport is being built at Langebaan Road there will be a considerable population. These people will bring their families along and will have to be supplied with water. Then we have the naval depot at Saldanha which will remain there permanently. The new development of Langebaan is imminent. We therefore have the naval activities at Saldanha, an airport which will be the largest in the southern hemisphere, at Langebaan Road, and then we have Langebaan which has been declared by the Government to be a seaplane base and it is therefore evident that Langebaan is on the eve of great development. We all agree with that. It means that there will be a large population there in future and one which will steadily increase. I have never been able to understand that the Government could develop such a large place with so little water at its disposal. I do not understand it. A million gallons will speedily be required. I hope that the Minister of Lands has looked further into the future than appears from this. He ought to satisfy the country as regards his plans for the future. That brings me to another matter. It costs the State a large amount of money to lay these pipes bringing the water from the Berg River. Therefore the public residing there also has claims to the water and for that reason the Bill makes provision for it. The Municipality of Vredenburg and the Village Management Boards of places like Saldanha can obtain water from this pipeline.

And also Velddrift.

Quite right. Even at this stage those people are feeling anxious because they say that if Langebaan is going to develop as suggested, where will they eventually come in? The Village Management Boards are all looking to the Government because they want water for their townships from that pipeline, and if the Government wants to supply its great works at Saldanha and Langebaan with water, what will happen to these small municipalities and Village Management Boards who have to get water out of the pipeline? I hope that the Government will satisfy these people, because they feel anxious about the position. Must they continue to supply themselves with water in one way or the other, or will they trust to this pipeline of the Government? They are anxious to know whether the Government will continue to supply enough water for the population in the manner it now suggests. I hope that the Minister will make a statement in connection with this matter. If it is going to sell water to those municipalities and management boards, will it supply them before it provides for the new Government works? A reasurring statement should be made to those municipalities and Village Management Boards. Then there is only one other matter. I have already said that it will cost the public a large amount to take out this water and to lay down the pipeline. The Bill now provides that the Minister can sell water to those people. I hope that it will be reasonable, very reasonable, and that the Government will not proceed from the point of view that it wishes to make money out of the matter. I also hope it will go even further and that it will not expect Langebaan to bear the costs of the pipeline which it has hot got at the moment. My reason is the following. The population of Langebaan will increase considerably, and we cannot expect that the small group of people who are there now should pay for a pipeline which will be to the benefit of a large number of people later. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this aspect of the matter, and if he is going to sell water to these people he will proceed from the point of view that he will charge them what is practically a nominal amount for it.

With all respect to the hon. members of the Opposition who spoke about this clause and who exhibited anxiety about the rights of the riparian owners above the pumping works, I wish to say that that anxiety is unnecessary. We must not read into this particular clause something which it does not contain. The only thing asked for here, and the only power we wish to give the relevant Minister, is the right to take a determined quantity of water, namely 1,000,000 gallons a day, at a certain place. Now, we do not affect the rights of the riparian owners above the place where the pump is situated. They were never before the Select Committee. They did not adopt the attitude that their rights were being affected. We only served notice on the riparian owners who are affected directly and indirectly by the erection of these works. We must not put ideas into their heads or arouse fears without having any grounds for it. There is no doubt that these people’s rights will not be affected. The only right granted is to pump 1,000,000 gallons of water a day at a given point from the river. If the water is not there we cannot force the riparian owners who are there to give up their rights and to let water flow which they would otherwise have used in order to enable us to pump out 1,000,000 gallons a day. That is a fear which ought not to exist.

They regard it as the thin end of the wedge.

It is totally unfounded. We cannot affect their rights as riparian owners unless special legislation is adopted for doing so. Such powers to affect their rights are not being asked for, and the fear is unnecessary. As regards the speech by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) I do not know how optimistic he is about the possible increase of the population in that area, but supposing there will be a population of 10,000 souls, what will the position be then? According to the evidence before the Select Committee a person will require 30 gallons per day for household purposes. For 10,000 souls that means 300,000 gallons. That is at the most one-third of the quantity of water which will be pumped out of the river. There then remains 700,000 gallons a day, which is more than sufficient for the requirements of the factories, the Department of Defence, the railways or other Departments of State. If it should later prove that 1,000,000 gallons is not sufficient, the Government might decide to adopt other measures to see to it that the development can take place. I do not believe that hon. members need entertain any fears as regards the rights of riparian owners above the pumping station.

Years ago this same water scheme was contemplated by the Woodstock Municipality, which is now part of Cape Town, and at that time a Bill was put through the old Cape House of Parliament giving them the right to dam the water in the stream running down from Wemmers Hoek. The main stream of the Berg River comes from Wemmers Hoek, which is a long narrow valley, with a fairly narrow entrance, so that it is not very difficult to make a huge dam, and when the Bill was contemplated they made provision to let 5,000,000 gallons of water run over the dam wall, dry or wet, because there is an enormous amount of water running away.

May I remind the hon. member that the Committee is now discussing the details of Clause 2 and not general principles?

I only want to say that if a large dam could be made at Wemmers Hoek, in view of the developments which are bound to ensue as years go by, enough water might be obtained to last for years and years and it will be a boon to everyone. That water is pure and clean ….

Order, order. I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that question.

I have made my point and I hope that the hon. Minister will take notice of it.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the water from the Berg River and its tributaries will be used more and more for irrigation purposes, and I share the fear expressed by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that this Bill does not safeguard us completely. I can well believe that all the water will not be needed for primary purposes, but when you come to irrigation you are dealing with secondary purposes and development is constantly taking place along the Berg River. I anticipate great development at Langebaan, but along the river there is an ever-increasing development, in other words, within a short space of time it may be that the quantity of water which is pumped out of the river at Paarl and further along for irrigation purposes will increase to such an extent that there will not be a million gallons per day available at Saldanha Bay to pump out. If then there is a large population there and a large quantity of water is needed for primary purposes, it is definitely possible that farmers along the river will be prohibited from using water for secondary purposes, for primary purposes will be the first priority. I want to see it made clear in the Bill that the farmers cannot be prohibited from using water for irrigation purposes.

I cannot fathom why the Minister should raise objection to an amendment which is intended to safeguard the people entirely, when it is precisely what he says himself, namely that he has no right to encroach upon their rights, and that people above cannot be forced to let the water run to enable them to pump the million gallons of water per day out of the river. I just want to point out that some time ago attempts were made to amend the Irrigation Act by stipulating how much water is needed for primary purposes. At the congress it was accepted that 40 gallons per day are needed by Europeans and 20 gallons per day by coloureds. Therefore if you pump out 1,000,000 gallons of water per day, you can only make provision for 25,000 people. And when I speak of primary purposes, I do not only mean water for drinking purposes, but also water with which to bath, to clean the home and to water the garden. All that is included. Therefore if 1,000,000 gallons of water are pumped out, then water can only be provided for domestic purposes and primary purposes for 25,000 people. If the population is going to increase as anticipated, the water supply will be insufficient. I do not blame the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) for not understanding the position. He is not well informed as regards the position. It remains a fact that water in a river is distributed in the first place for primary usage, and in the second place for secondary purposes, for irrigation. And whether a man takes his water from below or above, he is entitled to all the water in the river right up to the top firstly for primary purposes. The man right at the top can drink as much as he wants and when he is finished he must allow the water to run for the second man, and the second man in turn for the third man, until all have had sufficient for primary purposes. Then you come to the further distribution for secondary purposes, for irrigation purposes, which is another distribution—in other words every riparian owner is entitled to a reasonable amount of water. This Bill states clearly that the water that they pump can be used for primary or secondary purposes. I accept what the Minister says as regards his aims and the rights of the people, but if the man above has the right to two cusecs and the man below to four cusecs, then the first man must ensure that he does not take more than two cusecs and that four cusecs flow down. The Minister wants the right to pump out a million gallons of water per day. All well and good, but then let us protect these people on an absolutely secure basis by accepting an amendment and saying “provided the rights of riparian owners above the works are not tampered with”. The Minister says that he does not intend interfering with their rights, but the Minister may perhaps be dead tomorrow or the day after, and in another 20 years there will be other people and then a dispute will arise. They will then interpret the Act as it stands, and they are not going to look up Hansard to see what the Minister said at the time. They will confine themselves to the provisions of the Act. It will not help to tell the court that the Minister gave such an undertaking at the time, and that he said that the purpose of the legislation was not so. The court will interpret the Act as it stands. If a claim should be made to 1,000,000 gallons of water—to pump so much water out of the river—and the case came before the court, the court would not heed the assurance of the Minister. I do not want to see the Bill suffer shipwreck and if the people can be assisted by pumping the water out, I have no objection. I would like to assist them in doing so, but I do not want to allow it to be said at a later stage that the Act is inexplicit and that another interpretation can be given to it. There are certain rules as regards the interpretation of our common law, and one has to be very careful in connection with water rights. Otherwise later it may perhaps be said “you cannot take the water for irrigation, for we have not sufficient for primary purposes”. I do not want to see the people right up to the top being deprived of their rights. I think the rights of these people should be protected in every possible way. Somebody said that the people are not afraid. Possibly they are satisfied, but the position is simply that people with whom I have spoken feel uncertain and do not know what the position is. I do not want to propose the amendment and put it to the test, but just to ask the Minister to adopt such a stipulation. I do no think he can raise objection to this, for he says that it is not the intention to tamper with the people’s rights.

The objections which have been raised are mostly theoretical, and I do not believe that such an amendment is necessary. Let me put the matter clearly. I give an assurance to the House that under this Bill the Government has not the slightest right to take water from people, or to tamper with the rights of owners above the pump installation. We cannot tamper with these rights. We have no right to do so. But supposing that, as the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) says, there is ultimately not a million gallons to pump out of the river. Then he thinks we can tamper with the rights of the people to take water out of the river. We cannot do it. If the people above have pumping apparatus and are entitled to pump water, we cannot do anything to change the position.

They are now using 200,000 or 300,000 gallons.

If they have the right to pump more, they can do so. We cannot tamper with this right. If they possess these rights, we cannot change them, and this Bill will not change the position. If there is no water available, we can do nothing.

But the primary rights come first, and only thereafter the secondary requirements.

I can assure hon. members that under this Bill we cannot tamper with existing rights above the pumping installation. The people are entitled to the use of the water as long as they use no more than that to which they are entitled, and if then there is no water below, we can simply not pump water out. As regards the development which will probably take place, to which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has referred, I just want to say that for the present one million gallons is sufficient for all requirements, and in our opinion for a good number of years to come. We realise that development will take place, and the time may arrive when there is insufficeint water in the river to provide for the requirements of the community and the municipalities or for State purposes. The hon. member desires that I should make a statement as to what we would do in such an eventuality. The Government has looked ahead and we hope that the time will arrive, but we know that it will not arrive for quite a number of years to come, and we have already devised plans as to how to supplement the water supplies there. If there should be a shortage in the river, we will be able to supplement the water supplies. I do not want to give particulars, and the hon. member will understand what the reason is, but if the time should arrive we will be able to make provision, and instead of tampering with the rights of riparian owners above or below, I think that their position will be very much improved. I think the hon. member will have to be satisfied with this. I do not want to give particulars at this stage as to the possibilities of supplementing the quantity of water should the time arrive. The hon. member wants to see that we treat the people fairly. He can rest assured of that. We have not the slightest intention of making money out of these people.

Will it be a nominal amount?

It will be fair and everybody will be satisfied, the hon. member included. That is all that I can say. I am sorry, but after this explanation the hon. member for Swellendam will surely understand that I cannot accept such an amendment.

I do not doubt the Minister’s words, but I am only taking into account the legal position. I know what the Minister’s purpose is, but it is a legal principle that all the talk which precedes the entering into of a contract has no binding power. All the talk which preceded the deal is of no avail. The same applies to an Act, and that is the Act which comes before a court and is interpreted there. They are not going to refer to Hansard to see what the Minister undertook to do.

But you cannot tamper with rights under this Bill.

If that is so, what objection can there be to making it perfectly clear that the rights of riparian owners will not be tampered with? I cannot see how the Minister can raise objection. I want to propose as an amendment—

I want to support the amendment and I hope that the hon. Minister will deem it acceptable, so that all doubt in connection with the matter will disappear. Then I want to raise another point, namely in connection with the town Velddrift which lies below. According to the Select Committee’s report, Laaiplek Fisheries and Inshore Fisheries Corporation made representations as regards the possibility of their obtaining water at Velddrift. The Select Committee states in its report that Inshore Fisheries and Laaiplek have both declared that as a result of the assurances made by the Director of Irrigation in his evidence that the area around Velddrift will be treated in the same way as the other areas under the proposed scheme of providing water to local concerns, etc. They are satisfied, but there is nothing in the Bill stipulating that Velddrift will also be provided for.

There is also no mention made of Vredenburg.

These people which I have mentioned have withdrawn their application, for they say that the Director of Irrigation has satisfied them with an assurance, but the Director of Irrigation may fall away tomorrow and what will his assurance be worth then? Will the Minister not make a statement here and say that he endorses what the Director of Irrigation has said, so that Velddrift will have the assurance that this promise has been made by the Government of the day? No mention is made of Velddrift in the Bill, and I wondered whether one could not mention these places.

In my second reading speech I mentioned Vredenburg, Saldanha Bay and Langebaan, and I said that even private owners can be provided for.

But what about Velddrift?

Possibly Velddrift can also be included.

What is the meaning of the words “the area round Velddrift”?

There may even be private farmers who will be provided for.

Does it include Velddrift? It only says the area round Velddrift.

Even the area is included. There may also be farmers. It is a dry area and there is much brak water.

I would have liked to support the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) if there were anything in his amendment. I have always supported protection of existing rights. But the hon. member should realise that although he is right in saying that the court will interpret the Act as it reads, the court will also look at the Act as it reads, and there is nothing in this Act about which the hon. member could be perturbed. If the court had to go according to the Act they will see that there is nothing here to injure the rights of anyone, but if one puts in a clause protecting the rights of A, then, if in the course of time the rights of B, C and D are affected, it might injure them if their rights are not also protected. If there was anything in this Act which any court could possibly say affects the rights of anyone, something should be added to protect these rights, but there is not, and if you put in anything about the rights of A it might affect adversely B and the others. If the words of an. Act do not interfere with existing rights leave it alone, because if you protect one particular class, you do not know what effect it might have on other people later on whose rights are not before us now, and when the matter comes before the court later the court may say: Parliament did not protect your rights, but only those of A. The safest thing is to leave it as it is.

I just wish to point out to the Minister that in the Select Committee we were given to understand very clearly—and for that reason the objections of Inshore Fisheries and Laaiplek were withdrawn—that they would be treated on the same footing as the others. Water will be delivered to them also, of course on the conditions determined by the Minister. And then we understood that the people at Saldanha Bay and Vredenburg and Velddrift, that whole area, would receive water, and also Laaiplek and Inshore Fisheries. We took it that Velddrift and the area round about Velddrift was included. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), I cannot see what objection the Minister can have to it. It only makes the position clear. Perhaps the income for the legal men will be a little less because people will not have to litigate, because there will be perfect certainty. I do not think that the Minister can object to it. The hon. members for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) and Paarl (Mr. Faure) and Swellendam are anxious to see that the people above the works will not suffer.

I should like to put the matter clearly and I therefore move as an amendment—

It will then read as follows, that they can convey water—

I hope that the the Minister will accept that.

No, I cannot accept it. I gave the assurance at the second reading that provision would be made. Does the hon. member not accept it? There are many other places apart from these three. Why does he want to mention only the three?

We accept the assurance of the Minister, but he cannot bind future governments by means of an assurance, therefore I think that it should be determined in the Bill.

Do you wish to exclude future development?

No, it says here “or any other area which he may determine”. The township of Saldanha South is mentioned. Why cannot the others be mentioned? We are afraid that as regards “any other area” a future Minister may conveniently forget what the present Minister meant by it. He means Langebaan, Vredenburg and Velddrift, but a future Minister will not be bound by that. I hope that I will receive support for the amendment.

May I just read Clause 2 (a) again—

‘ It says “any other area”.

What is “any other area”?

If he does not define it it is omitted from the Act. I should like to tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) that I quite agree with him that where one determines certain rights and omits certain things there can be trouble. That is so but in this case the owners below the pump had an opportunity to protect their rights. The people above the pump were not invited to give evidence before the Select Committee, and therefore I wish to protect the rights of those people. The others had an opporaunity to appear before the Select Committee, but those above the pump did not have an opportunity. Therefore I say that the people above must be protected. If the people below had felt that their interests were affected, they could have protected their rights before the Select Committee. I also want to discuss the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). It seems to me that hon. members opposite do not realise what the position is. The Bill says that the Government may take the water to Saldanha Bay —that is clear—and to any other area they may decide upon, but if they do not decide on any other area the people in that area do not receive the right. We are now asking that the other places should be mentioned, and if still other places arise the Minister has the right to propose that. If they intend to declare those other places as other areas under the Bill, I cannot see what the objection is, and therefore I feel that both my amendment and that of the hon. member for Moorreesburg ought to be adopted by the House, and if they are not adopted it will only be due to obstinacy on the part of hon. members opposite.

I would appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). After all, we must bear in mind that the Berg River from which the water is to be pumped is a public stream and the only people who have a right to a public stream are riparian owners. All we ask is protection for the rights of these riparian owners. Nobody else can be protected, because nobody else claims to get water from the river. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) says that if we gave this protection it would open the door to many others. There are no others. And if that amendment is accepted the Minister will be assured that he will set at ease the minds of a very large number of farmers in my district who are making full use of their water rights from this river. The Paarl Municipality is also very concerned about this Bill. It is of course, riparian to the river. We have the assurance from the Minister and the members of the Select Committee that there is no intention of taking away the rights of the riparian owners. But let us look at the actual position. The rights of riparian owners are laid down in the Irrigation Act, and in the event of there at any future date being a shortage of water in the Berg River and a division of the shares is to be made the court may have to lay down the shares of each of the riparian owners. Suppose that eventually arises when the water is very limited during the dry season of the year, and a division must take place in terms of the Irrigation Act, will the Government not come in and maintain that there is an Act of Parliament giving it the right to take a million gallons and this must first be allowed to come down before riparian owners can claim their shares and then by virtue of this Act of Parliament they may be deprived of a portion of their share of user as riparian owners.

You are a legal man and you know it cannot be done.

I put it this way; if that amendment is accepted it simply bears out the assurance the Minister gave us, that he has no intention of taking away the rights of riparian owners. If that be made clear there will be no need to go to a court of law about the matter and thus by this amendment we are doing no harm to anybody.

Let me say this at once. My hon. friend the member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) says this is “koppigheid”. Nothing of the sort. Here is a Bill which has been discussed at the second reading, when there was a very full discussion; and it went to a Select Committee. All interested parties appeared before that Select Committee, and it was practically agreed before the Select Committee. Now the hon. member says: Put in that you do not want to interfere with the rights of the upper riparian owners. But it is perfectly obvious under the law that we cannot under any circumstances interfere with the rights of the upper riparian owners. Why should we set the minds of hon. members’ friends at ease by saying that the rights entrenched in the law will not be interfered with? Surely that is superfluous. Surely that is not good legislation. I want to appeal to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) to withdraw his amendment. If I have to name three or four or five places which he includes in his amendment there are twenty or thirty or forty or fifty places which will say: We are not protected.

I should like him to be satisfied with Clause 2 (a) as drafted.

You are taking it on to Langebaan; it is much further.

The Bill says we can take the water wherever we like.

Why not mention a few places; you mention one.

Amendment proposed by Mr. F. C. Erasmus put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—28:

Olivier, P. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—68:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acuti, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, À.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G, C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C, M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—27:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Doline, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Le Roux, J. N.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—66:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis A.

De Kock. P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley. G.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman. H.

Goldberg. A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

A question was raised about Velddrift. Velddrift is part of my constituency and I should like to say a few words in connection with this matter. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) was rejected, but before that the Minister of Lands gave an assurance here which I now wish to deal with a little further. The assurance was to the effect that where the report of the Select Committee says that the area round about Velddrift will have equal treatment with Langebaan and other places which are mentioned as regards the provision of water, the words “the area round about Velddrift” includes Velddrift. That is the assurance which he gave. He meant it that way, and I take it that the Select Committee also meant it like that, but it is not put that way in the report. Further two fishing companies in the neighbourhood— that is, round about Velddrift—say that they received the assurance in the evidence of the Director of Irrigation that Velddrift would receive equal treatment with Langebaan and other places mentioned. I refer to Inshore Fisheries and Laaiplek. They base that assurance on what was said by the Director of Irrigation before the Select Committee. I refer to the report to see what the assurance really amounted to, whether it was a firm basis on which to build. It is question number 1073. The question which was put to the Director was—

His reply was—

That is no assurance, no assurance at all He only supposes that it is so. Therefore what those two fishing companies depend upon and call an assurance is no assurance, but only a supposition. But the Minister stated that he took it this way that the area round about Velddrift, and Velddrift, are included, and that that assurance was given, and he accepts the assurance. Seeing that this amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg has been rejected and that the Minister has now given the assurance to the House, I now ask him to take the matter a little further. Let an official written assurance now be given on his behalf as Minister and on behalf of his department to Velddrift as regards this matter. Then there is at least something which can be depended upon in future. Then there will at least be that much certainty. I hope the Minister will adopt that course.

In my second reading speech I mentioned, Saldanha, Vredenburg and Langebaan and I also referred to private farmers. Where I spoke about private farmers I referred to farmers who have saltish water. As hon. members know, fresh water is very scarce in that vicinity and as I said this morning, also in Velddrift. Just let me explain why I do not consider it necessary to accept the motion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) to mention the other places also. The reason for it is that the main pipeline goes to Saldanha. That is the point it goes to. These other places are situate away from the line, and lines will have to be taken to them. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the intention is to supply water to all those places, Velddrift, Vredenburg and Saldanha. Even where there are farmers who have salty water, they will be assisted.

Do you know where Velddrift lies in relation to the place where the water will be diverted? It is lower down the river.

Yes, it can be taken out by means of a pipe.

Clause, as amended by the Select Committee, put and agreed to.

In new Clause 3 proposed by the Select Committee.

I was one of the members who served on the Select Committee in connection with this Bill, and it may perhaps be necessary to clarify a few points for the benefit of the House. Persons who were not present while the evidence was being given are somewhat confused in regard to the position. The water is pumped out at the upper end of a long depression that runs inland from the sea for a distance of 50 miles. Not a single one of the Government witnesses could give as an assurance that the water in that depression would remain fresh or that it would become salt. Where the water is being pumped out today it is drinkable; it is on Mr. Martin Melck’s farm, the farm Janniesfontein. There the water is drinkable. When you come to Mr. Teubes’s ground the water is not fit for human consumption and it does damage to the veld. When the tides come up from the ocean the water is forced up the depression and when it reaches Mr. Teubes’s farm the water spreads over the veld, but it does not damage the veld. The question we have to decide is this: If millions of gallons are pumped out of the dam the effect will be that the water in that depression will later on become salt. If it becomes salt then a sum of £10,000 would not be sufficient compensation for Mr. Melck; and thousands of pounds would not be adequate compensation for Mr. Teubes. But no one can tell you that. Not a single witness could give us an assurance one way or the other. Then the plan made by the Select Committee was this— we made the suggestion ourselves—we said that as there was no certainty in regard to the quality of the water pumped out, let these people have the right to have recourse to the courts in future. As uncertainty exists as to the future in reference to the pumping of the water, we said: Let these people be at liberty to go to the court in future and to prove they have sustained damage. But the promoters of the Bill said: You are now together, we do not want to have difficulty in the future and you should decide now whether the people are suffering damage, so that we may know what we will have to pay. We replied that we did not know what the position would be in the future, and if we had to do anything, or if we had to proceed from the assumption that the water was not going to be affected in the future. Then we said: As we do not know what damage is going to be sustained in the future, as we do not know whether we should start from the assumption that the water will become salt, it is difficult for us to decide what compensation to give these people. We then proposed, and the proposal was unanimously accepted that we should give water to Mr. Martin Melck and Mr. Arthur Melck for their lands and also water for Mr. Martin Melck’s domestic use, as he now has not got the water. I have no objection to that. We took up the attitude that the water may become salt, and accordingly we gave them compensation. If the water does not become salt they will not suffer a single pound damage, but if the water becomes salt they will sustain damage to the extent of £10,000 and more. We have given them compensation which should be the equivalent of about £5,000. The pipeline the Government will have to lay will cost a few thousand pounds. When I mentioned this matter in the Select Committee I said that if we compensated Mr. Martin Melck and Mr. Arthur Melck we should also have to compensate Mr. Teubes, because otherwise we would be discriminating between these people. The point was then made that if we granted compensation to Mr. Teubes we should also have to compensate Mr. Theodore Melck, Mr. John Coetzee and Mr. Jacob Loubser, because they also have lodged an objection. My reply to that was that these persons had not furnished any evidence regarding possible damage they might sustain, either personally or through their attorneys and advocates. No one argued the matter for these three people, and consequently it was impossible for me to to decide what the position of these three people was. We do not know how they use the water and whether the water spreads over their lands, and the Select Committee were thus unable to decide what damage these people suffered, as neither personally nor through their legal representatives had they represented their case. But Mr. Teubes was there from beginning to end with his advocate. I then proposed that the sum of £200 should be paid to Mr. Teubes as compensation because some 50 morgen might be put under water, and if that water became more salty it would mean that that portion of the veld would become valueless in the future, and I was sorry that that proposal was not adopted. Mr. Melck was satisfied to pay half the cost of the pipeline provided the cost did not exceed £1,000. It was admitted from all sides the pipeline would cost more than £2,000. We felt that the persons who had raised objection to the Bill on the grounds of the assumption they would sustain damage had incurred expense in presenting their case before the Select Committee, and we thought that the Government should pay these costs, including Mr. Tuebes’s costs. These costs amounted to some £650. We were then faced with the difficulty as to whether we were permitted under the rules of the House to propose that the Government should pay this £650 costs. We then made an honourable agreement with Mr. Melck. He was prepared to pay the costs on condition he got the pipeline free. In other words, Mr. Melck immediately gained £350. I was not opposed to Mr. Melck receiving this compensation, but I at once felt that if we made a present of £350 to Mr. Melck in this manner it was no more than right we should give £200 compensation to Mr. Teubes. The position is if Mr. Melck’s water supply becomes more salty Mr. Teubes’s supply will be similarly affected. The same factors govern both cases. If Mr. Teubes’s water becomes more salty the same will apply in Mr. Melck’s case. I was in agreement in respect of Mr. Melck’s compensation but I am sorry the Select Committee turned down my proposal that £200 compensation should be paid to Mr. Teubes. I want the Minister to take into consideration whether something cannot be granted to Mr. Teubes. The argument that the other three do not receive anything does not in my opinion apply, because they did not give evidence before the Select Committee to enable us to decide whether they may possibly sustain damage. But Mr. Teubes sat there all the time. He incurred costs apart from from legal expenses, that Mr. Melck had to pay. Consequently I am making this appeal to the Minister.

What are you asking for him?

I am asking for £200. But the point is that if we compensate Mr. Melck I consider that compensation is also due to Mr. Teubes whether it is £5 or £100, or whatever the amount is. He is entitled to something and I should like to know from the Minister whether he is prepared to accept such a proposal. [Time limit.]

The object of this Bill is to supply water. The local people are hoping to be benefited, especially the residents of Saldanha South; The Minister wishes to compensate those whose private rights, whether rightly or otherwise, I take it, are prejudiced by this Bill. I would therefore like the Minister to tell me whether he will be prepared to accept as an amendment which I now move—

The section would then read—

It seems to me to be a general principle, because we do not know what may crop up in future. But there is one specific instance I want to put before the Minister of a man who will be affected. On the adjacent farm there is a water supply and the owner has gone to considerable expense. paying £3,000 for the plant and pipes, and this owner has in point of fact for many years past actually supplied Langebaan with water. He has done it for the good of the community at quite a sub-economic rate. For instance, the interest on £3,000 at 5 per cent. would be £150, but he has not received more than £70, so that he is not the type of grasper we so often find. I am sure the Minister will take my point, which is this, that if we are now going to supply water in abundance at a very cheap rate, he will in future not be able to get even his £70 a year, and I gather that he has already been informed of that fact. If the Minister accepts this there will be an opening to compensate this man for the loss he will suffer.

Everything that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) has stated is absolutely correct. I should just like to remove a possible misunderstanding; in connection with his statement that he made a proposal, which was rejected by the Select Committee, it was not because the Select Committee felt it did not want to do something for this man, but because it would be extremely difficult to determine whether damage would be actually sustained. We already had found it very difficult to come to a decision whether Mr. Melck had suffered damage or not, although the feeling was general that if a million gallons of water are pumped out the balance will become salt more quickly. But when we come to damage to land and grazing it is very difficult to come to a decision whether damage will actually be sustained. Let us just take this fact into consideration: 1,000,000 gallons a day are being pumped out of a depression which, as the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has stated is about 43 miles in length. It contains 3,600,000,000 gallons of water. If 1,000,000 gallons a day is pumped out it is a trifle. We cannot state with truth that any damage will be suffered, and when it comes to the effects on grazing the position is entirely problematical.

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

I was engaged in pointing out how difficult it is to determine whether a man will suffer damage or not as a result of the water being pumped out. In the case of Mr. Melck it was clear that when you pump out 1,000,000 gallons of water a day the salt water will drive up earlier in the year. Consequently the Select Committee felt that in his case they should recommend compensation. In regard to Mr. Teubes it is impossible to say what damage he will suffer in respect of his grazing. It is practically impossible to determine. But I feel there is another way in which Mr. Teubes can be met, and that is, when the pipeline is laid over his land he will necessarily suffer damage and consequently I will support the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) to this extent that we feel that compensation should be granted to him in that respect, and I hope the Minister will meet him ’in this connection and that he will be satisfied, provided that he withdraws any claims in reference to servitudes.

The argument that Mr. Melck should receive compensation because his rights are affected, is partly correct and partly not. There is of course the possibility that if one pumps out so much water, salt water may perhaps come in. That is not the case as regards Mr. Teubes. He is situate some distance below, where the water has always been salty, ever since the creation of the world.

But it harms the veld.

But that has nothing to do with the pumping out of the water above. Ever since the creation of the world the position has been that if the tide rises high it goes over his veld. But as far as I can I should like to meet the hon. member. When originally the pipeline was laid over Mr. Teubes’s ground and also over Mr. Melck’s ground to Saldanha, they gave it free, without any compensation for the duration of the war and 12 months afterwards. That means that if the 12 months have elapsed Mr. Teubes can hand in a claim for compensation. He is still the only one who can do that, who still has that right. Now I wish to tell the hon. member that I cannot insert it here, because it will mean additional expenses, and for that I must first receive the consent of the Governor-General. If the hon. member will let this pass I shall be prepared to submit an amendment at the report stage and to add that Mr. Teubes shall be awarded £200 provided any claim which he has in connection with the matter will then be dropped. I move—

Agreed to.

In regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), I regret I cannot put it to the Committee as it would involve increased expenditure and it cannot be put without the recommendation of the Governor-General.

New Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses, the Schedule, the Preamble and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments to be considered on 5th May.

Mr. Chairman, I think the House yesterday greatly appreciated the address which he had from the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman). He gave us a very lucid explanation of the Government’s intentions in connection with the set-up of the proposed national health services. He told us that the co-ordinating council in connection with the central health services had been set up and he had the privilege of being made chairman. He also told us that negotiations were taking place in order to improve our nursing services in the country, which I think is all to the good. He told us further that an advisory council had been set up with a view to advising the Government on anything in connection with that particular service, and he went on to say that many memoranda had been put up to the Minister in connection with the various matters that had been discussed by that advisory committee. May I say I am indeed perturbed, in my own mind, as far as the set-up of the national health services is concerned, and as far as the general public health of the whole of South Africa is concerned. When one looks at it reasonably one has to realise that the executive authority which today is placed on the shoulders of one Minister, is stupendous, and that is what is worrying me at the present moment, and I have no doubt it is worrying every member of this hon. House. With the best will in the world there is no doubt about it that if we want things to go properly we have to realise that we have one Minister dealing with four of the most important functions of State today, and it is humanly impossible, in my opinion, for that Minister to do justice to all of them. The Minister today is responsible for social welfare, demobilisation, public health and housing, and I am perfectly convinced that no human being can carry out these four functions of State adequately by himself. I say so with a sense of responsibility and for the simple reason that I am of opinion that a reorganisation of our health services in this country is a fundamental concomitance of not only expansion in the industrial sphere and social security, but as a matter of fact, is the very life blood of white civilisation in this country, and we have allowed things to drift for very many years, and the question of public health and social welfare should be the portfolio of one Minister. And I would say this, that as our alignment of portfolios éxist today there is no portfolio in this country for public health. Public health and housing are simply adjuncts to the portfolio known as social welfare and demobilisation. I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that no justice will be done to the various committees which have been set up under housing, public welfare and social welfare and health, as it is impossible for the Minister even to read all the memoranda set up and which he is supposed to peruse. That in itself is one man’s job and if we are going to do that job properly, I think this House should bring pressure to bear on the Government to see that one Minister is not overworked to the extent that this Minister is overworked.

You are wrong there. He is not overworked; he only makes promises.

Beware of your Dental Mechanicians Bill now.

I am convinced that he will not be able to do justice to our public health services. I have listened to many debates in this House in connection with Public Health, and it is my opinion that the average member of this House is viewing this Public Health Service not from the point of view of an improvement in public health generally but from the point of view of getting something for nothing, or easing the burden of the sub-economic in this country, in other words. Now, when we realise that the non-European population in this country outnumbers the Europeans by 5 to 1, and when we look at the statistical data set up in the report of the Union Department of Public Health, it is quite easy to realise that the non-European population in this country is the foci of all the disease. I am perfectly convinced that unless we have a Minister carrying that portfolio who will give all his attention to the difficulties to be overcome, the many difficulties existing today, that public health service will break down, and in 50 years you will not have gone very far towards what you are trying to get today. Now, the report of the Public Health Department is rather misleading, misleading to this extent that it only gives statistics in connection with the European population. I hope members of this House are not led away by the fact that the little table of statistics which we have here on the second page lulls them into a sense of false security. It is rather surprising to see that as far as South Africa is concerned we are the most healthy country in the world, as regards the Europeans. We have a birthrate which is the highest in the world, 25.9 per 1,000 of population; we have the lowest death rate, at 9.5, and the greatest natural increase, at 16.4. What does that indicate to the intelligent man? It indicates that as regards the Europeans in this country, in relation to hospital services, they have been fairly well supplied. That is what the figures indicate. But that is not the position with regard to the nonEuropean. We have no statistics and no census and therefore no accurate figures. But if we turn a little further over in this report we will see that in connection with venereal disease, the statistics which have been put up by medical practitioners in the hospitals and clinics only, show that 279,000 people have been treated. Now, that is only the mere fringe of what exists in this country in regard to this disease, and I do not think that any medical man in this House will disagree with me when I say that the non-European population in this country is riddled with venereal disease to the extent of 30 per cent. I have a doctor on my right who says that I am on the conservative side, and I know I am on the conservative side. I live amongst half a million natives and I know what the District Surgeons have to do there. If one only knows what inroads venereal disease is making on the vitality of the population, it is inevitable that unless we stamp it out we are not going to make that industrial progress we hope for. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) yesterday told us something about tuberculosis. My time is limited but I want to say something about it also. In Durban alone four natives a day are dying of tuberculosis. They estimate that amongst the population of 100,000 non-Europeans, there are 7,000 tuberculotics and I can assure hon. members that amongst natives in the reserves tuberculosis is rampant, and these two diseases alone are enough, in my opinion, to drain the vitality of the unit of production in this country, and we will not make progress in civilisation unless we do something drastically to overcome these two diseases, apart from anything else and save our manpower. I say emphatically that it is the duty of the Government, in the interests of posterity in this country, to see to it that as far as public health is concerned, that should be put under the jurisdiction of a separate ministry, of one Minister, and that these four important functions of State which one Minister is asked to carry out today should be the duty of at least two Ministers. I consider that public health and social welfare should come under one Minister and housing and demobilisation under another Minister, and I can assure hon. members that even these two Ministers will have enough to do. But my object in getting up today and in making these remarks is this, that to me it appears that we have to do everything we can to see that our ‘ health services are pushed forward energetically on business lines, because if they are not, and they are not the function of one Minister who can give all his attention to this most important function of State, in 50 years time we will still be making promises without having accomplished very much. I am not looking at it from the economic point of view or from the point of view of getting something for nothing. If I had my own way I would make everyone in the country pay, and when they have all paid, I would extend free services only to those who cannot afford to help themselves. That is my idea of a public health service. But at the same time we have to realise that these things are necessary in the interests of public health in South Africa. [Time limit.]

When we read this report of the Secretary for Public Health, one thing strikes us, and that is that unless we are going to wake up in connection with the condition of the health of the non-Europeans in our country we will eventually be completely affected by it and our health will also be undermined. As the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) stated we are clearly shown what the position of health of the natives in the country is and how venereal disease is spreading. The report points out that there are areas where the natives still live in their tribal state, as in Pondoland, where they are much healthier than in those places where they come into contact with Europeans. He performed a service to the population of South Africa when he stated, after having investigated the figures, what will happen with a mixed population such as for example in New York where non-Europeans live with Europeans. He shows how health in such circumstances deteriorates. In our country we see that the same process is active. Therefore it is such a pity that we cannot have a national health service to tackle this matter at its root. The Minister sits there but he is powerless. If he has a policy he cannot announce it because there are hindrances in his way. However much he might be imbued with the idea of improving national health, he cannot do it. I say it is a pity that we cannot get the right thing. Take for example this case, the position of natives and coloureds in Kimberley. The health official in Kimberley as a result of his investigation produced disturbing figures and results. He published the report of this investigation regarding the prevalence of syphilis amongst the population for the year ending 30th June, 1943. Inter alia, we find the following—

Such a state of affairs cannot be tolerated in our country. We come into contact with these people daily. It is a national matter and must be tackled. There must be a statement by the Minister whether he is going to do something in connection with the matter, whether he is going to force those people to have themselves examined. If we do not do that, we can do nothing to the matter. We shall be obliged to make these natives and coloureds submit themselves to those tests by passing legislation in that direction. I know that I am not now allowed to plead for legislation, but the Minister’s Department ought to go round and do something to get the natives and the coloureds to subject themselves to examination. But there is also another matter. As the hon. member for Zululand indicated here, the position of tuberculosis as regards Europeans in the country is quite satisfactory. If we turn to page 2 we see there a schedule for the past 11 years which shows that the position has improved as regards Europeans. But the condition of the non-Europeans is becoming progressively worse-. I wonder why we have no schedule for the non-Europeans. It seems as if we are totally paralysed. We simply stand awe-struck when we see on page 11 of the report that in para. 12 it is stated—

Amongst the non-Europeans tuberculosis is increasing. In spite of that fact there are 240 beds vacant, and it is said here that that is as the result of a shortage of personnel. We cannot tolerate anything like that. If there are 240 vacant beds, especially in non-European hospitals, owing to lack of personnel, then provision has to.be made for the training of non-European nurses. That ought to be an indication to the Minister of what is going on. More hospital facilities must be provided for the training of nurses, and there ought to be better provision made for the salaries of nurses. We must make that profession attractive to the daughters of the nation. Today an ordinary girl who has passed matriculation and who has been to a technical college for a year or two in order to become a typist earns easily £25 or £30 a month. The nurse has to work hard from the beginning and what are her prospects for the future? I really think that the Minister should tackle this matter thoroughly. We cannot permit a position that 240 beds are vacant while consumption is increasing amongst the non-European population. Then we come to page 16, in connection with housing. We know what the Minister’s difficulties are. We know that from time to time he has stated how many houses he would build and how many would be available. On page 16 there is a schedule of the houses completed. Under the Housing Act of 1920, as amended in 1935, and during that period of 25 years 16,328 houses were completed. I know what the difficulties of the present Minister are and what those were of previous Ministers, and I say that it really is not a position which redounds to the credit of our nation. The Minister ought to apply the Slums Act seriously. I know that he is sometimes hindered by local authorities in connection with the Housing Act, but he should have the courage of his convictions and he should send his inspectors round to the various parts of the cities to discover where people live in hovels, so that those hovels can be destroyed, while on the other hand proper houses can be supplied to the people. This schedule on page 16 is no credit to the people of South Africa. Within a thousand yards of where I stand here today there are slums and they are just permitted to exist. If disease breaks out, as may very probably happen amongst the coloureds whose health has already been undermined by venereal disease, tuberculosis, and such things, we can imagine what will happen to them under those conditions of housing. Not only they will be the victims. We shall also be the victims. We ought to make the nation aware of these things, and the Government ought to have the courage of its convictions and to see to the health of the nation. [Time limit.]

I think I should deal with some of the points raised in the course of the debate up to now. May I say a word with regard to what the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) just raised, the question of housing. The Government has already announced that it intends to introduce a Bill during the present Session dealing with housing. That Bill is in the course of preparation at the moment. Recently I had occasion in Another Place to give a broad outline of the Government’s intentions regarding housing and the fresh powers that have to be taken. In those circumstances I hope that hon. members will not expect me this afternoon to go into any further details on this subject. The House will have an adequate opportunity when the Bill is presented of discussing its details and housing policy generally.

When do you expect the Bill to be before the House?

The hon. member will realise that a number of important matters are dealt with in the Bill and I hope to expedite its presentation to the House, but he will appreciate that before it can be introduced a number of departments and authorities have to be consulted and a good deal of initial work is necessary. I am anxious however to let the House have it as soon as possible. I entirely agree with what the hon. member for Gordonia has said. Our housing position is bad. We have slums. If we look at the record of houses built under the Housing Act, it is not a monument to South Africa, but I would remind him that half of these houses were in fact built during the five and a half years of war, so that at any rate this Government, which accepts its responsibilities with regard to housing, has attempted even with wartime limitations and difficulties to do its best. The Bill was introduced in 1920, and I do not attempt to make any political capital out of this question of housing. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition, who has also been a Minister of Public Health, knows what difficulties there have been for many years in encouraging local authorities and other bodies to embark upon building. It is common cause that we need more houses. I hope that when I come to the House and ask this House to give the Government and the Housing Commission adequate powers, my hon. friend and other members opposite, and I am sure hon. members on this side of the House, will support these measures. Knowing the mood of the country at present I think there will be very little opposition.

If they are good we will support you.

Knowing the quality of the Government my hon. friend need have no fear of that. The debate has raised a number of important matters, namely the question of national health services, which was raised by various members, like the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) and the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman), and several other matters have also been dealt with, and I think it is correct to say that the debate so far is symptomatic of the state of public opinion in the country. In the last two or three years the country as a whole has become much more health conscious than it was in the past. The Government, the Department of Public Health, is continually being pressed with questions and requests and representations in regard to new services, in regard to removing abuses and in regard to reforms of one kind or another. I say that that is symptomatic of the change which is taking place in public opinion in South Africa. Before I deal with the specific points raised, I would even if it is only for the last time, like to remind the House of the background in which we are discussing the public health problem at the present time. I give this background not with any intention of saying that things should not or cannot be done, because I believe matters can be improved; I believe that this House and the country is in the mood to see fundamental changes made in our public health policy in this country, but when one is faced by this enthusiasm, this impatience, almost, to create a new heaven and a new earth overnight, I feel I must remind the House of the factors against which we have had to work. We have gone through nearly six years of war, and in the earlier days the country itself was not very sympathetic towards the Department of Public Health. For many years the Department was fighting a lone battle, long before I was the Minister responsible for that Department, and trying to educate public opinion by means of the annual report, and to stir up a public consciousness in this matter. In 1937-’38, the Public Health Vote passed by this House was £624,288. We are contemplating spending this year £1,648,000, an increase of over £1,000,000 in the last eight years. I would remind the House that it was my colleague, the Acting Prime Minister, who was the first to give that impetus, when he was the Minister of Public Health, to the claims of public health. During his regime the Public Health Vote increased, and I would like to express to him — and I think the House ’realises that despite the injuction which was given to all departments in the beginning of the war to cut down and reduce expenditure, other than the Department of Defence, or departments dealing with essential war needs,— our appreciation for the fact that we have been able to increase the Public Health Vote with the assistance of the Minister of Finance during the last five years. So we started out in difficult circumstances. There was no great public opinion backing the Public Health Department eight years ago. Despite the exigencies and the difficulties of the war the Public Health Department carried on, and I have to take this opportunity also of saying to the House and to the country that I want to thank the senior officials of that department, and the officials generally, who have carried on under the most difficult circumstances. The professional staff of the Public Health Department has been depleted by something like 50 per cent. owing to the war. We have had a number of men who joined up. We have had other difficulties, and despite criticisms which came from various parts of the country the Secretary for Public Health carried on loyally under the most difficult circumstances, and I think it is an achievement to be able to tell the country that despite these difficulties he has been able to build up the Public Health Vote, he has been able to introduce new services, and now that the time is ripe for much bigger efforts, this House is in a position to have before it the report of the Gluckman Commission and it can deal fully with the proposals for the future. I think we should not forget these things because there are times when officials are not able to defend themselves, when they are pilloried in the House. There have been suggestions of neglect and incompetence against the Public Health Department. I should like to point out that that department, under the most difficult circumstances, has under the leadership of the permanent head of that department, Dr. Allen been carrying on very gallantly indeed; and I personally would like to pay my tribute to him this afternoon. Let me say this to the House, and I think it is my duty to say it, if we are going to build up these new health services for the country that the country obviously wants, then the country will have to change its ideas about a great many things. In recent years we have lost quite a number of our senior officials. It is said in jest that the Public Health Department is a good training ground for professional posts in other services. A man reaches a certain stage in the Public Health Department; he draws a certain salary, and then he is offered a much more attractive salary, and he takes it. And who can blame him? If he is worth that salary who can blame him if he goes? It is my personal view if we are going „to build up these new services, not only in respect of health or other services, in the post-war world, services which the country is looking forward to, then in so far as the public service is concerned we have to get away from treating every salary on the basis of the head of a department being paid £1,800 a year. Hon. members may say: Why does not the Government do something about it, why does not the Public Service Commission do something about it?

Why do you not ask the Minister sitting in front of you to do something about it.

The Minister sitting in front of me, the Minister of Finance, is just as sympathetic as I am, but it is not within his hands, and that is why a special commission has been appointed, because it is not competent for the Government or for the Public Service Commission to change the present position The commission that has been appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Centlivres will take cognisance of this fact. I repeat that in my view it is utterly impossible to produce the kind of service and the type of service the country apparently wants unless we are prepared to pay adequate salaries to the people who have to do that job.

The commission recommended the payment of adequate salaries.

I have said that the commission acts within the limitations placed upon it at the present time, and if the country thinks those limitations should be removed, I have no doubt that is a matter that will be taken into consideration by the Central Commission.

I am talking about the Gluckman Commission.

May I deal with one or two matters which are of importance but of relatively less importance than the main question. Certain hon. members have referred to medical fees. The hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) have complained of certain fees charged by medical practitioners as being extortionate. They have said a tariff of fees should be drawn up and doctors should be compelled to submit detailed statements of account. One knows that the question of charges, of extortionate payments, and similar matters are dealt with from time to time by the Medical Council, and it is the duty not only of any member in this House but of any citizen who feels he may have been overcharged, to bring before the notice of the Medical Council particulars of any such case. I may remind the House that only recently a case was brought before the Medical Council, and appropriate action was taken by it, the member involved having been removed from the roll. I am, however, having the remarks made by the hon. members brought to the notice of the Medical Council for such comments as it may wish to make. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has discussed the question of district surgeons. There is a shortage of district surgeons at the present time. Some months ago the shortage was between 30 and 40. I think that figure has been reduced, but we are still not able to fill the posts at present being created. A fortiori we should not be able to fill the posts if we created new ones as has been suggested. But we know that 900 members of the medical profession are on active service, and when they return there will be an opportunity afforded them for applying for vacancies as district surgeons; because it has been the policy of the department to appoint no district surgeons in a permanent capacity during the war years. All appointments have been for the duration of the war. These posts will be re-advertised and an opportunity will be given to the men coming back to apply for them.

Are these part-time appointments?

My hon. friend must realise this, that in the case of many part-time appointments where the salary is £200, £300 or £400 a year in actual practice an opportunity is given to the incumbent of the post to earn a great deal more than that. Then, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has dealt with a number of questions affecting the recommendations of the Nutrition Council. I can assure the hon. member all the recommendations which have been made from time to time by the Nutrition Council have been dealt with by the Public Health Department and passed on to the appropriate departments under whose jurisdiction they fall, and a number of recommendations and suggestions have been translated into reality. I think the Nutrition Council can claim a great deal of the credit for the introduction of the school feeding scheme into this country. It has for a long time been pressing for margarine to be introduced and the hon. member asked me when margarine is likely to be introduced. I understand from my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, whose department is dealing with the matter, though it will be for the Department of Social Welfare to distribute it to certain groups, that we should have margarine available during this year. The Nutrition Council recommended that an enquiry should be made into the diet scales at various Government institutions. The council itself has issued a pamphlet describing rations for native labourers, agricultural and industrial, and it has been distributed widely, and the Public Health Department is engaged at the present time on an enquiry into the dietary arrangements made at mental hospitals. The hon. member also asked me what has happened about research. As hon. members know, the Government has set up a Research Bureau under Brig. Schonland, and consultations have taken place between the head of this bureau and the Department of Public Health with a view to full co-operation. The field work will be undertaken by the Department of Public Health and the laboratory work by the bureau itself. That is the general line of demarcation as between the two. A nutrition officer has recently been appointed, and steps are being taken at the present time to establish a Bureau of Nutrition. I come now to the point raised by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer), who dealt with the Government’s proposals for a national health scheme, and referred more particularly to health centres. Quite obviously, Mr. Chairman any changes we are going to make in our machinery for public health in this country has to be carefully planned and scientifically planned. The Commission itself recommended a national health scheme involving the taking over of hospitals by the Central Government and re-emphasised that if the scheme as a whole were accepted it could not be put into operation except over a period of years. Yesterday the hon. member tor Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), who was a member of the Commission, recognised that when he pointed out that unless the scheme was perfectly planned there would be chaos. I entirely agree with him, if we are going to take a big step forward it is no use for the Public Health Department or the Government to take leaps in the dark and to embark upon a course which may have unfortunate reactions at a later stage and prove impracticable in carrying out. The Government has stated its policy in regard to the proposals of the Gluckman Commission. The Government is prepared to provide a national health scheme within the framework of the constitution. The basis of the national health scheme is the health centre. There are certain questions, matters of policy relating to health centres which have to be worked out. The model health centre is in existence at present at Polela in Natal, some 40 miles from Maritzburg, and in the heart of the native reserve. At that health centre, which was started some four years ago, most remarkable results were obtained. When Dr. Koch, who is in charge, went there four years ago he had to battle against superstition of the sort referred to by some hon. members yesterday. He had to battle against the reluctance of many of the members of the native population to come near him. He and his helpers were told by the natives to go away. They were told: Why do you not behave as other doctors do, why do you come to us; we will go and see you when we want to; why do you bother us and pry into our affairs? For 18 months Dr. Koch tried to break down that antagonism, and eventually he decided to alter completely his method of approach. His new method was to adopt the family welfare system. A number of native families are joining the centres, where tabulated statistics are taken in regard to each family — the number of children and so on — and a start was made with these particular families. Clinics were held on certain days. There were clinics for the children, for adolescents and for adults. Visits were made to the huts themselves. When Dr. Koch started the infant mortality rate was 250 per 1,000. After some two-and-half years work they have reduced that infant mortality rate from 250 per 1,000 to 100 per 1,000. The number of families constantly dealt with by that clinic is something like 700, and they get men, women and children; and last year over 25,000 natives were subjected to routine examinations by the staff of that clinic. It is the model clinic. There is no means test, and it has been enabled to start under ideal circumstances for that type of work. The difficulty one finds in making a beginning with the health centres in the more populated areas, particularly the urban areas populated by Europeans is one at once comes up against the difficulty referred to by the hon. member for Stellenbosch; there will be local practitioners who feel they are being subjected to unfair competition. It seems to me that question can be solved only if a decision is taken in regard to the means test. It seems that fundamental to the health centre scheme is the fact that there should be no means test, that these health centres should be available to all for the purposes of examination, and at a later stage of domiciliary treatment. These are the matters being dealt with now by the Advisory Committee on National Health under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Yeoville. I will not attempt to weary the House this afternoon with the various details underlying these important questions which are at present the subject of consideration, but this Health Advisory Committee, which as the hon. member rightly said is an action committee and not another commission — will say what must be done to implement the policy. It has put these points very forcibly to me and they are now the subject of consideration by the Government. But if one can resolve this difficulty of the means test, it means in order to deal with a number of persons who will apply for attention at health centres there will naturally have to be a large body of doctors and dentists and health officials to deal with the matter. The hon. member for Stellenbosch appreciated that point, and he states that the Medical Association of South Africa was prepared to accept a national health scheme if it meant there would be an avenue of employment, if there would be scope for the medical profession as a whole to do work at these health centres, and subject to certain safeguards. Those are the lines along which the Action Committee is working at the present time. I have asked the Action Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Yeoville — I call it an Action Committee because there has been a certain misconception that this National Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Yeoville is another commission; it is nothing of the sort, it is a body which is really ancillary to the Public Health Department, and which is there to assist the Government and to advise me on what steps must be taken to implement the policy; This Action Committee is now considering whether a certain policy should be carried Out.

What action can they take?

Their action is on the lines of telling the Government plainly what should be done to give effect to a certain decision.

How can an Action Committee be an Advisory Committee; it is a contradiction in terms. I have never heard such nonsense in my life.

I know the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) will forgive me if I do not enter into any argument on abstruse details regarding philological terms.

Surely the King’s English has a meaning?

I am glad my hon. friend abides by the King’s English.

But you agree it is an advisory committee.

I concede my hon. friend the point and will meet him half way. But I wanted to emphasise for the information of hon. members this National Health Advisory Committee is not another commission. It is not starting de novo, but they will tell the Government what steps are necessary to carry out the policy.

It is all marking time.

Sometimes a little marking time may be necessary in marching, as long as you get to your destination.

We shall have long white beards by that time.

I shall be very grateful to my hon. friend, who I know is as anxious as any member of the House to make this a success, if we can have the benefit of his experience to see whether we can expedite that march and bring the matter to a successful stage before senility overtakes us.

It is all right so long as you do not get cold feet on the march.

Finally I have asked the Advisory Committee to advise me on five priorities. It seems, apart from the question of establishing health centres and working out the various details which are relevant to the construction of these health centres, there are certain matters which must be tackled at the present time, and those priorities which I have asked to be advised upon and upon which I have already received reports from the chairman are: A national commission to deal with tuberculosis; a national commission to deal with venereal disease; the establishment of a hygiene training centre; the central provision of health education; and plans for the regionalisation of public health in this country. So far as tuberculosis is concerned, no hon. member who has spoken this afternoon has over-painted the position; no one has exaggerated the position. Tuberculosis is a vital problem in this country. It has spread, particularly in the last 20 years, due chiefly to the fact—which Dr. Allen referred to in his report—that the native is becoming urbanised. In the earlier days when the native lived in a kraal the incidence of tuberculosis amongst the Bantu was much less. Dr. Dormer, who is the medical officer in charge of the King George V Hospital in Durban, has taken part together with certain other tuberculosis workers in the compilation of a book called “A South African Team Looks at Tuberculosis,” and this is what he said in the course of his remarks—

The incidence of tuberculosis is high, 1.5 to 2 per cent It is no use our saying we can deal with this matter solely by dealing with it in the kraals. The natives have come into the towns and we have to take proper steps to isolate them and deal with them in the urban areas. They have come for industrial purposes. We cannot simply hope to get away from coping properly with tuberculosis by going to the kraals and rural areas and not taking steps in the larger towns. The department has placed before me a full-scale scheme for combating tuberculosis on a national scale. That programme has been dealt with also by the Advisory Committee, and as a result a small team of tuberculosis experts is to look over the reports and suggestions as a whole, so that the full programme can be put before the Government. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch that what we need are experts who are going to concentrate on tuberculosis. He has suggested a tuberculosis officer for the Union. I think we must go’ further. In our scheme of regionalisation we shall have to have regard not only to tuberculosis but to venereal disease and other formidable diseases. A plan will have to be based on the various regions; we shall have to have regional officers to concentrate on these various diseases. We shall therefore need in the case of tuberculosis not only someone at the head who will direct the campaign as a whole, but we shall require regional tuberculosis officers just as we shall require regional officers to deal with other diseases. The Advisory Committee has already put up a report for dealing with venereal disease on different lines than have been followed in the past. In the past few years almost revolutionary strides have been made in the method of dealing with venereal disease. The introduction for instance of penicillin, has made it possible to effect cures within a period not dreamed of in earlier days.

That is only for one type.

That is only for one type; but I suggest that in itself is a revolutionary change, and we have now to get the benefit of the best advice we can. These plans are already set down on paper. They have got to the stage of formulation.

Hear, hear.

Ironic cheers from the new party.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) seems to regard the matter with some cynicism, but I hope he will agree with me it is a move forward, and I hope he will agree with me that if we made that move that move is a necessary preliminary, a condition precedent, to translating the plan into action.

Real slow motion.

We have something definite in black and white, and that will be carried out. I know my hon. friend wants to pull my leg, but I hope he is not going to damn the efforts being made by the Public Health Department …

There is no need to pull your leg.

…. and the experts who are helping to try and meet the need, the Government realises for making a forward move. So far as smallpox is concerned, the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) mentioned the question of smallpox. Last year the department began a campaign of mass inoculation in Natal. As from last October vaccination in Natal was made compulsory. There have been considerable difficulties in some instances in rounding up members of the native community, but we have had more success, I think, than was anticipated at the start. A similar campaign is being carried out in the Transkei. Finally, I would like to thank the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) for his sympathy towards me personally.

You need it.

It is nice to feel there are those who realise the necessity for an S.P.C.M., a society for the protection of Cabinet Ministers in this House. You will appreciate, however, that the matter to which the hon. member refers does not lie within my personal jurisdiction. There have been certain discussions, and I shall do my best in the matter. I would just point out to the hon. member he was incorrect in one statement. There is a separate department of Public Health and I think it would be wrong for the impression to get abroad that there is not an autonomous department which functions under a permanent head, just as there is a separate Department of Social Welfare and a separate Department of Demobilisation. It is the juxtaposition of these three departments which is called a Ministry; they are separate portfolios.

We certainly expected something big today; we expected that the Minister would tell this House something about what has been done. The Minister not only has the sympathy of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) but also mine. But nothing has been done yet. Everything is just on paper. The House is really thankful to the Secretary for Public Health, Dr. Allen. He did not fail to state clearly in his report all the difficulties awaiting us and all those we had in the past. Furthermore, we also had the report of the Health Commission which was submitted after the Commission had travelled throughout the whole country and taken evidence and gone to a lot of trouble. Much time was devoted to it, and I think we appreciate the attitude of the Chairman of that Commission, Dr. Gluckman, and the attempts still being made by him to have the report of the Commission put into operation. So far so good. We have come to the end of a world war, and perhaps a world catastrophe. History has taught us that during the last war there were not a quarter as many fatalities as during the catastrophe which followed it, namely the flu which spread over the whole world and caused the death of thousands.

Millions of lives.

We see what is happening today in Europe. We see famine and misery and that the situation is entirely out of hand. What has South Africa done to safeguard the population in case of such an epidemic? If a catastrophe strikes us, are we prepared for it? I fear we are not. We have lost something like 4,000 people in South Africa as a result of the war. But how many do we lose every day as a result of disease? What is our daily death rate in the country? If a nation is not healthy, it goes under. From year to year the condition of affairs in the country has been clearly brought to the notice of the Minister. Consumption, for example, is increasing on a gigantic scale and the problem is being played with. Nothing has been done so far on a large scale to combat this disease. For example we had the typhus outbreak in the Transkei. What happened? The Department of Public Health tackled it with a small staff, but the problem still remains and the danger is that we shall be powerless when the catastrophe strikes us. We can do practically nothing. The Minister rose here and spoke about his plans for the future, but he did not really speak with authority. He does not talk as if he wants to do something. He referred to the remarks made by various people here, but he did not give us the impression that he will act energetically. He is the Minister of Public Health and he must take active steps. The Minister should not act so halfheartedly. I want to tell the Minister: “You must take active steps; you must not simply say: T have received the report here and I have received the report there and I investigated them’.” He has the report of the Health Services Commission and he must investigate the matter. If he does not do it I prophesy that there is a strong possibility of a catastrophe happening, and we may lose thousands of lives through not being prepared to meet that catastrophe. Hon. members have spoken about tuberculosis. There are three kinds of tuberculosis. There is bone tuberculosis, pulmonary tuberculosis and joint tuberculosis. The trouble is that one of these three kinds falls under national health, while the other two fall under the local authorities or the Provincial Councils. We have this difficulty in the platteland that the one authority shifts responsibility to the other. The responsibility is divided between the Department of Public Health, the Provincial Councils and the local authorities and we experience the greatest difficulties in that regard.

That is quite right.

I am glad that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) who made a valuable speech about the matter and who knows about these conditions agrees with me. If a general gets into trouble in time of war he cannot first go and consult his comrade. He must take activé steps. What the Minister says today is neither fish nor fowl; it seems to me he just wants to let things develop. He is a young man still; when once he is as old as I am he will not have as much energy to tackle the matter, but if I were in his position I would show him that I would tackle the matter energetically. It is true that there is a shortage of doctors and nurses and other medical staff in the country. It is therefore perhaps impossible to tackle everything at the same time. But if the Minister cannot tackle everything at the same time, let him then make a start with one disease; let him start for example with tuberculosis. Let him first eliminate tuberculosis, and then he can tackle venereal disease. The Minister cannot obtain more data than he has. He has all the data in black and white, and all he has to do now is to take active steps. I hope there will be no catastrophe in South Africa as there was after the last war; I hope Providence will save us from having another catastrophe like that, but if it does come I hope that the Department and the people of South Africa will be prepared to meet that catastrophe.

I have numerous observations to make on this all-important matter, but the time is far gone so I shall concentrate on one or two aspects only. The hon. Minister has made a very long speech this afternoon, and he will pardon me if I tell him that his speech reminded me of what was said by Alexander Pope: “Words are like leaves, where they most abound, much fruit of sense beneath is seldom found”. Where the Minister speaks of his plans for the future I have no fault to find with him, but unfortunately I must take cognisance of promises which have been made in this House and outside it. I agree with the Minister when he tells us that they are doing wonderful work and that they are doing their best, but we members of the public are sick and tired of that “best”. We want more “best”, and more medical and allied staff, and if the Minister cannot get all the people he requires at the salaries offered, then he must offer higher salaries. We must have a full complement of staff, because health is of paramount importance. To illustrate my point, may I say this. In saying that, the Minister will understand that I am not speaking against his department, but I am trying to show where improvements could have been made decades ago. Hon. members in this House have referred to the high incidence of venereal diseases in this country. Venereal disease is rampant in this country. I wonder if there is a single member in this House, perhaps with the exception of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) and the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) who realises the gravity of the situation. Here in Cape Town we have 1,300 per 100,000 people of all races infected with venereal diseases, and Britain at the moment is very upset because in Britain 16 per 100,000 people are infected, and Sweden is likewise upset because her figures have climbed from four to seven per 100,000, and we have 1,300 per 100,000. I want to point out that we have roughly 8,000,000 non-Europeans in this country and of the 8,000,000 non-Europeans, 3,900,000 are infected, in other words, more than 40 per cent.

But we cannot say that with certainty.

The hon. member may not know, but I state this on high authority. The Secretary for Health puts the figure as high as 44 per cent. in certain areas. The salient feature remains that this country is not rife but rotten with syphilis. Of course, it is a disease that the coloured man got from the white man, but what are we doing about it? Now I want to tell the Minister why I pay no attention to promises. I say the health of the public comes first. Here in Cape Town in 1942 — and I am sorry the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) is not in his seat at the moment — the City Council wanted to provide extra bedding for syphilitic patients. At the present moment it has 24 beds for 370,000 people, and it is a sea-port. The City Council applied to the Government for £45,000 to provide more beds for syphilitic patients. Within a year they got back the message: “Please modify your claim”. The City Council promptly modified this claim and they are still waiting for permission, and we are now in the year 1945. On the one hand we have this state of affairs and on the other hand people are building their luxury houses in Hermanus. This is not a question of party. It is a question of plain scientific fact. Quite apart from the humanitarian aspect, there is also the economic aspect which is of the utmost importance. The Secretary for Public Health tells us that the greatest causes of death are cardiac and circulatory diseases. But I wonder whether he will find the time at some future date to analyse what percentage of these cases is due to syphilis. There is no disease that acts on all the organs of the body so much as syphilis. What the hon. member for Rondebosch has said in regard to tuberculosis is quite true, but he will realise that tuberculosis is a social disease. It is not so much a question of the coloured man not getting enough food; the coloured man does not have enough money to spend on food because he spends so much on liquor, and that is one of the great aetiological factors in tuberculosis. 75 per cent. of all cases of syphilis are due to the excessive use of liquor. Now I come back to the economic factor. Apart from the humanitarian aspect, it behoves the Department of Public Health to give its immediate attention to these matters. It is no use coming before the House with a budget in which provision is made for the expenditure of £1¾ million on health, and it is of even less avail for the Minister to tell us that he is able to spend only half of that sum because the staff is lacking. We admit that he has difficulties, but we want the Minister to deal with this problem in the light of the fact that the health of the nation must come first. I repeat: If he cannot find sufficient staff to make full use of this money, he must increase the salaries of the people. Then I want to say in regard to venereal diseases that I cannot see why we should not pass laws in this country which have been found in the fulness of time to work well in Sweden. I cannot see why venereal disease should not be made a notifiable disease in South Africa. I believe that is the position in Russia too. I suppose the hon. member for Yeoville will tell me that if venerai disease is made a notifiable disease it will drive the cases underground. I said a moment ago that about 40 per cent. of the non-European population of South Africa are infected with venereal disease. But what of the contacts they are making? If venereal disease were made a notifiable disease, I think we would have a much better chance of stamping it out. I am sick and tired of hearing what has been done. I would like to hear what is being done and what is going to be done. I am sorry the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) and the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) are not in their seats, because I want to say a few words in regard to the fees charged by the medical profession. I think the attack made upon the medical profession is somewhat unwarranted. I must point out that there is no profession in the world that does more for mankind than the medical profession. Of course, where there is plenty of sunshine there must be some shade too, and it is inevitable that there should be some shady spots in the medical profession, just as in any other profession. I worked out last night that the average professor of surgery, contributes by way of his skill over £100,000 a year to humanity free of charge. But the question of laying down standard charges for the medical profession is a very difficult one. The average member of the public does not know that the medical man does a lot of Pro Deo work, both in his consulting room and at home. I can assure the House that there are many patients who are not only attended by medical men at their homes free of charge, but there are many patients whose daily budgets are supplemented out of the pockets of medical men. I want to put this case to the House. What are you going to do in the case of a medical man who goes into a home and charges 10s. 6d. for a visit? He goes into the house and examines a patient. Then he is told that there is another patient in the house who needs attention. What is he to charge in a case like that—one guinea or 10s. 6d.? The medical man welcomes the standardisation of fees. For example, in the Cape Western branch of the Medical Association we welcome the establishment of sick funds with uniform tariffs. We welcome the sick fund of the Railways and Harbours and we welcome the sick fund of the Cape Argus. We welcome it for two reasons, firstly, we know that we will not get envelopes back at the end of the month marked “Returned Unknown”. Not only does the medical man welcome the establishment of sick funds, but he encourages their formation. But there is another difficulty. How can standard fees be laid down for the surgeon? Let me say at once that the patient is entitled to ask the medical man what he thinks the charge will be, and the medical man will then tell him roughly what he thinks it will cost, but it is very difficult for the surgeon to quote a charge beforehand. He opens up a belly for an appendix operation and he finds something else there. He cannot very well close up the belly without attending to the other trouble. The surgeon may open up a breast for a simple tumor, but when he cuts down he finds it is malignant. This means the removal of the whole breast. Let me just say this; that the medical profession, like every other profession will welcome the co-operation of the public and I think it is a very small percentage of the medical profession that would want to fleece their fellowmen, The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet referred to a case where a medical man went out into the country and charged £500 for an operation. To begin with he charged 5s. a mile for the use of his motor car and he charged a few hundred pounds for the operation. This is excessive— and may I say the motor charge is illegal. Let me just say in that connection that every patient has the right to submit his account to the Cape Western Branch of the Medical Association. When the account is submitted to us we discuss it with the doctor in charge. [Time limit.]

After listening to the glowing account by the hon. member who has just sat down about what happens when you get on an operating table, I shudder to think what would happen if one met a curious surgeon who opened one up. I would like to deal with one fact. The hon. member has made the allegation that the City Council of Cape Town applied to the Public Health Department for assistance in making building extension to the venereal hospital in Cape Town. He alleged that the application went in and that no notice has been taken of that application. I am sorry the hon. member has not seen me about this matter before. I want to give the House the facts. I have before me a letter dated the 25th October, 1943. This is a letter which was addressed by the Secretary for Public Health to the Secretary for Finance, in which he says—

The letter then goen on to give the details—

There was an endorsement on the paper to the following effect—

Let me explain what that means. It was approved in principle and the City Council of Cape Town was told that it could proceed with the work, and that if it proceeded with the work it would get the money because the Minister of Finance informed the Secretary for Public Health that he was sick of putting money on the estimates for Cape Town which was never spent. We have guaranteed something like £155,000 for building a tuberculosis hospital. The attitude adopted by the Minister of Finance that he was sick and tired of putting money on the estimates which was not used, money that can be used by other places. These are facts and I think in these circumstances the hon. member will agree that he was not doing the department justice, that he was not fair to the department when he suggested that we were not doing all we could to help.

On a point of explanation, the information I gave the House was supplied to me last evening by the City Council authorities. The Minister has told me that my information is not correct, and I therefore withdraw what I said in that respect.

The encouraging feature both of this debate and of the report of the Secretary for Public Health is that the realisation is gaining ground both as to the extent and the significance of the prevailing ill-health amongst the native and coloured people of this country. The next factor which I hope will gain general recognition is that to a large extent ill-health is due to desperate poverty, and that a wage of 2s. to 4s. a day is not sufficient to maintain a family in health. It will be a further step forward when that is also generally recognised. I was glad to hear from the Minister of the steps that are being taken to implement the report of the National Health Services Commission. In view of the condition of health amongst the majority of people in this country, the implementation of the recommendations of that report is a matter of the very first importance to them. I doubt, however, whether what the Minister means by the implementation of the report and what we mean is exactly the same thing. What were the main recommendations of the report? The four main recommendations of the report are these: Firstly, the centralisation of health services; secondly, a free service for all on the basis of need, and not services provided according to the length of the patient’s purse. In the field of personnel, the commission said that we may lack personnel but that we have to do with what we have at the present moment and spread out the available personnel over the population. The third recommendation was some measure of democratic control of the National Health Service through a series of councils, local, regional and national; and the fourth was a re-allocation of new functions to the provincial councils as ministries of local government, with a far wider responsibility than they seem to admit at present—far wider certainly than they have so far discharged — for environmental services. These seem to me to be the four most important recommendations of the National Health Services Commission. In the field of centralisation, which was the first recommendation, the Minister told us straight away that that cannot be carried out because of constitutional difficulties, the Provinces having refused to surrender their functions in relation to hospitalisation. But he said that subject to that the report would be implemented by the Government. That being so, and having regard to the vital importance of institutional services in the national health plan, surely this House is entitled to ask the Government as to whether it is satisfied that the Provinces are in a position, having regard to the present financial relations between the Provinces and the Central Government, adequately to carry out the institutional side of the service? What are the guarantees that the Provinces will be able to do that in the future any better than they have been able to do it in the past? The Gluckman Commission told us that there is a shortage of beds of 1,489 in respect of Europeans and 8,619 in respect of non-Europeans. It has told us that—

We know that that is true. We know that for years the Provinces, so far as native institutional services are concerned, have most explicitly repudiated responsibility for native hospital services on the flimsy and inadequate—I might almost say mean— ground that they say they cannot impose direct taxes on the native population. I want to ask the Minister most explicitly whether the Provinces have resiled from that position. They are asserting their claim to hospital services, and I want to know whether they have now changed their attitude in so far as native hospital services are concerned. But are they really in a financial position to carry out those services? According to the report of the Gluckman Commission, the total amount spent on general hospitalisation, as opposed to tuberculosis hospitals and so forth controlled by the Central Government, is about £4,750,000 a year. The Provinces, i.e. the Provincial Councils and the local authorities, spend about £2,000,000. If there is going to be a free hospital service, there is a gap of £2,750,000 to be made up. I do not know whether the Provinces propose to do that out of their own sources of revenue, but they certainly will not be able to do so out of the provision the Central Government has made. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) referred last evening to the estimates of the Provincial Council Vote which are before us, showing that about £4,500,000 more was voted than last year. But as the Minister of Finance explained to us earlier in the Session there are a number of deductions to be made from that figure. There are sources of the assigned revenue which have been recalled; there have been subsidies on other votes which have been withdrawn, and the Provinces will only be better off to the extent of about £1,900,000 as a result of these new relationships than they were before. In other words, they are about £850,000 short of what would be needed to provide free hospitalisation even on the present inadequate basis. The Gluckman Commission says that over £6,000,000 should be spent on hospitalisation and taken all round the Provinces are under £2,000.000 better off as a result of the new financial arrangement. But even that sum cannot be spent on hospitals only. The Provinces have other commitments as well. They are committed to vastly increased expenditure on education, and what also becomes of the Commission’s recommendations in relation to environmental services? The Commission said that the £2,000,000 which the local authorities now spend on hospital services ought to be diverted to environmental services. In other words, at least another £2,000,000 should be spent by the Provinces on environmental services, drainage and sewerage and things of that kind. What will become of that? What provision is made for that? If the Provinces must meet both that and the additional expenditure on hospialisation, they will have vastly to increase the taxation of their own people, and nothing in the record of any Province in this country would lead one to believe that they are prepared to do that. I therefore" cannot refrain, as an enthusiastic supporter of the Gluckman Report, from expressing my anxiety as to what the result will be of leaving general hospital control to the Provinces. It seems to me that if the Government allows the Provinces to deal with the matter, still further financial provisions will have to be made by the Provinces, and I do not believe they will be prepared to do it. Passing then to the second recommendation of the Gluckman Commission, free services, the Minister said this afternoon that if that recommendation is implemented, the public will have to pay very much more in taxes. What the Gluckman Commission recommended was that the public should not spend more on health than they do and have done in the past. The recommendation came to this, that about £10½ million is now being spent by private individuals on doctors. The change that was suggested was not that more should be spent, but that that money should be taken in the form of a health tax which would be a substitute for what private individuals now spend. In other words, the proceeds of the health tax would drain off that £104 million which the doctors are today getting, and it would be paid by the public to the State, and the public in return would get free services. Now, I do not think the Gluckman Commission said that that could be done overnight, but what it did say was that the Government should adopt this principle and plan its application and bring it all into effect at the same time, but not start by having one health centre here and another there. Then the difficulties mentioned would arise. There will be competition with private practitioners, and in fact there will be no end to the difficulties. In effect, what the Commission said was this: Do not bring this into operation until you are ready, and then get the co-operation of the medical profession; and that co-operation, Ï understand, was offered. The medical profession offered their support on that basis. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) said so last night. The Commission said it would take a year or more to change over from the old order to the new order. It was for the Government to decide when and that it should be done altogether. [Time limit.]

I think the House will agree that as time goes on the importance of the Gluckman Commission’s report will increase more and more. In the report of that Commission we find three or four main principles governing this matter of health, and I want to deal very briefly this afternoon with two which have not been emphasised so far in this debate. Both of the principles to which I would refer now are emphasised in the report under the heading “Scheme of Reform”: that is to say, the promotion of health stands first, and secondly the prevention of ill-health. We have been dealing with the further principles contained in it up to now. Therefore I want to confine myself to the matters of the promotion of health and the prevention of disease. It seems to me that, in the Department of Public Healh and Social Welfare, it will be necessary to bear in mind the means of removing the causes of ill-health. The removal of the causes of disorder is an important aspect of all features of our society and among the fundamentals in regard to health are food, housing and education, with the foundation of full employment of the community. As was emphasised by the member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman), health is the primary thing, and it comes to mankind as the fruit of these fundamentals to which I have referred. One has only to go to a place like Windermere to see the actual expression of what I am endeavouring to indicate to this House this afternoon. In health one has the primary human wealth. It is therefore logical that the question of housing should be linked up with that of health, and it is so associated in the. Department of Public Health. I know that the Minister has told this House that he will not give any replies in regard to housing until he makes his full statement later on in the Session.

I said not in detail.

But he will not mind if expression is given to views here concerning the statement that he proposes to make. After all, if one removes families from slums such as that to which I have referred, to decent housing conditions, the expenditure in the health vote would be reduced particularly if carried out throughout the whole of our country. Figures given by the hon. the Minister of Public Works yesterday do, in my opinion, require some explanation, and I hope that when the Minister makes his statement he will elucidate or explain to us the significance of the question of permit allocation. The Minister of Public Works indicated that the Government would issue building permits during the year 1945-’46, to a value of £35,750,000, and in that total allocation for all buildings there will be an amount of approximately twenty-two millions for houses of all descriptions, or 64 per cent. of the total allocation. But of this £22,000,000 only £4,000,000 has been allocated to the national housing scheme, that is, the sub-economic scheme, or approximately 11 per cent. of the total value of building permits of all kinds for the year 1945-’46. Now, I maintain that the development of our national housing scheme is of the most vital importance to the welfare of our community, particularly when we remember that it affects the poorest section, with particular regard to the non-European. The estimated present shortage of houses in the Union has been given in reports as approximately 150,000, of which number 120,000 is regarded as the proportion necessary to house decently the non-European section of our population. These figures may seem enormous but even if we were to reduce them—I am speaking now of non-European housing— from 120,000 to 90,000 the situation is alarming from the health point of view and the proportion of £4,000,000 of the total of £35,000,000 available for all building permits for 1945-’46 will not amount to more than an approach, a mere approach, to the solution of this problem, and it is not saticfactory just for a deputation to visit places like Windermere and to devise a scheme—however necessary and however urgent and even though it has our full support for the alleviation of the distress there—if the whole picture of South Africa is not more fully revealed. I notice, and I mean no reflection, that a competition is being started for the best method of beautifying the city of Cape Town. It seems to me that another competition is necessary for the most effective measure of removing the ugly spots from this beautiful Cape Peninsula, which from the scenic point of view is m my opinion unrivalled. Now, in regard to housing I am all the more disturbed, if that is not too strong a statement, by the statement made last week with regard to the further legislation to be discussed in this House. The Acting Prime Minister in dealing with that matter said in effect that the passing of legislation in regard to housing would be dependent upon this House. I presume that he meant that it would be dependent on the Government, for it is in the hands of the Government to see that necessary legislation such as was indicated by the hon. the Minister in his statement in Another Place, is actually enacted, so that the Housing Commission appointed under the Housing Amendment Act last year can really carry out the functions entrusted to it in that legislation. [Time limit.]

We hear so much, and quite rightly too, about social security in the post-war period. But if there is one matter in which it is felt there can be absolutely no social security it is in respect of the health of the community if no proper health services are provided. And if we bear this in mind we find fault with the way in which public health is being tackled. It is hardly necessary to point out that this vote is the one vote in respect of which no one has offered any objection to an increase. If there is an increase of expenditure under this vote it will be welcomed by all sides of the House, because we feel on all sides it is an absolute urgent necessity that there should be an increase on this vote. Now we find unfortunately that it appears from the estimates that the matter is being trifled with, that it really is not being regarded as a serious matter. What one would like to see is the Government realising that it should make a powerful effort to ensure the health of the nation. If there is one department that requires a Minister of its own it is the Department of Public Health. Now we find, however, that public health, social services and the large and important work of demobilisation are all placed under one Minister. We know that the Minister at the moment has to devote all his attention to demobilisation, and he can give precious little time to public health although it is a department that itself demands the full attention of the Minister. There should always be one Minister who can devote all his time to public health. That is not the case today, and I really do not think the Government is dealing with this matter as one would like to see. We have heard the opinion of experts expressed in this House, of experts who are able to form an opinion on the matter, and they have stated that the subject has not been tackled in a correct way. There is the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman), the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), who can all speak with authority on the matter, and they are all dissatisfied—not one of them is satisfied at the way in which this serious problem is being dealt with. That is the general position. Now I should like to refer to a matter of which I have knowledge and in which I take special interest, namely, the question of combating malaria. It is a serious question because it has caused us great losses in the country ever since Europeans first came here. We know what the danger is, but when we look at the estimates it is clear to us that very little is being done to combat the spread of malaria.

Ask the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen).

Yes, I can ask the hon. member for Middelburg, but I am now putting the question to the Minister, and I should like to know from him what he is doing under these estimates to combat malaria. Let me say here that very fortunately, we adopted the proposal of the commission to appoint a committee that will operate in the North. I should like to accord all praise to Dr. Annecke for the fine work he is doing. He has worked miracles in a relatively short period and with the means at his disposal. In the brief space since his appointment he has carried out tests in combating malaria. He has made a start. He has a few nurses and a small staff at his disposal, but what do we find now in connection with his work? If we look at these estimates we find that all the figures in connection with the numbers and the items are precisely the same as they were last year. There is no increase. We find item by item the same numbers and the same salaries and expenditure. We can pass from one to the other. There are the senior malaria officers; the salary is £1,428. It is the same this year as last year. Then we have the medical inspectors, the health inspectors, etc., and all the numbers are precisely the same; no increase has been granted, and I know incidentally that recommendations have been made that this system should be extended, that it will not apply only to the one area but that it should be extended to all the malaria districts where malaria is claiming thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of victims. We talk only of the loss of European lives; we do not know how many natives perish year after year as a result of malaria. The loss is very serious and thousands of them fall victim. We have no census and we know nothing about the matter. In regard to this position, I want to make an appeal to the Minister; Resolutions have been taken by farmers’ associations which are now beginning to take up this matter, and which appeal to the Government to take energetic measures to combat malaria. We ask that this should be regarded as a national matter and no longer as a local matter. I am glad to hear from the Minister that the recommendation of the Health Services Commission has been accepted for the appointment of a national committee that will make an investigation into diseases such as tuberculosis and venereal disease, and other formidable disease. I entirely agree with that. These are all matters demanding investigation. But as far as concerns malaria it is no longer necessary to make an investigation. The investigation has already been instituted. It is a question of making funds available so that the work can be carried out. Funds should be provided to enable the necessary appointments to be made for the work to be done and for information to be given to the natives and the Europeans, and to ensure that this disease is combated, especially as far as concerns the natives. We know that in the past injections, sprays like Pyagra, and also quinine have been made available. Now these materials are only obtained with the greatest difficulty. I do not know why. I do not know whether the stuff is not procurable, but the fact remains we are only able to get it after tremendous difficulty and I think the Minister should again make it available. We had only just begun to make a promising advance in connection with combating this disease, and now unfortunately we have this position that will lead to a relaxation of the effort. I want to accord all praise to Dr. Annecke and his staff for the miracles they have performed in the past. But their activities should not be confined to a small area. We should expand the staff and render their services available in all potential malaria areas. They have shown they can combat the disease with success. Let us extend the work in connection with combating this disease. Then there is another small matter in connection with health, health publicity, to which I should like to devote attention. Previously an amount of £300 was allotted to it. It is a ridiculous amount when we bear in mind the important work that can be done in this way for the promotion of health. We know that in our schools they have the necessary equipment, films and such like things that can be utilised to explain these things to the children in a way we could not do in the past. But now we find this ridiculously trifling amount of £300 has to be reduced still further to £150. We have £150 available now for publicity in connection with national health. This is indeed inadequate, and I think a much larger amount will have to be made available. Take something like physical culture, which is very conducive to the health of the nation. Much more attention should be given to it.

Five thousand pounds is being made available on another vote.

I am glad to hear it.

It always has appeared on that vote.

Then there is another matter. I notice that a sum of £1,000 is made available for the investigation of causes of blindness amongst natives. I am glad provision is being made for this amount, because here we have to deal with one of the dangerous diseases. It is not only that we have many of these cases amongst the natives but we know that this form of blindness amongst the natives is contagious. It is a very serious problem, and we expect the Government to take action to prevent the spread of this disease. Venereal disease has a bearing on it and it is linked up with these eye diseases. We find these natives are traversing our country by rail and in other ways and they may infect the whole population. It is a very serious problem and we expect the Government to take action with a view to preventing the spread of this disease. As I have stated, venereal disease is often linked up with these eye diseases. It is one of their causes and yet we allow these people freedom of movement throughout the country and they can occasion great difficulty in connection with these contagious diseases. Then there is one further point. It affects the leprosy institution in my constituency. It was once my privilege to pay a tribute here to the good work being done in that institution by the Frans family. The old people are no longer there; the younger people are carrying on the work. I compared the amount voted for this institution with the amounts given to other institutions. At the other institutions the superintendents receive £600, £700 and more, but in this case the superintendent is paid £400. I have already spoken on this subject in the past. The Frans family began that work as a life work. He was a missionary there, and he undertook the work on his own initiative. His family assumed the work as their task, and today they are doing exceptionally useful work in that institution. But why should this man receive only £400 while the other superintendents receive £600 or £700 and even more? I hope the Minister will go into that and will see to it that an alteration is affected and that this man will get the same amount as is paid to others.

I am sorry I was not present when this debate started today, but I was sitting on the Dongola Select Committee.

I hope you voted against it anyway.

I have heard some criticism about the Department of Public Health. I am going to start something new. We know that 800 medical men are on active service today and we know that the Department of Public Health is trying to make good with a depleted staff, and I think they have done quite well in the last five years of the war. They have really done a wonderful job of work.

Hear, hear.

I think the Department of Public Health has done more in five years of war with a depleted staff than the Nationalist Party did when it was in power.

Must you start with politics again?

This vote that the member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) brought up saying that there was no increase in the malaria vote is not correct. The Minister of Finance has voted £50,000 this year for malaria and we know that the Transvaal Province has voted £18,000.

They increased it to £32,000 a few months ago.

That will give them about £80,000 to work with. On top of that Dr. Annecke now has the equipment he requires and it has been paid for. He has his transport and pumps and sprays. He has tackled a bigger job than was ever tackled in peace time by any other Government and he is making a great success of it and it will be extended. We have the word of the Minister of Public Health that that will be extended to all other malarial areas during this year. I want to congratulate the Minister and the department. This criticism about this thing not being done and that not being done is wrong. We know that all these things cannot be done by one stroke of the pen just because the National Health Commission put in a report. Some of the hon. members think that when that report is adopted we will in one month or in one year have a beautiful scheme where everyone is well nourished and there is no more illness in the country. That is ridiculous. We have to start with what we have. We have to be practical. I know the difficulties that We are faced with and I know the difficulties which will have to be surmounted. I do not rise to speak irresponsible nonsense. We have spoken about tuberculosis. We know that we have not got the staff, the medical staff and the nursing staff. I know what happens on the platteland. If I go to a native kraal where there is tuberculosis, sometimes the whole family is affected, what can I do with them? Nothing really under the present system. I cannot take them to hospital. All I can do is to keep them there, and what is worse, we have to leave them to their own resources to die. It is not because the Department of Public Health does not know that these things exist, but it cannot be rectified in one day. They are doing their best. We know how venereal disease was treated in the past. In some areas venereal disease is not treated at all. In other areas the municipalities do something. Some municipalities will do nothing at all, in spite of the help they get from the Department. Most small municipalities now have a clinic where natives can be treated. They come willingly and submit to treatment, but one can only keep them there for a limited time. We usually give them about six weeks treatment, but that is not sufficient to cure the disease; it only brings it to the stage where it is not passed on. The patient is not completely cured of syphilis but after six weeks of intensive treatment he will not transmit it so easily. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs to my mind, but we have to make a beginning somewhere. We know the natives are full of tape worms, parasites and bilharzia, but by ramming these points down the throat of the Minister of Public Health we cannot clear that up today. I want to say again I wish to congratulate the Minister on what he has done in these years of war, and I think he has done a very good job.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) has extended his sympathy to the hon. Minister, who was very appreciative of it. I am quite happy to extend my sympathy too. I can go further and I should like to offer the Minister at the conclusion of this debate a couple of aspirins. I see a look of pain on the Minister’s face; I make the offer because I anticipate he may have a headache at the end of this debate. I think it was last year some time that the Natal Provincial Authorities appointed a commission, the Wadley Commission, to investigate public health services in Durban. The chairman of the commission was a well-known citizen, Mr. Wadley, who was at one time a member of Parliament.

You do not need to hold that against me.

The report of that commission was available early this year. Amongst the topics it discussed was tuberculosis in Durban. In its report the commission saw fit to pass strictures on the Union Public Health Department; and the Minister, in turn, in a statement made through the Press, took umbrage at the report of the commission because it had reflected on the Health Department; and the chairman of that commission in turn, resented the reflections of the Minister and saw to it that his statement appeared in the Press. I thought, as I have no doubt a good many others thought, that this exchange of recriminations as between a Minister of the Crown and the chairman of a commission was most unfortunate, whatever the merits of the dispute, and it was for that reason that early in the Session, through the medium of a question, I invited the Minister to make a statement on this interchange of statements. He felt that the matter did not call for a statement, that the matter was not of sufficient importance. I should like to express regret that the Minister did not avail himself of the opportunity of clearing up the position. One can well understand the Minister not welcoming this reflection on his Department. But this was, after all, the finding of an independent body, and if the commission in its investigations came to the conclusion that the Department had deserved criticism, it was nothing short of the duty of that commission to say so. The importance of this particular matter lies I think, in this. The commission exonerated the Durban Municipal Council primarily from responsibility in regard to the tuberculosis situation in Durban.

Mr. Wadley was also mayor of Durban.

The commission also laid the responsibility at the door of the Union Department of Public Health. The importance of that finding is this, that it reflects what has been unfortunately an attitude not only of this Department but of other departments, to content themselves with looking for the person or the body to be blamed, and that surely is the least important aspect of any problem. If you have got a situation that requires handling, whether it be a health problem or anything else, the important thing is to see it gets done, and it is not good enough for any department, be it the Department of Public Health or any other public department, to content itself with having shifted the blame on some local authority or the Provincial Administration. I say it reluctantly, because I am fully aware of the difficulties of this Department, but that has in the past been the attitude of Government departments; and here we have the finding of the Wadley Commission, which says the shifting of responsibility must stop, that it is the responsibility of the Union Department, and it is the Union Department which is to be criticised. I know that the question of tuberculosis has been ventilated several times during this debate. If any justification be needed for my continuing the discussion, it is I think the failure on the part of the Minister to indicate an appreciation by the Department not only of the dimensions of the problem but the urgency of the problem. One is not very much encouraged by a statement which stops short at an assurance that a blueprint is in the process of being prepared. The problem has reached such proportions today that we cannot tackle it as though it were a problem that is only beginning to grow. We are going to have an impossible task in making up the time lag and overtaking the neglect of all these past years; and therefore, while it is of course absolutely necessary to have a plan for a national campaign, it is also necessary to come to grips with the present situation in terms of some immediate action and some short-term policy.

What do you suggest?

I suggest what has been represented to the Minister by the Natal Anti-Tuberculosis Association, which has been pegging away steadily at this problem for the last twelve years. It is almost pathetic to read the pleas of this association directed to the Government, not today and not yesterday, but over the last twelve years, drawing its attention to the growing seriousness of the problem. The association has recommended to the Minister a short-term policy and two essential steps. I think these may be regarded as essential minima. The first is the provision of 200 beds for the moribund native tuberculotics at Durban.

You know we had £30,000 on the estimates three years ago and it was never taken up by the city council.

The Minister brings me back to my first submission. Again he says the municipality is to blame—we have had the money on the estimates, but the municipality did not take it up! I have already told the House that a commission has found as a fact that the municipality was free of responsibility in regard to this very matter, and the responsibility is to be laid at the door of this very department. That is not just my view, but the finding of the commission concerned with this very question, and what is the use today of pursuing this very same policy and blaming it on the municipality. I am not defending the Durban municipality, because I happen to be a Durban member. If the facts are that the Durban municipality is free of guilt—I state it as a fact we must accept it —I am concerned to get to grips with the matter, and here the commission has said it is idle to keep on blaming the Durban municipality for the fact that little or nothing has been done in the matter. I do urge on the Minister to realise there is a state of alarm in Natal over this problem. [Time limit.]

One can appreciate the sympathetic approach with which the Minister views the tragic condition of the health of the public of South Africa. I think the statements which have been made that 45 per cent. of the non-Europeans are suffering from venereal disease is something which really should concern the Minister. Twelve months ago I listened to an address in the cathedral on the commemoration of the anniversary of St. George, and the statement made from the pulpit on that occasion was that 64 out of every 100 children born in the Transkeian Territories in this enlightened Cape Province died at birth.

Sixty-four per thousand it should be.

That is a very tragic statement.

Due to what?

It is probably due to ignorance and superstition and all sorts of conditions we might take steps to remedy. But in the Western Province area and in the city of Cape Town particularly 52 out of every 100 children born in the coloured community do not reach their second birthday. That is another very terrible state of affairs.

Your figures are wrong—it is per 1,000.

Well, I got it on the authority of that statement in the cathedral. It may be wrong. But the hon. Minister said this very afternoon that on the fringes of Maritzburg the infantile death rate was 250 per 1,000 and it has been reduced to 100 per 1,000, and that is 25 out of every 100. However, let me speak on something I know something about. I want to tell the Minister that although venereal disease and tuberculosis are scourges, there is a greater scourge threatening the people of South Africa, and that is the scourge of blindness, the scourge of trachoma, which is marching down from Egypt. It is called Egyptian blindness. We do not know the cause. All we know is it is a terribly contagious and infectious disease, and no precautions are taken, at least in the Rhodesias and the Union to stop this scourge in its rush down Africa. The Belgian Congo and the French Congo are, I believe, taking important steps to stop its spread. But we are doing nothing. Is the eyesight of our natives being threatened or are they infected? The incidence of blindness in some magisterial areas in the Union is as high as three per 100, 33 per 1,000, the incidence of blindness throughout the world is one per 1,000. In South Africa the incidence of blindness is one per 10,000 amongst the European population, whilst amongst the coloured people it is 2.5 per 1,000. But they are not suffering very much from trachoma, it is the natives who are suffering from trachoma. One of the Belgian ophthalmologists who has been treating trachoma in the Belgian Congo visited the only centre in the Union of South Africa for the treatment of affected natives. There the Government have a hospital with 24 beds, but there is double the number of people in the hospital at one time. It takes about seven months to cure trachoma, and there has been as high a percentage as 20 per cent. of the inmates that come in blind and who go out cured. Of the 23 or 25 ophthalmologists in the Union of South Africa nearly all of them are in the larger urban areas; they do not come into contact with this trachoma, and one ophthalmologist who has done a lot of work at the Palmer Institute at Roodepoort tried to diagnose the patients at the hospital there, and he found that 50 per cent. of them had trachoma. The Belgian doctor who went over the hospital picked out an additional 11 per cent. whose condition had been diagnosed as conjunctivitis; our ophthalmologists were not able to recognise trachoma in its initial stages. Probably every hon. member has read a letter circulated for funds to help combat this disease. That Belgian ophthalmologist was walking on a Germiston railway platform and he went amongst a number of ordinary natives about their ordinary avocations and found that 50 per cent. of them were suffering from trachoma, which as I have said is a highly infectious and contagious disease. That shows what we are up against. Something ought to be done, and the only way it can be combated is by establishing outposts in locations where the disease can be detected in the early stages. We cannot, of course, find 250 ophthalmologists to do the work, but people can be trained to recognise the disease, and they could not work in these areas. That must be done. Every citizen in the Union of South Africa is a potential blind man if we are going to play with this problem. The tragedy of blindness is not blindness in itself, but that so much blindness is needless. I ask the Minister to let money be no consideration in tackling this most cruel handicap that can overtake a person.

I have listened with interest to the statement the Minister made this morning in replying to the debate on public health, but the Minister failed to say anything in connection with his plans for the future. When you note all the diseases amongst the natives and coloured people you realise the danger that confronts the European community. I do not want to say that Europeans are free from all these diseases. But take typhus; the native will never report tile fact when he is ill; he will never report to the district surgeon, but he remains in his hut and it is only when four or five natives have died and an enquiry has been instituted that the presence of typhus is discovered. They are working on the farmer’s property, they are domestic servants and the Europeans from time to time run the danger of being infected by the diseases spread by the natives. I want to ask the Minister what he proposes to do in order to safeguard the health of the Europeans in the country, and whether he does not consider the time has arrived to prevent these things by legislation and to combat infection. The district surgeons ought to receive better remuneration and it should be seen that these people are able to do their work properly. Not only this, but I think the time has also come when natives on a farmer’s property, and those working for people in the towns, should be provided with medical certificates stating that they are in a healthy condition and that they are free of venereal disease and tuberculosis. I think the time has arrived to apply a different routine so that every native and coloured person will have to undergo a proper medical examination and be provided with a medical certificate without which he may not be engaged. If such steps are not taken the health of our people will suffer. Diseases spread from time to time. Take venereal diseases. No less than 45 per cent. of the natives in the country are subject to them. These natives go round and no medical examination is made. I know of a few instances where their families suffer from these diseases. I have reported cases to the district surgeon. After three weeks he would turn up for the first time, and then say “You know you all are liable to contract this disease”. He gave them one injection and then he told me that I could send a boy and that I myself could do the job. What do I know about medical work? That is the position you get, and this disease is not properly combated. So the time has come to introduce legislation, otherwise the disease will never be brought under control.

I am entitled to speak on behalf of hospitals because I am fortunate enough to represent a constituency in which altogether there are over 1,000 doctors and nurses. My constituency is called “Hospital” and the great majority of the hospitals and nursing homes are in my constituency. On March 14th 1945, the Administrator of the Transvaal, Gen. Pienaar, said—

I am not going to blame the Department and the Minister for what I am going to say. I am asking for assistance. There is a non-European hospital in my constituency, and the way it is conducted is one of the greatest scandals that exists in any part of the Empire. I have written, I have spoken and I have done all I can to bring about an improvement, but no help, no assistance has been forthcoming. This particular hospital is overcrowded. Patients with infectious diseases are in exposed places. There is a great shortage of staff; I know there is a shortage of doctors and there is a shortage of nurses. Because there is a shortage of doctors in South Africa the universities have taken it upon themselves to train less doctors in future. At this hospital there is an endless struggle going on to cope with the avalanche of native ailments. On the first floor there are two wards with 40 beds in each, and there are 110 patients in them. Patients are lying all oyer the floor and under the beds. On the upper floor there are two wards with 48 beds, and there 160 patients are all huddled and squashed together. The patients are in all sorts of uncomfortable and cramped positions and lying about on the floor, but I must say I have never heard any of these unfortunate natives complain, and here is the worst part. In these wards there are a large number of patients about one in six, suffering from open tuberculosis. They turn round and tell you when you complain that they are building a new hospital, but this has been going on for the last six or seven years. Native patients are being turned away every day. They knock at the doors and the doors are not opened, and they go away and die in the streets, and many of these natives are suffering from tuberculosis. Sometimes the patients in that hospital do not get washed for three days. I do not know whether the Minister has ever seen this hospital, but it is one of the most tragic sights in South Africa. What is going to be done about it? For years we have said something should be done. In years gone by the authorities would have run up tin houses on the veld and accommodated these people on the lines the military do, but nothing has been done, and the scandal goes on from year to year. This is a blot on the escutcheon of our civilisation in South Africa. If hon. members were to go to that hospital and see what is happening in that unfortunate place they would call it a disaster for our civilisation in South Africa. These natives who are affected by tuberculosis walk amongst the Europeans. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) is, I understand, a specialist in this matter, and he will know why tuberculosis is spreading in South Africa. I am not blaming the Health Department. I have made it one of my rules never to get to know a civil servant who is head of a department; I do not know one to speak to. So if I want to attack any of them I am that much the freer. But the Minister is the responsible head of the Department, and I should like to know from him what help he is going to give us to set matters right in that hospital in Johannesburg. It goes on and on and on, and I pass this place every day and see rows of unfortunate natives standing there and they cannot gain admittace. What does this mean? A sick man knocks at the door of the hospital and it is locked against him. Can the Minister do anything? Who is to blame? Is it the Provincial Authorities? They may turn round and say it is due to the war, but I wrote and spoke about this thing before the war. Nothing happened. Can we hold up our heads in South Africa as we pretend to do at present and say: Look at South Africa; what a wonderful place it is, while that goes on? And this has gone all over the world. Whenever anyone writes a book about South Africa they talk about this plague spot on Hospital Hill.

Put General Pienaar into it as a patient.

No, I will not put him in. Everyone seems to do their best, but nothing is done. They built a place at Coronation. It is a big place but they say it is not staffed. I know the difficulties of staffing a hospital, but something should be done. Can we as Europeans allow this to go on? It is a blot. I do not know whether the Minister can do it under the regulations, but why does he not run up a hospital in the veld, as they did in Basutoland, and taught Basutos to help? It is a bad thing that people knock at the door of a hospital but cannot get in. And one in six of them have tuberculosis. [Interjection.] Of course hospitals come under the Provincial Councils, but we give the Provincial Councils the money and we cannot throw our responsibilities overboard and pass the buck. That is why I want some power to be given to the Minister or the Secretary for Public Health so ’that he can go to the Provincial Councils and say that if they will not do it we will do it. This talk of the sanctity of the Provincial Councils is nonsense. It is a hopeless body.

Hear, hear.

It is a sore on the social body of South Africa. It would be the best thing in the world if this House took its courage in its hands, from the health point of view and got rid of the Provincial Council.

Hear, hear.

If the Government had any courage they would get up and say: Away with the Provincial Council. In that case they would get nine out of 10 votes in the country to support them, but there is Natal, which will object. Natal keeps its Provincial Council because it thinks that is a bond of Empire. I want to ask the Minister: There are many men in Johannesburg who are very downhearted about this matter. There are black men lying there, men who have dug for gold and if anyone is entitled to get into hospital, it is these black miners. They brought the gold up for the white man and what did they get? Nothing, of all these millions of pounds of gold. That is not fair and right. But I think I have made enough point of that. How the Minister will assist Í do not know and I cannot tell him unless he can do something with the Provincial Councils, but they will turn round and say they have not the staff. There is just one point I want to make, about typhus. I just want to read something to the Minister which comes from one of my constituents—

Here is a man who is doing work which will help keep down typhus, but the Government closes him up.

Not the Government; the officials.

But the Government is responsible for their officials. [Time limit.]

During this debate the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. O. L. Shearer), referred to present health conditions in Durban, particularly in regard to tuberculosis. As a representative of that city and having an intimate knowledge of conditions there I feel urged to make some contribution to this debate. I have here a statement, not referring to Durban, but signed by the Medical Officer of Cape Town City, dated the week ending 6th April, 1945, and stating that during that week in Cape Town, 123 people died, 26 of them dying of tuberculosis. That is to say, at the rate of four a day. The same figure holds good for the city of Durban. Now, if that is the condition in the more or less cared-for and protected parts of the Union, it does not take much imagination to realise what must be the condition in the unprotected parts. Tuberculosis is the greatest scourge which affects the non-Europeans. That was recognised by the Health Service Commission which declares—

It was a real satisfaction to the House this afternoon to get the assurance from the Minister that he is now investigating the possibility of adopting a policy of that nature. I want to appeal to him to go the limit in adopting such a policy. The basis of my appeal is the embarrassing position in regard to tuberculosis in the city of Durban. I can summarise the position in this way: three major problems confront the Durban people in their efforts to do something effective against T.B. First, there appears to be no authority under the Public Health Act to deal with tuberculosis until it has reached the communicable stage. I submit that it is the duty of the State to make provision for that essentiality. Secondly, there is no national organisation in the country to deal with tuberculosis on the farms and, in Natal, in the sugar belt, or in the case of those numerous natives who are driven from the cities in an incurable condition to spread the disease ad lib in their environment. There again the Minister has a national responsibility; there is great urgency to provide some such organisation. The third major problem is that we have no hospital to deal with moribund cases in Durban. In February 125 died in that city from tuberculosis. Emergency hospitalisation can obviously be provided only by means of the Public Health Department. Similar problems, I know, exist in all centres of the Union. The people of Durban have urged that the resolution passed by the Cape Town conference in 1939, presided over by Dr. Cluver, the Secretary for Public Health, asking that the Government accept, “that the combating and treatment of tuberculosis be regarded as a national responsibility”, be adopted by the Government. The people of Durban are now urging the Minister to take that step; and judging from the impressions they have of his recent visit to that city, my opinion is that they have confidence that the Minister will do so. Now, I want to reinforce the importance of that resolution by further reference to Durban. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) referred to a significant fact, and I want to associate myself with his statement, that a petition of 27,000 people had been presented to the Minister, not the Minister of Welfare, but to his colleague, the Minister of Finance. That petition is an urgent plea from Natal to the Government to do something without delay regarding tuberculosis. The position in Durban is quite out of hand. In 1939 660 people died of tuberculosis there; and in 1944 1,141 died, nearly double the 1939 number; it is estimated that of the nonEuropeans in Durban 5 per cent. are suffering from tuberculosis. That is a considerably higher figure than the Minister gave this afternoon. Now, when the Durban City Corporation brings its new X-ray apparatus to the new clinic it intends to put up, hundreds of unsuspected cases will be revealed. The problem arises—this is the basis of the second demand we make to the Government for assistance—as to what we are going to do with these unfortunate people. At present there is one good T.B. hospital in Durban; the people are grateful to the Government for building it. It was built when the Minister of Finance was Minister of Public Health. Dr. Dormer, the medical officer in charge, is doing magnificent work under great difficulties such as the shortage of nurses and shortage of beds. Altogether in Durban we have only 300 beds for tuberculotics. If, as the hon. member for Rondebosch said, we shall have “a bed for every death” that occurs during the year, it would mean, taking the 1944 figures, that 1,141 beds would be required; and having 300 beds now, we should require 800 more in Durban to meet conditions prevailing there.

As soon as you have Springfield released you will have 1,500 extra beds.

We realise that, but what we are really concerned about is to get the assistance of the Public Health Department to establish an emergency hospital for moribund cases. Now, we want to ask the Minister to make a drive, in the interests of public health, by taking the initiative, by making legislative powers, similar to those which he is going to ask the House for in regard to housing; and to drive for public health as he is going to drive for housing in the Union, extending the operations of his Department from preventoriums, to hospitals (surgical and medical), and to hospitals for moribund cases, and driving into the reserves and the rural areas. Pending such a national plan as that the Din-ban people are asking the Minister to assist them, not to provide the whole of the beds for the necessary hospitalisation; but to assist in building an emergency hospital of 200 to 300 beds. The city has the land; 25 acres are available; and the Durban people are willing to assist in collecting the money for building this hospital. Mr. Charles James, whom the Minister knows, and whose work I know he appreciates, has done magnificent work for Durban and South Africa in bringing before the country the necessity for urgent steps on these lines in combating the ravages of tuberculosis. Now, the total cost estimated for the 300 beds would work out, on the calculation of £200 per bed, at £60,000 for the hospital and equipment. Dr. Dormer is anxious to build an institution attached to the hospital, costing £20,000 for the training of Bantu nurses. This emergency hospital is an urgent need; we have confidence that the Minister will reciprocate in this regard. Then, as part of the health plan, we are hoping that the Minister will use his initiative, and sponsor a fourth medical school for non-Europeans in Durban. That was recommended also by the Health Services Commission which states—

Now, I happen to be a member of the committee set up in Durban to go into the question of a medical school for non-Europeans. That committee has undertaken, if the Government will reciprocate, to aim at the sum of £100,000 for the establishment of the university. I mention these things because I believe it is the duty of the local authorities, of the municipalities, and of the public’ to co-operate with the Government in that way. Durban, and the Natal members—I can say this without reservation —have a definite mandate from the people of Natal to ask the Minister for three things—First, that he should establish a national plan for combating tuberculosis. [Time limit.]

By this time the Minister will have realised that there is a passionate feeling in this country and in this House on the subject now under discussion, and that it does not help for the Minister to assume the attitude of “muddling through”. It does not help when this important matter is under discussion to tell the House what this government or that government has done in the past and then to say the present Government has done a little more. Let us say “thank you” at once for the small things that have been done, but let the Government have done with this boasting about the trivial things that have been accomplished. Let us look to the future as to how we are going to grapple with this serious matter. In this connection I want to relate something that happened recently. It does not quite fall under this Department, but still it relates to public health. A person in Rouxville was seriously ill. He wanted to have attention from a specialist at Bloemfontein. That specialist could only travel there by car because he had only one day in which to go, and by train it would have taken him three days there and back. He could not obtain petrol to travel by car. A few days later the person was dead, and then his brother, who lived at Bloemfontein, got enough petrol to go to Rouxville to the funeral.

That is incomprehensible.

I would like to refer to what was said on the subject under discussion by Dr. Cluver, Director of the Medical Research Institute, in an address before the National Council of Women in Pretoria. I think we must regard his words in a serious light. He said, inter alia—

He says further—

Then he goes on to plead for a State medical service, which I do. The point I want specially to mention is this—

This question of the training of nurses is very important. I understand that the Government has a shortage of 500 nurses in its mental hospitals. If it could obtain that number it would immediately take them into service. In mental hospitals and in the Government’s other institutions the Government is suffering owing to the shortage of nurses, as for instance in the tuberculosis hospitals. But what now about the number of ordinary nurses that the country requires? They are not trained by the Union Government. They are trained by the Provincial Administrations in the provincial hospitals, and the Union Government is doing nothing about it. I understand as far as the Free State is concerned the position is that of every ten nurses trained by the Provincial Administration four go into the service of the Union Government as district nurses, etc. Now the position is this, that we are faced with a serious situation. We want to institute a health service and to do all sorts of fine things, but we have not the nurses and the Union Government is doing absolutely nothing about it. It leaves it entirely in the hands of the Provincial Administration without giving assistance. The Free State Provincial Administration asked the Government—it was back again today to ask the Government—for a grant of £100,000 per year, and then the Free State would look after complete free hospitalisation. Give the opportunity to that Provincial Administration. It asks £100,000 and then it will put free hospitalisation into effect and train nurses for its requirements. The Government refuses this, but what is it doing in the meanwhile? Nothing in that direction. We sometimes have disparaging talk here about the work of the Provincial Councils. Here we have an instance where the Provincial Council of the Free State is prepared to make an immediate start provided it has a grant of £100,000, but the Government will not give that. Nothing can be said against the work of this Provincial Council in connection with hospitalisation and the training of nurses. Nothing can be said against the services they have provided in difficult circumstances. They want to do more, but the Government refuses to meet them,’ as I have indicated. I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to this matter. The Free State Provincial Council is prepared to make an immediate start with free hospitalisation, and why should they have to wait? I have read here what Dr. Cluver said about the training of nurses. He has shown that the nurses have really to work like servants for a long time in connection with their training. Why has the Government not yet taken steps to institute a training school for nurses? I ask the Minister what he is going to do in future. He can still do this without the provincial administrations. Where is he going to get nurses to act as district nurses and for all the medical services that are proposed? Nurses are just as necessary and even more necessary than doctors, because far more nurses than doctors will be needed and we thus have wider scope for the training of nurses. But this is simply being left over to the provincial administrations. Here is a matter that should be tackled before all the other schemes are undertaken and before the Minister can think about carrying out a section of the report of the National Health Services Commission. But what is the Minister doing? It is a serious defect, and it is something really necessary. I again urge the Minister to meet the Free State Provincial Administration. That administration is really willing to come to grips with this big subject provided the Government gives it the opportunity, as it has asked. Obviously it cannot do it alone. The Gluckman Commission wanted a national health scheme that would not fall under the provincial councils —which I cannot agree with—but we find Dr. Cluver stating the following—

The provincial administrations must retain hospitalisation, but I think the Union Government should assist them financially by way of a subsidy so that they will be able to provide better services and give proper attention to the training of nurses. Then we have in addition the work outside the hospitals, such as district nursing, which the Union Government can look after. It is not necessary for the Government to take away the hospitals from the provinces. The Provincial Council of the Free State has done extremely good work. I do not believe that any blame can be attached to the hosptial in Bloemfontein, not even in connection with the training of nurses. Expansion is necessary, it is true. The Government must give them an opportunity to expand. It must give them that chance as is asked today by the Provincial Council of the Free State.

I would like to deal with the point that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has just made. He has said that the Government is anxious for the provinces to provide free hospital services. He says that the Orange Free State Provincial Administration is anxious to carry out that wish, but that the Government is now standing in its way, and he has referred to the fact that the provincial administration has asked the Government for a special grant of £100,000 to enable it to carry out a free hospital service. It is quite correct that at the conference held some two months ago, attended by representatives of the four provinces and the Government, and at which it was agreed in principle that the provinces would provide a free general hospital service, the Free State Provincial Administration added a rider to that agreement by suggesting that they would need a special grant of £100,000 to enable them to carry out free services. The representatives of the Orange Free State have seen my colleague, the Minister of Finance and myself in regard to this matter, and the attitude of the Government has been put to the province in this way; the province of the Orange Free State, no less than other provincés, is pressing for the right to be allowed to administer general hospital services. The provinces ask for that right. They claimed it as a prerogative under the constsitution. They have contended, however, that in the past the financial assistance made available by the central Government has been inadequate to enable them to carry out the duties imposed upon them by the constitution. Now, however, a chance has to come about in the future. The Minister of Finance will pay £ for £ in respect of provincial expenditure. Let us examine then, in the light of this new financial assistance, the claim of the Orange Free State for a special grant. They base their claim for a special grant of £100,000 on the fact that at present they receive from feepaying patients a sum of £66,000 annually. If a free hospital service is provided they will lose that £66,000 from the fee-paying patients. If a free hospital service is provided no doubt additional patients will have to be dealt with, and so they argue that they will have to make up not only their short-fall of £66,000, but they will have to bring it up to £100,000. They consider then that the annual expenditure will be £100,000 in place of the present expenditure of £66,000. At present they get £66,000 from fee-paying patients. Now the Minister of Finance proposes a subsidy scheme in the future. If their expenses are estimated to be £100,000 a year, they will get £50,000 of that from the Government by way of a £ for £ contribution, so instead of getting £66,000 from fee-paying patients, they will have to levy taxation to bring in an amount of £50,000. But it is not even as bad as that, if one can call it bad. In terms of additional powers of taxation which will be given to the provinces, it is estimated that in respect of one potential source of taxation, an amount of £17,000 would be brought in annually.

Tell us what it is; is it a tax on natives?

Yes, possibly, that is so.

Are they not sufficiently taxed already?

Of course, it has always been contemplated by a national health service that if it is to provide for all sections of the community, all sections of the community should make a contribution, even if in some cases it is only a token contribution. But the effect of this would be that they would receive £50,000 from the central Government, £17,000 on their own calculation from the new source of taxation, leaving an amount of £33,000 to be raised by fresh taxation. It seems to me that the proposition of the Government is an equitable proposition to put to the provinces, that if the people of the provinces want a free service it is better to raise this £33,000 by way of taxation than to bring in ….

What must they tax in order to get £33,000? You have taken transfer dues away from them.

I admit that the Free State has been very good about taxing and that it has realised its responsibility. It has certainly not exhausted the possibilities of taxation. The sum of £33,000, after all, is not a very large amount. It is recognised by the Free State Provincial Administration that even if a start is to be made with this service, £100,000 would not be required possibly for five or ten years. That is the attitude of the Government in regard to this matter. It is a fair proposition that has been put to the provinces. They say that they wish to maintain control of hospitalisation. The Government says: “Very well, we shall allow you to maintain control; we shall pay 50 per cent. of your expenditure, something which has not been done in the past, but for the rest you must face up to the financial music; you must face up to the financial responsibility and if it is necessary to tax you must tax.”

The chorus of praise with which the report of the National Health Services Commission has been received, has been so universal that there has practically been no criticism at all of the suggestions which that commission made. If this had been a country with a homogeneous population of 10,000,000, without any health service whatsoever, and the commission had been asked in those circumstances to formulate a scheme suitable to the conditions in this country, it would have formulated the very scheme which it has now proposed. It would have suggested a division of the country into four hundred health regions, each region to consist of 25,000 persons and each containing a complete health unit. But unfortunately South Africa has not got a homogeneous population. South Africa is also in the fortunate position of having built up, even though in a rather haphazard fashion, a health organisation upon which it is spending something like £4,000,000 a year, and it will be seen at once that while if we had a homogeneous population, the whole basis of the report would be the centralisation of the health scheme under a national, central government, it is quite impossible under existing conditions to have an organisation under such a government. The moment the Government took up the attitude that it was not prepared to abolish the power of the Provincial Councils to control hospitals and that it was not prepared to centralise an organisation in a national health scheme, the Government might just as well have burnt the report of the commission. This commission was quite useless because the whole basis of its report is the abolition of provincial control. It is stated specifically that that is the conclusion to which the commission came. I am quoting from the White Paper which sets out the conclusions of the commission, and it is stated in paragraph 6—

That is the foundation upon which the report was based, and the moment the Government said that they were not prepared to accept that, it followed as a matter of course, that the basis of the report having been removed, the report itself fell away. It seems to me that some other commission will now have to be set up in order to see whether the existing health services cannot be built up and extended so as to provide for the conditions prevailing in South Africa. Take places like Pretoria, Cape Town or Johannesburg. In those centres you have a well-organised, fairly well distributed health service. It is true that in the Transvaal we are in the unfortunate position of not catering sufficiently for the middleman, the middleman who is hit more than any section of the community by the misfortunes of illness. But apart from that—something which can be remedied comparatively easily —there is adequate provision for the poor man and the rich man, but not, of course, for the native who has been referred to by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow); that service can be developed easily. But quite a different system is required for the white population of the platteland, and again a different system is required for the native areas and the native population in the platteland. No consideration whatsoever has been given to these differences which are found in the conditions of South Africa and while I pay tribute to the idealism and the industry which has characterised this report, I must say that I am disappointed with it, because I do not believe for one moment that it is a practicable report or that it is a report which can be carried out in the circumstances of our country.

There is one question that I want to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister and that is the question of smallpox on farms. When smallpox breaks out in a town or in a village, the patients are isolated and are therefore kept away from other people and are thus prevented from spreading the disease. On the other hand when smallpox breaks out on the farm, the farmer is told that that particular patient must be kept by himself but nothing more is done. We had smallpox in the northern district of Natal last year, and I know of cases where patients suffering from smallpox, who were seen on the farm, walk into the town, one was even discovered in the kitchen of the local doctor. I do feel that we should bring about some means of being able to keep these smallpox cases isolated, and that that responsibility should not be the responsibility of the farmer on whose farm the patient happens to be, nor should it be the responsibility of the patient’s relatives or friends. I refer here to the natives in the reserves. That is a responsibility of the Government, and we should see that we shoulder our responsibility in that regard. Then I want to raise a question which has been raised by many of my colleagues on this side, namely the question of tuberculosis. If suddenly tomorrow some force was discovered whereby we could get sunlight for ten minutes in the middle’ of the night, the same as we get on an average for twelve hours during the day the whole world would talk about this discovery. When we had infantile paralysis in the country recently, when it struck us and we lost a fair number of people through that distressing disease, the newspapers were full of it, everybody was talking about it. Something must be done immediately and yet for years, we have been losing more people through tuberculosis daily than we lost daily through infantile paralysis. For years now we have been planning what we are going to do in connection with this disease, but it has gone no further than planning. We have certainly considered it.

You cannot get miniature X-ray sets at the moment.

We can certainly get beds.

We have 300 beds now and we have not got nurses.

You can get beds, and we could even get people who are not properly trained, in the same way as we got voluntary people to help during the war. For the native population we could even get native women and natives themselves to come and help with that work if necessary, and for the European I am sure we could get Europeans who would also volunteer to do that work for us.

We got them when the 1919 plague was on.

Where there is a will there is a way, and if we want to get down to it we can. I know the Minister is sympathetic, but I do hope the Minister will now say to us that he is going to test us. Make us eat our words. Tell us to hurry on with the job. It is no good talking about it unless we are in earnest. Let the Minister now say to us: “You have charged me, I will carry out my obligations but it will be at your expense”. That is the attitude I would like to see the Minister adopt. There is one other matter I want to raise and that is the alarming and distressing increase in the spread of venereal disease. I was alarmed when I went into the figures. I just want to quote one or two figures. The incidence of syphilis among Bantu children, aged seven to 14, who were recently examined at school, is as follows—I take these places at random—Pretoria, 13.8 per cent.; Pietermaritzburg, 15.24 per cent. In Pretoria and Pietermaritzburg doctors are available. But in Nutu, in the heart of Zululand, where one doctor has to serve many thousands of natives, the figure is 30.44 per cent., and it must be remembered that these were children who went to school, and it is therefore the better class of native that is suffering from this disease. What the percentage would be amongst the poorer natives, I do not know. These diseases are carried lay the natives, and they are brought into our European homes. These are people who have to look after our children; these are people who come and cook our dinners for us.

What is the incidence at Bloemfontein?

42.50 per cent.

Terrible.

I quite agree with the hon. member, it is terrible and something has got to be done. There is one other question which I feel merits the attention of the Health Department. Many years ago when I was a young student at the South African College in Cape Town I listened to the then hon. John X. Merriman talking to us about the great danger of worms amongst our children. Today that danger still exists, and I feel that that question should be more seriously tackled. We would not have measles in our animals if we educated the people how a cycle of worms finally brings about measles amongst our animals; we would not have it if we treated the people properly. I want to pay a tribute to the work which the Natal Anti-Tuberculosis Association has done and is doing, and I also want to pay a tribute to the wonderful work that our women are doing in connection with the Christmas Stamp Tuberculosis fund. Every year they have collected large sums to combat this disease, and in my humble way I wish to pay my little tribute to them.

I should like to associate myself with what previous speakers have said in connection with the northern parts of the Transvaal. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) spoke about malaria. We live in a remote district very far from the towns. Some of our people live even 80 to 100 miles from the nearest town and the nearest doctor. Accordingly, I should like to ask the Minister whether some plan or other cannot be made to help us. I have myself received letters from residents in these parts. I want to ask the Minister whether some means of preventing malaria cannot be made available. The old residents of those parts use quinine pills as a preventative against malaria, but the people write to me that they cannot now obtain them. Cannot they be made available?

Do they assert there is a shortage?

Yes, they cannot get them. I should greatly appreciate it if the Minister would make provision for these people to be able to get enough quinine. They do not ask for it gratis; they are willing to pay for it.

Will you be so good as to give me the particulars, and I shall go into it.

I shall do so. Then there is another matter I should like to mention. For 25 years we have been struggling to get a hospital. Zeerust is one of the oldest towns in the Northern Transvaal. We have gone to the provincial administration for help but they say no funds are available. Can the Minister not oblige us with a certain grant for that community? There are a couple of hundred thousand natives and a few thousand Europeans, and there are no hospital facilities. Our nearest hospital is in Krugersdorp—a distance of over 150 miles. There is also a great shortage of doctors in that area, and accordingly I ask whether the Minister cannot see his way clear to meet these people. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) talked here about nurses. I think the Minister will agree with us that steps must be taken to obtain more nurses. We ought to establish institutions for the training of nurses. I think, however, that the great obstacle is the miserable remuneration nurses have to work for. Give them decent pay and we will make it attractive for women to become nurses. But under those circumstances we feel that it is impossible for them to make that sacrifice. They have virtually to work night and day, and I feel convinced that if the Minister sees to it that they receive proper payment the difficulty will be largely solved.

The hon. Minister has painted a glowing picture of the success of his health centres, and he referred particularly to the Bellair Health Centre in Natal.

No, not health centres, I said there was one on which to work.

He particularly referred to Bellair. I want to say to him that health centres are indeed a very excellent thing. But the Minister went on to say if I understood him correctly, that that was the first step in the direction of giving effect to the recommendations of the Health Commission. He was indicating, as I understood him, that what we are doing now in effect is this, that the extra effort we are making there is opening the road for something further from the Gluckman Report. I want to point out to the Minister that a health centre or a health clinic is an essential service and is really something apart from the national health service scheme itself, because you have had those clinics, and as the Minister says, they have been there for the benefit of the very poor, the ignorant and the superstitious. I use the Minister’s own words, that is understandable and it is understandable that that service is an excellent service. But to my mind it is entirely evading the question to suggest to this House and to suggest to the country that that is an earnest of the Minister’s intentions to give us something more on account as far as the Gluckman Report is concerned. I want to put this point to the Minister, that until he does something that will give relief to the ordinary small income man with regard to the heavy expenditure to which he is committed when there is sickness in his house, with regard to the payment of doctors’ and hospital fees and at the same time to make good the loss of wages while he is sick he will not be touching the first essentials in this health service. Those are the first essentials. Not only is the position becoming serious to the man with a small income but he is faced with this added difficulty. We are told that hospitals are overcrowded, both European and native hospitals. In the Transvaal that is so and in Johannesburg some people sometimes have to wait two or three weeks before they can be admitted to the Johannesburg hospital for an operation. It is true that emergency cases are admitted but where a case can be held over, it is sometimes held over for two or three weeks. We are also faced with this position, that we have a large number of private nursing homes that have sprung up in Johannesburg. Very often the poor man, because of the shortage of accommodation, is compelled to go to a private nursing home for attention. Is the Minister aware of the fact that the position of the small man today is far worse than it was even twelve months ago, is he aware of the fact that some of these nursing homes charge 30s. per day? I believe that is the average charge. That is a very serious matter indeed for a man with a small income.

I paid 35s. a day.

But that is for a single room.

That is the average charge in the nursing homes in Johannesburg, 30s. per day. The Minister must surely realise that the country is crying out for some adequate instalment so far as national health services are concerned, and the Minister is not giving that encouragement. He has appointed a committee which he himself described as an action committee and then he qualified it by saying that it would have no executive power but that it would advise the Minister as to what he should do. I have no doubt that this committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) will do what it can. We have confidence in the hon. member for Yeoville to that extent. We know that he will push things forward as far as he can, but I want to warn the hon. member for Yeoville that knowing as I do how slowly these things seem to move, he will be grievously disappointed between now and next Session.

I will give it a trial, anyhow.

My hon. friend says he will give it a trial, but I think he has taken on the hardest job he has ever taken on, although his commission was a tough job. I wish him good luck in the job he has taken on now. The Minister cannot escape his responsibility. Either the position is that the financial assistance is forthcoming or it is not forthcoming. If not, then he should quite frankly blame the Minister of Finance. I am inclined to think that the real culprit is the Minister of Finance.

That is not so.

If the Minister says it is not so, then I press my contention all the more.

It is no good asking for money until you have a proper plan.

But the commission’s report clearly laid that down. It is simply now a matter of arranging the method by which you can apply the scheme. There are no difficulties.

It made arrangements to wait at least a year.

I appreciate that as far as the provinces are concerned. The Minister was quite frank about that. He has the co-ordinating committee set up to get the provinces to work together, and with the provinces working together they could easily have been got into the scheme. If the Minister is not quite sure how it should be formulated he has only to look to Great Britain or New Zealand or Sweden, and other countries which have these services. I do feel that if the reason for delay in proceeding with the scheme is the formulation of methods of giving effect to it, it is a very lame excuse and one the country will be grievously disappointed with. I put it to the Minister it is a matter that cannot be delayed much longer and that he will realise that prolonged delay will react against him and against the Government. I am putting it to him it is not too late yet. He should give effect to at least an instalment, a practical instalment, of the Health Commission’s report, and thereby show at least that he is not averse to giving complete effect to that scheme. There is just one other point I want to speak to the Minister about. I want to refer to private nursing homes throughout the country and to the high charges that are being made. I would also like to tell the Minister that huge buildings are being put up for these nursing homes ’and companies are now exploiting the ailments of the public through them. It is now becoming another enterprise of capital to make profits and the success of these private nursing homes is due to the fact that neither the Provincial Councils nor the Central Government are providing the public with facilities for hospitals. What control has the Minister or the Provincial Councils over these private nursing homes? To what extent are they inspected? To what extent does it seem they have a reasonable number of trained and certified nurses engaged in the work? I have a suspicion that some of these nursing homes are working with a large number of young women who have not an elementary knowledge of nursing with perhaps one certified nurse in a very big institution;’ some may have two or three. It is a very serious position indeed, and in view of the tremendous growth from a commercial aspect, it becomes all the more necessary to institute a system of control, to have control so that the patients who pay those high charges should be nursed by qualified nurses. I know we now have a Nurses Council, the Nursing Bill has gone through the House, and perhaps the Nurses Council will perhaps take up this matter and ensure that a proportion of qualified and certified nurses will be employed to balance adequately the number of untrained staff or staff with a mere elementary training. Steps should be taken to ensure that the patients receive true and faithful nursing attention. I want to point out to the Minister the danger arises not only from an unqualified nurse or an inexperienced girl making a mistake in attending to a patient, but there is always the greater danger, which is never noticed, that the nurse through her ignorance is unable to give the attention in a correct and timely manner. She is ignorant of what should be done, and by the time a qualified nurse comes along the delay may have been fraught with serious consequences to the patient.

I have a very few remarks to make on this subject. In a most able address the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) recently outlined certain obstacles that were standing in the way of the operation of the national health services scheme. He mentioned in particular this question of lack of trained personnel, and I would be very glad to hear from the Minister what plans he has in view for utilising the trained material now coming out of the army. I refer particularly to the nonEuropeans who have been trained in hygiene, to dieticians, nursing orderlies, probationers, and people of that description.’ I should like to point out that if we do not make use of that material when we can get it and only call on them months after they have been discharged, they will by that time have forgotten all they ever learned and their training and experience is an asset that will have been lost to the country. The demobilisation plan affords a wonderful opportunity to acquire the personnel so vitally necessary for the successful operation of our health services. All the talking in the world will do no good unless we can get the personnel to operate the plan. I should like to know whether the Minister has any plans in mind for the utilisation of this material coming out of the army. These people are highly trained, and I feel that if they are called upon without delay we could make very good use of their services.

I gathered from the report there will be some 400 health centres constituted throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, and that will represent approximately one health centre for every 25,000 of population. Much has been said about the population in the towns, but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in my own constituency alone I have three and possibly five magisterial divisions each with a large native population. The figures are—Ixopo 56,433; Port Shepstone 53,202; Umzinto 82,723; Harding 42,859; and Pinetown, part of which is in my constituency, has a native population of 72,148. That is a total of 307,365 native population, and about 280,000 are in my one constituency. On the basis of one health centre to every 25,000 of population my constituency alone will require at least 14 health centres. I have quoted the figures for the native population; there is also to be added the Indian, the coloured and the European population. So that my estimate of 14 health centres in the one constituency is very conservative. Apparently the Public Health Department has already done something with regard to the establishment of these health centres, because I have a letter from the Mid-Illovo Farmers’ Club in which they mention the matter, and they say—

In addition to that I have a resolution which was passed by the Natal South Coast Voters’ Association, which is representative of all parts of my constituency; this resolution was passed at the inaugural meeting of the association—

It seems to me that if the department does not take into consideration the centres of population, or centres where the health centres will be available to the largest number of the population, that we are going to stop short of making this a success. It seems to me that to establish a health centre at Umbumbulu would be really consulting the convenience of the staff of the health centre rather than the convenience of the native patients and of the European patients also, in that area. I just wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that a mistake will be made if these health centres are located not in the centre of a large population but at places selected for other considerations. Naturally some of these centres will be on the coast where they are available to Europeans, but in view of the large native population in the one constituency, I suggest careful enquiry should be made before any definite conclusion is arrived at for the establishment of the health centre at the site proposed. Let me pass to another aspect. For years past I have been concerned about the incidence of tuberculosis in the native reserves. I have advocated that cheaply erected places should be established within the reserves that would be available to the district surgeon and where these people who have the disease at a stage where they can infect others could be segregated and cared for for the remainder of their lives. After all we know from statistics and from the information we have that natives affected by tuberculosis rarely recover, in fact, in nearly every case the disease is fatal. I have said before there is no need to spend £50,000 or £80,000 on a building before starting to treat the patients: What I advocate is getting hold of the patients now and doing something at once to ease their pain and distress at the close of their days. I would urge that the Public Health Department does something on the lines of putting up these cheap buildings on sites which are contiguous to district surgencies, as a measure to arrest the spread of infection.

I am not one of those who praises the Minister for what has been done, because I feel nothing has yet been done in respect of public health, and that as far as this is concerned we are nothing but a set of barbarians. We promise and we do nothing. I want to talk about venereal sickness amongst the natives. The natives work on your farm, and we try to see that the people working for us receive medical treatment. But what have we done to combat venereal disease? A puny half-hearted attempt has been made. A miserable amount has been made available. If you go on the platteland you will see that 70 or 80 per cent. of the natives on the farms are suffering from venereal disease. This is not only a menace to our families but also to our animals, and to the health of the whole nation. We must not forget that when a native is suffering from this disease he has no strength and he cannot work on the farm. For two or three days in the week he lies in his hut. How do we carry on? We have an old clinic as in the case of Cradock, and the Government gives the tremendous sum of a couple of pounds for combating the disease. I ask whether we are not playing with fire. Are we serious about this? I feel the time has come when we should inject all coloured people and natives on the farms and also in the municipalities. It does not further things to give a little help here and there. It does not assist matters to isolate a few people here and there for a little while and then allow them again to mingle with other people. In this way you will never eradicate venereal disease. You are trifling with the matter, and throwing money away. I can refer to a few districts where, it is true, good work is done, as in Middelburg and Cradock, but it does not bring a solution any nearer when one or two municipalities fight this evil and the others remain inert, nor does it help to have a clinic in one ward and not in another ward. If we do not grapple with this matter at once and inject all the servants on our farms we shall never solve the trouble. And this applies not only to the farms but also to the towns. Figures have been quoted here in connection with Bloemfontein and it has been stated that 44 per cent. of the natives there are infected. I would just point out the dangers that these natives occasion in the towns. Bloemfontein is a fairly large centre for the sale of meat under the control scheme. What was the case there before the scheme came into operation, and now that the scheme is in operation? A certain company took action and stated that they would not undertake the Government contract unless they first learned that the servants handling the meat had been injected or medically inspected. Do you know what you find in Bloemfontein? That 90 per cent. of the people working at the abattoirs and daily carrying meat to the houses, and employed at the butcher shops are suffering from venereal disease. There is no better transmitter of the disease than meat, and as we now have the control system I feel it is the duty of the Government to see that at all abattoirs, or places where they handle meat the boys should have injections. They should be examined every month to ascertain whether they are healthy. Unless you do this you will cause great trouble just as trouble has been caused in the past. And this course of action is not only necessary in connection with meat but also in connection with milk. The natives who milk the cows are frequently smitten with the disease, and it is carried in the milk, so that children get the germs. I feel that any servant handling the food of the people, any man who brings food to your house, ought to be examined, and every month he should have the test repeated. Unless we do this we are playing with the whole matter as we have done in the past. I feel that we are just talking to appease the people, and we are not doing anything. I feel that action must be taken, and also that the municipalities should be compelled to support the schemes and carry them out and assist the Minister. It is of no advantage to the Minister to say that such a municipality has made application for the last three years, but that it has not yet done anything: If the municipalities do not realise their duty the State should point out to them what they should do, and care must be taken that the money available is used to ensure the health of the nation. I believe many lives are lost through venereal disease. We have heard how as far as the coloured people in the Cape are concerned infant mortality is 52 per cent. It does not help to hide that. Venereal disease is certainly the origin of 80 per cent. of the 52 per cent., and if we do not immediately address ourselves to this task and carry the job through vigorously, we shall still have many difficulties. It is our Christian duty to act and not to be afraid to take action. If we want to benefit the natives we must take drastic action. We must make injections compulsory, and we must not shrink from adopting such measures. All the hospitals and facilities that we set up will not assist us so long as we do not take drastic action in regard to venereal disease. The same applies to measles. Tapeworm in the natives is the cause of hundreds of cattle being injected with measles. Where does it come from? From the natives. The native will not help himself and therefore it is our duty to see that he is assisted. We are exterminating the native: we are not helping. We always fear taking action, sometimes for political reasons in other cases for other reasons. We do not want to offend the natives; we can only achieve something if we take drastic action, and we really shall be doing something for the natives if we make them a sound nation. The greatest disease in South Africa amongst the natives today is venereal disease. The tapeworm also occasions great difficulty, and I trust the Government will take vigorous and decisive action.

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) in discussing the incidence of syphilis among native children obviously quoted from the report of the National Advisory Council on physical training. It is of interest to note in that report the figures given in the case of the small town of Kentani in the Transkei. The figures in regard to venereal disease amongst school-going children there show a perpentage of 35.90. That emphasises very strongly the point made by the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) in reference to the ravages of this terrible disease. The figures were so appalling that the “Cape Times”, in a leading article, stated, inter alia—

Though I realise the effect of the war on health administration I am not prepared to admit the present condition of affairs is due entirely to that. It is rather the cumulative effect of failure over a long period of years to recognise our responsibilities. I am prepared to admit that conditions are better than before. I hope the Minister will have an opportunity to let me have a statement about the prevalence of epidemic diseases in the Transkei. As the House is aware, we have had smallpox on a very big scale and typhus over a number of years. I would remind the hon. Minister that last year when I went to the Transkei with the Minister of Native Affairs and the Secretary for Public Health in connection with the typhus outbreak our purpose was to ascertain, by enquiry on the spot, whether more effective means could be found for checking the spread of the disease. The Minister of Native Affairs was asked to examine a certain deverminising boiler and it was sought to demonstrate the possibilities of this boiler to him in the presence of the Secretary for Public Health; the Secretary for Native Affairs was also present. This boiler— Bunn’s—was very successful not only in regard to the speediness with which the steam was super heated but in the speed with which the deverminising process was carried out leaving the clothing dry, ready for immediate wear. It fully met all the demands made on it and proved vastly superior to the other deverminisers in use. The Minister of Native Affairs and the Secretary for Public Health expressed themselves highly satisfied with the performance of that boiler, and those statements as to the capability of the machine to do the work have never been questioned. On the strength of this test by the responsible officials an order was given to the maker for 240 of these boilers. In view of that order he handed his plan to the Secretary for Public Health, the arrangement being that he would receive a royalty of £5 for each boiler. That was the arrangements between the inventor and the Secretary for Public Health, when the latter left Umtata. Shortly after leaving Umtata he (the Secretary) appeared to have repented of his contract and to have thought that as the inventor was a member of the public service and a member of the Public Health Department the Department should be entitled to use this invention without the payment of a royalty at all. He attempted to take up the line that he could have these boilers made without reference to the inventor, but unfortunately for the Secretary for Public Health and the Department, and fortunately for the inventor the patent was registered. I suggest that the action of the Secretary for Public Health was a regrettable illustration of the lengths to which bureaucracy can go. Then though the original order had been for 240 boilers it was reduced by the Department to 26. Those 26 were actually made and sent io the Transkei and put into use and have lived up to the standard of the original test. Since that time attempts have been made to use another type of deverminiser so as not to have recourse to the patent on which a £5 premium was payable, but with very indifferent success. I think the Minister should let us have an explanation as to the basis on which the manufacture of the deverminiser was discontinued and a new type of boiler brought into operation. I should also like to know whether the new type of boiler is more effective and if any comparative test has been made between the two types. My opinion is that the new boiler does not work well. It takes too long to heat and at the end of the deverminising process the clothing is wet and not fit for wear. These are important considerations when one is dealing with native people. There has to be deverminising carried on continually and I think it is only fair to the House and the country to know what actuated the Minister in his departure from the original arrangements, and on whose advice the manufacture of the original boiler used was discontinued. I will leave that question for a moment to refer to another matter, equally important. On page 16 of the Nutrition Council’s report there is reference to the following matter—

Now I know of no such body but I do know a body called the Co-ordinating Committee, and it is that body to which the report refers. I drew attention to the fact that this report was written in January and signed by the Secretary for Public Health and that during February certain representations were made in this House by me on information supplied to me by some members of the Co-ordinating Committee. A peculiar feature is that some time after that all the Government members on that committee were told that they had to withdraw from the committee. May I ask whether that is so, and if so on whose authority were they asked to withdraw?

Which committee? I find it very difficult to follow the hon. member.

It is the voluntary Co-ordinating Committee, established at Umtata. I want to know on whose advice the Minister asked those Government members to withdraw from that committee. Since the Government members were withdrawn the committee cannot do its important work and is about to cease operation. That is a very important feature. I do not like to mention people by name but I have to do so. I recognise the fact that the Minister is fully occupied and that the Secretary for Public Health is really entrusted with the control of the Department of Public Health. I regret that in both cases the interest of the country and of public health has been subordinated to other and personal consideration. I would also like to refer briefly to the tuberculosis situation and show that to my knowledge tuberculosis is still spreading in the Transkei. There is no tuberculosis hospital in the Trenskei, but I understand that plans were passed for one at Umtata.

You are getting one at Umtata.

I want to ask that we should be allowed to experiment. It is impossible to find in one hospital in Umtata sufficient accommodation for all the cases of tuberculosis in the Transkei. Amongst these thousands of people tuberculosis is very high. In all the circumstances I feel that we should do what we can do now. We cannot wait for the complete pronunciation of the final scheme. We must do something at once. I suggest the establishment of settlements on the same principle as that, applied to sufferers from leprosy. [Time limit.]

There is one matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister, namely the position of missionary hospitals we have right through the country. In the Transkei we have seven of these hospitals, started originally by missionaries who got funds from overseas, from Sweden, Norway, Scotland and Germany and elsewhere. These hospitals were built by missionaries in connection with mission services with overseas funds and they cost the State very little. I know of one hospital which cost over £30,000, and has about 250 beds. The Provincial Department has only three hospitals in the Transkei, two of which are smaller than most of the mission hospitals. At the outbreak of war these hospitals could not face up to their financial responsibilities. They were obtaining funds from overseas but suddenly they were cut off from all funds or assistance from that source. The Provincial authorities refused to accept any responsibility. They said they are not allowed to tax the natives directly and got.no revenue from them, and they refused to assist these hospitals. The Union Government said hospitalisation is a matter for which the Provincial Councils are responsible, and so these unfortunate hospitals were left without funds and without financial means. They naturally came running to the Native Affairs Department as they dealt chiefly with the native people and through the Native Trust, the Native Affairs Department has had to maintain these hospitals for five years. Only recently we had to make a grant of £2,000 to one hospital to prevent it from closing down, and that has been the position for five years now. Had the Native Trust not come to their assistance all these hospitals would have closed down. The position has become impossible. When the Native Trust Act was passed provision was made for a certain proportion of the funds of the Trust to be used for native development. Those funds, instead of being used for native development have had to be diverted to maintaining these hospitals. Now, I say that in view of the projected change in connection with hospitalisation, this is a matter which must be faced by the Government and by the Provincial authorities. The Trust and the Native Affairs Commission have drawn attention to it. They drew the attention of the Minister of Finance to the matter and also that of the Minister for Public Health and the Provincial Administration. As a member of the Native Affairs Commission I say that it is unfair that money which should have been used for the development of the natives, the development of their land, to prevent people from going to hospital, should now be used to keep them in hospital. The Trust has expended over £75,000 in the last few years on hospitalisation which should have been spent on development. That is what the position amounts to today. I was a member of the Provincial Council and I know that the Provincial Administration has always taken up the attitude that as it gets no direct revenue from the natives it is not responsible for native hospitalisation. The Native Affairs Commission took legal advice on the matter, and it appears that the legal position is that the Provincial Council is responsible. But if the Central and the Provincial Administrations refuse to give the money these hospitals will have to close down. A further fact I wish to point out, and an important fact, is that in almost every one of these hospitals they are training native nurses. There is deficiency of these nurses today. Many of them are taken up by the mine hospitals, and in fairness to the white nurses in the country, who are also short in numbers, native nurses must be trained. These hospitals do not only provide good service amongst the people who are subject to a good deal of disease, but they train nurses who will be necessary for social security and the national health scheme we contemplate. The attention of the chairman of the National Health Commission was specially drawn to this matter. The Health Commission visited certain of the hospitals and saw the good services being rendered. I ask the Minister of Public Health and the Minister of Finance to see that this responsibility is no longer one placed upon the Native Trust or the Native Affairs Commission, but that the Minister of Finance takes steps to see that the Provincial Councils should face up to their responsibilities and that the Native Trust should use the money for the purpose for which it is provided, namely the development of the native reserves.

I should like to know from the Minister whether he would have any objection if I proposed now that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

No, you can move that.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 4th May.