I should like to ask the Prime Minister for some enlightenment. The Native Bills as we saw them originally were of a character which would require joint sittings of the two Houses, and the ordinary procedure then would have been a joint sitting at which these Bills would have been introduced, but I see that the procedure followed here on this occasion is that these Bills are to be introduced in this House. I would like the Prime Minister to say whether there has been any change in these Bills to enable this procedure to be followed, or what is the position. I do not want us to start on these Bills and then find out that our procedure has not been correct. I do not raise a point of order, but I simply ask for the enlightenment of the House, what the position is and whether there has been a change so that these Bills can be introduced in this House instead of a joint sitting of the two Houses.

I think the point should be raised later, but in reply I wish to say: Firstly, that no amendment is being made in the Bill, so that what could have been done before cannot now be done; secondly, there are only certain of the Bills which require a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament; thirdly, each of the Bills which would require a joint sitting embraces a considerable amount of matter which cannot be enacted by a joint sitting, and with regard to which the ordinary course through the two Houses will have to be taken; fourthly, it is provided in the Bills which contain provisions which must be approved by a joint sitting, that the latter will not apply until such time as they have been passed by a joint sitting according to the constitution.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a first time; second reading on 30th March.

Perhaps it is as well to say that it is my intention not to take the Bills to a second reading, but first to refer them to a select committee.

May I ask a question in regard to this ? We do not know the details of the Bill, but as the Bill was originally drafted it took away certain rights under the Act, and I take it the matter will have to originate at a joint sitting. I am sorry; I did not know a ruling was given with regard to No. 3.

I have given no ruling, but the Prime Minister has given an explanation to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) with regard to all the Bills.

I can give the explanation again if the hon. member wants it. It is this, that in the first place this Bill, as representative of the two Bills—because there are two of them—this Bill as it stands at present contains a few provisions in conflict with the South Africa Act, and consequently, as far as they are concerned, they will have to be passed at the third reading by a joint sitting, and by a two-thirds majority. It also contains a large number of provisions which may be said not to require the combined sitting; consequently they will have to be passed through in the ordinary way. The procedure which I am going to propose to this House is that this Bill be taken into consideration by this House and by the Senate in the ordinary way, and be passed in the ordinary way subject to the provision which is added to it that it will not come into operation until and unless the provisions requiring the combined sitting of the two Houses shall have been passed by the two Houses combined.

I understood from the Prime Minister that the Bill he is now introducing with regard to the coloured franchise does, to a certain extent, affect these rights. I presume it is quite clear to the Prime Minister that under section 35 a Bill like this ought to be introduced in a joint sitting of the two Houses. It is a matter of very vital importance. The way I read section 35, the sets of Bills should be introduced in a joint sitting.

I intend to do so; I am going to comply with that.

I understand it must originate in a joint sitting, not a third reading. The Prime Minister says the third reading is going to be taken in a joint sitting.

No, all the stages, but it will have to be passed by a two-thirds majority at the third reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a first time; second reading on 30th March.

There were strong objections raised to this recommendation and I leave it to the House. I am not feeling very strongly about it, and the House can vote as it likes on this question.

Some of us feel that it should be made clear that the matter was given the very fullest consideration by the committee. There were some of us who were rather suspicious of the application at first, and in view of that fact we went more particularly into it than we would have done in the ordinary way, and we were completely satisfied that we were doing the right thing under the circumstances. I was not swayed by the fact mat it was this particular company that was concerned, but by the fact that those who bought land from the company did so under the idea that they had free title. There is no doubt about it that the buyers of the allotments thought they were buying out and out freehold, and subsequently they discovered they could not get free title. Two sessions ago there was a similar matter before us in connection with, I think, the Union Citrus estate. I may say the decision of those members of the committee present was unanimous, and almost every member was present. I for one intend to stand by the decision of the committee.

Nobody challenges or questions the integrity of the committee, but this is not a question of whether the committee did what they considered right or otherwise, but the reason given for this consideration is that this particular company sold land—and rights which they had no right to sell. What is to happen when in future companies come along which will sell land, and as an inducement to do so say that all rights are given, including mineral rights. I cannot see for one moment that this company has put up any case at all for this committee to give away these particular assets of the country. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) says he is considering these people who have purchased the land. One is sorry for them, but they have their remedy at law against the company if they have been sold land on false pretences. The case is entirely different from recommendation No. 20. There an argument was put up that convinced us that the only possible thing we could do was to agree to that recommendation, but no argument has been advanced in regard to this particular recommendation.

I do not think the hon. member was quite right the way he put the position. I do not think that the men who have bought plots on this estate were under the impression or got the assurance that they would have the mineral rights. The position is that a good many plots have not been sold, and they are being offered for sale. We are told that the mineral rights on this estate are not worth much, and therefore they offer to pay 1s. per plot, I think it is, for the mineral rights. The plots are offered for citrus growing. If the company can say you are buying mineral rights also they may possibly get purchasers—when there are mineral rights, or there are prospects of getting minerals. I consider it is not in the interests of the public generally that we should grant the company the mineral rights for which they ask. I do not think the company was under the impression that they were going to get the mineral rights when they purchased the estate. I was not present at the committee that day, and when I first read the document I said I was not going to support it as I did not think it was the right thing. I take the opportunity of explaining it now. I trust the committee will see we are creating a bad precedent if we agree to this, and are probably putting buyers into a false position, where they may consider there are prospects of minerals. I hope the committee will see its way clear to vote against the recommendation.

The first information we had was that the people who had bought these plots were being penalized, as they believed they had bought the mineral rights, whereas the company had no right to give transfer with the mineral rights. I have no sympathy with the buyers because they bought these plots as citrus farms only, and not for mineral rights. It is an extraordinary principle that because the company sold something it did not possess, the Crown should give it what it did not possess and hand it over.

The price of 1s. was decided by the Mines Department, which states that there are no minerals on the land. The State, by agreeing to this proposal, would obtain £225, but if we do not sell the mineral rights, we shall never get anything at all. The company sells this land in plots planted with orange trees, and it therefore could not exploit the minerals, even if they existed. Supposing, however, there are minerals, and the State does not sell the rights, it might interfere with the surface owners.

In that case you must compensate them.

The purchasers pay up to £100 a morgen, so that the compensation would not be equal to the loss that they might sustain. The only thing that is involved is the principle, and as hon. members on both sides of the House object to the principle, I leave it entirely to them to decide, but I shall vote for the recommendation.

The statement the Minister has just made agrees with the information which I have received. A petition was presented in connection with this matter last year, but it was not reached. I am informed that there are no minerals whatsoever on the land, but because of the reservation of mineral rights, the owners find it difficult to deal freely in the land. If the House agrees to the recommendation it can state that it must not be taken as a precedent. The purchasers cannot use the land for mineral purposes.

If there are no minerals why is the company worrying about the matter, and offering £220 for something which is non-existent ?

The people to whom they sell object to a servitude.

Is the Minister prepared to grant mineral rights all over South Africa, merely on the report of the Mines Department that there are no minerals in the ground in question ? I venture to say that the House would never agree to that. The land is in the Barberton district, which is a mining area, and mistakes have been made before by the Mines Department. We should look very foolish if we agreed to the committee’s recommendation, and minerals were subsequently discovered. The thing is wrong, and should not be agreed to. The more we see about the matter, the worse it appears to be.

I should now like to know what the actual position is. We first heard from the Minister that the company held the ground and sold it in plots and now that it wants to pass transfer it learns that it does not own the mineral rights. Or is the position as stated by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) that the company knew that it did not hold the mineral rights, but want to dispose of the plots more easily in the future ?

May I say on a point of explanation that I never used those words at all ? I told them these people bought the land and thought they were getting the mineral rights, but when they wanted the transfer they found they had not the right to freehold transfer.

I want to ask the members of the Select Committee whether they accepted the statement of the company about the matter. As I have already mentioned, it is stated on every title deed registered in the Transvaal whether the mineral rights are included or not. Thus the company must have known that it did not hold the mineral rights, and when it sold the ground it must have told the buyers that it did not hold the mineral rights. If that is the position why should the mineral rights be granted now ? The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) can easily say that the grant of the mineral rights in this case will not create a precedent Not only the settlers who have bought ground from the Lands Department, but all the owners of ground which was granted long since and from which the mineral rights were excluded will come to the Government and say that the Mines Department says that there are probably no minerals on their ground, and that in the circumstances they want full title. That is what the Minister will find, and it is on account of the dangerous precedent that the committee should reject the recommendation.

I would be satisfied with the Minister if last year we had not gone to the expense, and wasted the time of this House, in order to provide for this. Last year we passed the Reserved Minerals Bill in which provision was made in regard to Crown land. The company want the right to claim these minerals whereas under the Reserved Minerals Act they have not the right. This is Crown land where the minerals have been reserved to the Government. I think we are not only laying down a dangerous principle here, but that we are going beyond the Act passed by ourselves.

I do not think the hon. member is quite correct. The general provisions of the Reserved Minerals Act do not apply to this case as the Act does not really confer the ownership of the minerals but exclusive rights of prospecting. In this case the ownership of the minerals is required in order to give clear transfer, and section 16 of the Act makes provision therefor. It is in the interests of the State in this case, because the State gets £225. but more than that it is a question of principle. If members object to the principle I can quite understand it, and I leave the House to vote as it likes. It is in the interests of the State to get £225, and therefore I shall vote for it. The company perhaps knew when they bought the land they had no mineral rights, but in selling the plots they found a difficulty because people objected to buying. These people in Europe buying the plots did not know anything about it, and the company came to us, and they say they have a difficulty in selling because they did not know what it meant. So they ask us to withdraw the reservation in order to give them free title.

Why has the Minister changed since Monday night ? On Monday night he proposed to withdraw this altogether.

I proposed to leave it to the vote of the House.

Oh no, you did not. You proposed to withdraw it entirely. I appeal to the members of the House on that.

He cannot withdraw it by the rules of the House. The House must vote it down.

We shall vote it down all right. It is a bad precedent. If these people cannot sell, it is a matter of price.

Perhaps it is better for the country that they don’t sell.

Yes, I agree. It is a bad precedent which will in future be quoted against us. I hope the House will vote it down.

It is not actually the question of the grant of mineral rights on this specific ground, but a matter of principle which is being established. There is ground throughout the whole of the Transvaal over which the State owns the mineral rights, and if the House in this case to-day gives away the mineral rights of the State, then every individual who does not possess the mineral rights can ask the House for them, and the House will then be obliged, according to the principle which we have established in this case, to grant the request. I hope hon. members will see that it is a dangerous principle, and that they therefore will reject the recommendation.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that this is a bad precedent and that we ought not to pass the vote. I have every respect for the committee but the committee only acts as a body to sift the facts and make a recommendation to the House. But the House is not bound by that recommendation. We must use our own judgment. In the case put before the House the idea is that we must come to the rescue of certain people who have innocently bought from the company land they did not know had this reservation upon it. I do not agree that that is either a good reason or a correct reason. The area of the ground concerned is 4,506 morgen. How much of that has been sold ? The chances are only a small portion has been sold and the great bulk of it is held by the company.

That is so.

Then the justification disappears altogether because the great bulk of the land has not been sold to private purchasers. They either knew what they were getting or they did not know. If they got it on a misrepresentation they have an action against the company. If not, they have no cause for complaint. If we pass the clause we are going to come to the relief of the company in regard to the land they have sold, and they are, on that hypothesis, liable to damages. In other words we are protecting the company against actions for damages. There are the strongest reasons why we should not part with the mineral rights on this ground, and no departure should be made from that principle. I do not say that it should never be departed from. It can be departed from on a good case being put forward, but I submit that in this matter no case has been put forward at all.

In view of the number of people in England and elsewhere who have been induced to buy land in South Africa at very high prices, through exaggerated reports as to the value of that land, I do not think we can be too careful in what we do regarding the proposition now before the committee. After all, 1s. per morgen for the mineral rights of any land in the Transvaal is very small indeed. A geologist may be very clever, but he cannot look inside the land and tell you what is there. I have no doubt that if geologists had walked over Griqualand West seventy years ago they would have made the same report—

I do not say these people are unprincipled, but we know there are some unprincipled people in England whose business is to sell land and that they induce people to go in by cock-and-bull stories. If we give these people the mineral rights, they will, in trying to sell the land, say—

They might give people an exaggerated idea that if they buy this land they will make their fortunes. I do not think we should put the stamp of this House on the idea that there are minerals there, and in the interests of this country we ought to protect the unsuspecting people in England who are inclined to come to this country and put their money in it, and develop the land for agricultural purposes.

I must say that I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that we had an impression the other evening that the Minister had completed the matter by saying that he was going to withdraw it from the committee. He could surely accept a proposal to refer the matter back. An amendment was moved to that effect. The Minister now comes along and, although ostensibly he is still leaving the matter in the hands of the committee, the very fact that he says he is going to vote for it is apt to prejudice the committee in the direction of voting for this proposal.

I have explained why I shall vote for it.

Let me say this, that either the Minister has unconsciously misled the committee, or he himself is confused about the position. This afternoon he said that the reason why this could not have been done last session was because we had no powers until the Reserved Minerals Bill was passed through this House. Then, in reply to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), he said that the Reserved Minerals Bill has nothing to do with it.

There is a clause in the Reserved Minerals Bill empowering Parliament, by resolution, to deal with this matter.

Very well, then, it is dependent on the passing of the Reserved Minerals Bill, and if that is so it rather justifies those of us who opposed the passing of that Bill last session. We have heard on many occasions, that the credit of South Africa has been damaged by the operations of companies or agents of companies which have been hawking about South African propositions on the overseas market. Although I do not say it was done intentionally, this appears to have been a case in point where plot owners were given the impression that they were buying rights which the company did not possess. In any case, the fact that the Minister admits that only a small portion of this area has been sold, and that the bulk of it still belongs to the company, shows clearly that if we grant these mineral rights to that company now, we have no guarantee that the company will not go into the market and say—

The Minister tells us that the mineral rights are worth very little. I agree with what the hon. member for Vredefort says, that very often the department may be of opinion that the mineral rights are not worth much, and then on further investigation, it may be found that the minerals there are very valuable. I consider that the State should not give away these rights, especially for a paltry sum of £225. Surely this Parliament and the Administration even of this Government or any other Government have spent very much larger sums than £225 without thinking so very seriously about it. I do not think that £225, therefore, should be a matter that should weigh with this committee on a question that affects so great a principle. The late Mr. Cecil Rhodes said that every man had his price. I want to know whether, as far as the Government is concerned, a principle which we consider very valuable, namely, that the mineral assets of the State shall belong to the State, in their opinion the price of selling that principle shall be £225. For these reasons I support the sending back of this proposal.

With all due deference to the Minister, I want to point out to him that he has had his mind focussed on the 1903 Ordinance. Paragraph 2 of the Reserved Minerals Act says that—

My point is that those plot holders have the exclusive right of dealing with those minerals.

There seems to be some mistake somewhere. The people who live in that part of the country must surely go and look at a proposition, if it is worth looking at. This proposition has been sold out, practically. Out of 427 plots, 400 are actually sold. The other is grazing ground. These plots may have been sold under misrepresentation. I take it also that the company knew when they were selling that they had no mineral rights to sell, but they did not tell those people whom they sold to.

How many morgen have been sold ?

There are only 427 plots altogether, and of these 27 are unsold. There are 160,000 trees planted on these plots. The grazing ground that belongs to the 38,000 is not going to be developed into plots. It cannot be sub-divided even, unless the plot-holders sub-divide it.

You are talking about the wrong case.

I am not on the wrong case; I am on the right case, No. 21. The hon. member ought to know better. He should know that he is not going to find 160,000 orange trees on Mapochs land. It does not say much for an ex-Minister of Lands if he does not know his own department. I say that in a case where plot-holders have been deceived and the plot-holders are not in this country—and we must never forget that South African land deals are stinking in European centres—I say that whether these people have been deceived or not, what we are doing is to try to do justice, not to the men who sold the land, but to the men who have bought it. This company cannot sell an acre more land of these plots.

Then why do they go and advertise it ?

They have got 27 lots more to sell. There are 160,000 orange trees on this ground. That is more valuable than any gold mine could be on that land. This Government has done justice to the Sundays River Estates, where people have been deceived. Are we going to be less generous to these other people, who have also been deceived ? These people come and say:“ We want freehold title,” and it is a question whether this committee is going to do justice to the people who have bought, or whether it is not going to do justice to them.

It does not happen every day that I agree with the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert), but to-day he has defended a good case. I am one of those who always urged care with regard to the granting by the Government of Crown land, but I think the Minister of Lands has brought forward a fair proposal here. It is a special case, and this is not a question of a general principle of all mineral rights, but the motion only refers to the rights on one farm.

That is the principle.

What are the mineral rights worth which are there being given up by the State ? I understand that we have to do with a company which has done a great deal for the advancement of agriculture and if we pass this recommendation, further development will be possible. If we do not do so, the ground will lie idle. I also want to ask whether the Government has not yet had enough trouble with the mineral rights on settlements and other places ? The Government intends to put this right, and passed an Act for this purpose last year. This recommendation only aims at giving title to the people who have bought ground, and it will assist in furthering agriculture there. I cannot quite understand the fuss about this matter, and will support the recommendation.

I think the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) have touched the spot. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) that we should very jealously guard the alienation of mineral rights in this country, and it is on that ground that I am speaking. I want to know from the Minister whether this is a property on which a large number of plots were sold to Indians on the representation that they could get title, and when these Indians discovered that they could not they threatened action, and then this company formed the Indians into a co-operative citrus company, and arranged with them to get their produce dealt with through the company and share the profits; and if knowingly this company sold to Indians to make an Indian settlement in the Transvaal. Secondly, I would like to see the prospectus put out to induce English purchasers to buy plots of land on the property. The whole thing needs careful investigation. I hope the Minister, if he is not fully aware of what I am saying, will take the recommendation back and inquire fully into it. Rather than put any company in a position to evade responsibilities in connection with their legal liabilities we ought to say—

A company that has got itself into trouble should not easily be helped out by Parliament on representations of this kind. I hope the Minister will be able to answer in regard to whether it is practically an Asiatic settlement on the representation that they could get title, when the company well knew they could not.

I am also against the recommendation, on principle. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) said that all the lots were practically sold, but those people are on the land and developing it. Then they have their lots on the commonage. What has that to do with the mineral rights ? I do not see from the proposal, that the mineral rights will go to the owners of the lots; they will go to the company. It is 4,506 morgen of ground, not at all a small piece. The Minister said that the ground has been inspected by the Mines Department. Was boring done, or was it merely superficially prospected ?It is necessary that it should be specially prospected and bore-holes sunk. There are many places in the Transvaal which, on a superficial examination, will give no indication; it is said that it is poor ground, and that there are no minerals, but in many cases later on when boring was done, or wells were dug for water, minerals have been found there. This large piece of ground cannot be prospected in a moment, and I want to know whether it has been thoroughly examined. It happens that a farm is inspected, and that it is said that it will not pay to mine for minerals there, yet four or five years later, after thorough prospecting, it is found that there are many minerals. The State must be careful in giving away its rights.

The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) made some insinuations which are quite news to me. He wanted to know whether the Minister was aware that the majority of plots were sold to Asiatics. That is the first time I have ever heard that any Asiatic was concerned in this matter. I do not believe that Indians are entitled to purchase land in the Transvaal. I am open to correction, but I do not think that they are. What I did hear yesterday, long after the committee considered this case, was that a certain Mr. Sampson is concerned in this company.

No, he is not.

I do not know what the Minister’s information is, but certainly the committee had no information about Indians being concerned in this affair at all.

Neither did I.

Of course, I know that the cross benchers are wedded to the principle of State ownership of mineral rights, but, personally, I think if a man purchases a farm, good luck to him if there are minerals on it. I think the object of this recommendation is to come to the relief of purchasers of plots from the company. I do trust the hon. member for Pretoria (West) was not correct when he said that the majority of plots have been sold to Asiatics. He did not actually state that; he wanted to know if that was the case, but his insinuation practically amounted to a statement.

It is well known that there are Indians in this company and that thousands of shares are held by Asiatics, and that in a subsidiary company two Asiatics are directors. I would like to know what reason the hon. member had for introducing the name of a member on these benches; it was for purely party propaganda. Two principles have come out of this debate. The first is—the State finding it has nothing to sell in the way of minerals, will accept money for it. That is quite a new principle. The second principle is that, because a company has sold a thing it does not possess, because it has misrepresented the position to the people it has sold to, we should give that company something instead of prosecuting that company. It is time we made the land laws a good deal tighter in this respect and prosecuted and put in gaol the people who misrepresent things to people overseas. The reason why South Africa is not as sweet in the nostrils of people overseas as we should like is because of that laxity in our land laws. What we should give is a sentence, not mineral rights. From everything that has come out the Minister should withdraw this altogether.

I want to take the same line as the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn). I think, instead of giving this particular company mineral rights, the Government should have an investigation made into this case of pretending to buy land for white men and holding it for Indians. I have made the statement before that Indians had been on the directorate. For this a director of the company threatened to sue me for libel. I told him to get on with it. He is the South African party member in the Provincial Council for Bloemfontein. I am sorry the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) brought in the name of Mr. Sampson. It is not a party thing. Here is a Minister of the Crown asking this House to say to the company—

This company wanted to sell ground in England, and did they say they did not have the mineral rights ? Of course they did not. Talk about 160,000 orange trees, where are they ? I say this company has done South Africa more harm in England than nearly every other company I know. I say that when the Crown Lands Committee goes into this question It should go into it properly. Who are these people ? Mr. Meyers, he has a wonderful reputation. If the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) did not know, he should not have got up and supported it. I have said before in this House that no man should be allowed to sell ground in England before the Government has reported on that ground. They will go to England and say they have mineral rights, and will float a diamond company, a platinum company, and float anything. It is not the first time companies have been floated in England on mineral rights, when they knew there were no mineral rights. I hope that the committee will vote strongly against this, and that the Minister and the committee will investigate who these people are.

Recommendation put and negatived.

Recommendations (22) to (28) put and agreed to.

On Recommendation (29),

I should like to have some information on this sale of land in the Somerset Road. I thought that the various cemeteries were taken over by the churches to which they belong, and I thought this belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church.

They sold it to the Provincial Administration, and they want to buy back another portion on which there is an old church. It cannot be done without parliamentary approval, and we have to pass it through the Union Parliament.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendation (30) put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported, considered and adopted, and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

I want to raise a point I raised on the second reading debate yesterday, with regard to sub-section (3), which applies to the case of a man who has been brought before a magistrate, and where the particular offence is not of that seriousness which applies to a man who should be tried before a judge and jury. The magistrate tries the case as a summary proceeding. He finds the man guilty, and in view of extenuating circumstances wishes to commit him to a labour colony instead of fining him or sentencing him to imprisonment, as he would do in an ordinary case. I cannot understand why in sub-section (3) it is provided that a person is deemed to be discharged without a verdict having been taken, and it has all the effects of an acquittal. I cannot understand the legal conception which allows a man who has been acquitted to be committed to a labour colony. You cannot exercise any restraint over him if he is acquitted. But if a man is brought before a judge and jury, the next sub-section provides—

I am quite willing to agree that a man’s record shall not have a conviction marked up against him, but I do think that for the purpose of this order he must be deemed to be guilty, or I cannot see why a magistrate ought to be authorized to commit him to a labour colony. I am not ready with an amendment, but I would like to move—

I would like to amend sub-section (4) in some way like this—

I will be content to move—

To omit sub-section (3);

and test the point which I have raised.

On the face of it it might appear to be a little contradictory, but when the Bill was originally drafted it made provision in both cases that there should be no conviction. But when it was submitted to the law advisers 12 months ago—and we had two very good law advisers at work on the Bill—they pointed out that as far as a judge and jury case was concerned, the judge could only satisfy himself that the person charged had committed that offence after the jury had given their verdict, and that was equivalent to a conviction on that offence. There was no other way out of it. They passed the one, but said they could not pass the other. Common-sense dictates that there is something to be said for what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) states, but I do not want to delete that section, and I would prefer if the hon. member would allow me to let it stand over. I will consult the law advisers and the department again, and see whether something satisfactory cannot be reached, and have it inserted at the report stage. I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

In paragraph 3, it is provided that if the wife and family of anyone sent to a labour colony apply to the Minister for leave to go and live in the colony, the local magistrate shall make inquiry and take evidence, and have to recommend to the Minister whether they can also be sent to the colony. Then paragraph 4 pro vides that the Minister, after receipt of the recommendation, can by writing under his hand send the wife and family to the colony. I object to that, because I do not think it ought to be left to the judgment of the magistrate to decide whether it would be a good thing for the family to go and live at such an institution. I do not wish to reflect on our magistrates, but it requires a very well-developed discretion to judge in such cases. We know that all of us have not sufficient knowledge as parents to deal with our children, and that hundreds of clever parents daily make mistakes. We know that teachers who have been specially trained are also full of faults and shortcomings. I should like it to be made obligatory for the Minister, after he has received the magistrate’s recommendation, to make inquiry and to get the views of local people, such as the minister of religion, the teachers, and others who know the people well.

I can see no objection to the amendment, because in the ordinary course of events the Minister will go into all the circumstances and satisfy himself that the magistrate’s recommendation was a sound one. The discretion is left to the Minister whether he will or will not carry out the magistrate’s recommendation.

I do not think we should send children to these institutions. I move—

Is the Minister very much wedded to the clause ? Some of us doubt whether it is desirable to have women and children in a labour colony where people will be committed for vagrancy, liquor offences, thefts, and other offences which are pretty serious. The atmosphere of a labour colony will be very detrimental indeed to children. The object, no doubt, is to provide an additional inducement to a man to reform, but I very much doubt whether that will prove so powerful an incentive as the prospect of returning to his family on completion of his term of residence. Some children may be born in the settlement, and consequently will all their lives be under the stigma of having seen the light of day in a labour colony.

We must be careful that we do not make these places penal colonies instead of work colonies. I do not see how we can take a man away from his wife and children. It would be more detrimental to them to be left in the streets of Johannesburg, Kimberley or Cape Town.

This very point was fully thrashed out by the Labour Advisory Council, which appointed a small committee, of which the late Rev. Dr. van der Merwe was a member, and which came to the conclusion that on the balance a man should have his wife and children with him, rather than that they should be left to subsist on charity. If they remained outside the labour colony, the State would not be prepared to look after them, any more than it looks after the dependents of a man who is sent to prison. The committee did not make a full report, but remodelled the Bill on the present lines. I do not think a stigma will attach to work colonies, because they will not be penal settlements surrounded with walls and police. The colony will be one of our present forest settlements, where there are schools, and where we shall be able to train the children better than they could possibly be cared for outside, walking the streets or depending on boards of aid and charity. The only two disabilities he will be under are that he has got to stay there, and he is disenfranchised. Apart from that, it will be run on the same lines as a forestry settlement is to-day, but more attention will be paid to the rehabilitation side. I hope that clause will not be turned down. It has been fully considered, and the balance is in favour of the wife and children being allowed to go there.

Are there any other experiences upon which this decision is based ?

I do not think we had many instances, but I think in Switzerland they have similar conditions where industrial schools are run on social lines and the occupants benefit by all the social amenities. I hope this clause will be left.

What provision is made for those families which are not allowed to go there ? I know they can apply to the magistrate, who may refuse to allow them to go. I think it should be compulsory for the families to go unless the wife can prove that she is better able to live without her husband. If it is left as it is, numbers of wives and children will not apply to go, and will be left at home to starve. It may be a case of saving the husband and ruining the family.

It cannot be compulsory, because a man might be a really bad egg, and it may be better for the family not to be associated with him. For instance, if a man goes to prison to-day, what provision is there for the wife and family? The committee came to the conclusion that the best way was to give the wife and family a chance if they wanted to go. If they do not want to go, the Labour Department may be able to get work for the women or the children, or put the children in some institution. We had considered the compulsory point, but it was decided to take that out, and to leave it to the magistrate to deal with it at his own discretion. If you tie it down too rigidly, it may land the department into difficulties of some sort. I think the committee will be well advised to leave us to take each case on its merits after considering all the circumstances.

I take it “ wife ” mentioned in Clause 8 will mean the one the man is legally married to, because there is a remarkable definition of “wife” in Clause 17, and I take it the definition in Clause 8 will have no connection with the definition in Clause 17.

That was another point which caused a good deal of difficulty. It was found that people of this type had been living for years not legally married, and had children, and for all practical purposes had lived together as man and wife. The committee decided that injustice might be done unless the definition was worded as it was. It might not appeal to my puritan friend, the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close).

The singular and the plural might have a big bearing on this case. I would like to know, when he says—

if the Minister will accept an amendment that it shall only consist of one in number.

We are not setting up a harem, but if the hon. member thinks it necessary to safeguard the position I will be prepared to accept an amendment.

I think we will leave it to the administrative genius of the department.

In our country you cannot separate a man from his wife. There is a love for family life and we must be very careful that we do not throw the children on the street if we take the husband away. There must be cottages arranged in such a scheme for the married people. It is an experiment in South Africa, and you must take the best from other colonies in England and Germany where they have been tried. We must try and get the wife and children into the colony, and not put them on the street. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration, and that this clause will be put in such a way that a man can have his wife and children there.

The point of the hon. member is met by the provision made in the clause. I don’t think there is anything in the clause to prevent an arrangement being made for the wife and children going into the colony, if they make application Surely if in connection with this clause we issue an order of compulsion, it will mean some will have to go who do not desire to go, and that will be in entire opposition to the spirit of the Act, and it will be in opposition to the spirit of every Act of this kind in any country. If we stick to the voluntary principle I think it is a principle which covers all the ground which is necessary.

I think we can take it for granted that a man sent to a colony like this is a man who has not been providing for his wife and children. He has been neglecting his wife and children, and they will be none the worse off if they are away from him. We cannot go so far as to force the wife into the colony. The wife is not convicted of anything, she might be a quite respectable person. Why should you, on account of the offence of the husband, penalize the wife also ?It must be a voluntary matter.

I must confess to some feelings of fear about the prospect of the children who go to this settlement. Our public school system receives children of various races and classes and trains them together on identical lines which should bear good fruit for the future of the country, but what will be the result when a child is compelled to go to these settlements, and afterwards goes into life with the stigma that he has resided and has been educated in a place of that sort ?

What will the stigma be if the child is left in a bad environment where he grows up under the influence of a bad father, and has been continually employed for some sort of wrong purpose. What stigma then will attach to him ? I take it we shall take out of the works colony as much as possible the stigma of a penal colony. The child who goes to the colony will get proper schooling, and will be no worse off than the child who goes to a reformatory. What stigma is there on the child who has been in a reformatory, but who has made good and has become a good citizen for the future. What right-minded man will ever accuse that child of having been in a reformatory ? What stigma will be placed on a child who has been forced through the evil ways of his father to go to a colony such as this and who has made good in that colony ? I think it would be an honour to that child that under these circumstances he has grown into a useful citizen.

What I feel is that if children go to that colony adequate provision would be made so that they would be properly educated. We do not ask for compulsion. We have not only got to deal with a husband who does not maintain his wife, but we have also got to do with men who contravene the vagrancy laws or who have, for instance, been selling illicit liquor. We feel that here you have got a man who through his poverty has been selling illicit liquor and who has a family. We recognize that it must be absolutely voluntary but still there is a chance for the wife and children to be there. I agree with the hon. member for East London (City) (Rev. Mr. Rider) and if I thought that the colony would be a detriment to the future of the child I would say keep him away. But that is the crux of the question. The child must be taken out of its terrible environment. I am quite sure that we do not intend that in that colony children shall not be brought up properly. What will become of a child if it is left in the slums of Johannesburgor Cape Town ? As the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Rev. Mr. Fick) said it is not a penal colony, but a colony where we want to make men and women into good citizens.

I am very sorry indeed that the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) has been badly ruffled by what I said yesterday afternoon. I did not for a moment intend to make an attack upon him. In spite of his experience of these labour colonies in Germany, I think he was under a misapprehension. I do not know how long it is since he was at any of these labour colonies. I tried to point out that in Germany there is not a single colony of the type that is contemplated in this Bill. I tried to point out that in this very Bill the name given to it in Afrikaans is leading people to a wrong impression. In regard to the point we are discussing now, I agree with the Minister that we ought not to penalize the wife and children and bring them into the colony straight away. I think it ought to be a voluntary business.

Before the amendments are put, I would like to hear the Minister’s views on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw).

That amendment is not necessary. The Bill provides that a person must be committed to a colony for not less than one year or not more than five years.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. P. Louw put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I would like to put it to the Minister whether he does not think the power of release should only be exercised on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, as is done in the case of a man committed on an indeterminate sentence. It seems to me that we might have a Minister—I do not say the present Minister—who would simply take the bit between his teeth and make release orders on his own initiative. I would like to move, in order to test the question—

Certainly that might be a protection to the Minister; there is that point of view. On the other hand, it might perhaps be a little embarrassing. There might be circumstantces which the Minister would know about and which the Department would know about, or which the magistrate might know about, and the board might not be meeting for several weeks. It might be a case of drafting a man into employment. Personally, I have no objection to the amendment, but I can conceive that practical difficulties may arise, where we might want to do something on the recommendation of a magistrate or the departmental officials. We might want to put a man into some employment and that may mean that the board has to be specially called together in order to do that.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) whether it would not be better to substitute “ superintendent ” for “ advisory board.” He knows everything about the men who have come there.

I do not agree with the hon. member. After all is said and done, the board is an independent body and they will probably be influenced by the advice of the superintendent, with whom they will be in consultation all the time. I do not think that that suggestion is a good one.

Everything will depend on the character of the board if you are going to make them a success.

That is quite true. Of course, the Minister has to take the responsibility. What will happen is that if the Minister comes across a man or his attention is drawn to a man who is industrious and trustworthy, he would refer the case to the board and ask them to report on it. I think it will cause difficulty if you tie the Minister’s hands, but I do not mind being tied, because at the same time it might be protection. It is just a question as to whether it might be embarrassing and cumbrous.

You will find a way out of that.

As I say, I have no objection. From my point of view, it is a protection.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, in his speech on the second reading, he said it was the intention to get rid of one of the forest settlements in connection with the Forestry Department for the purpose of using one of these forest settlements for this particular establishment.

Not getting rid of it, but utilizing it.

You are getting rid of it as a forest settlement under existing conditions. As the Minister knows, I took a great deal of interest in the establishment of these forest settlement villages. I really believe, from following up very carefully the work done, that they have been of considerable benefit. The people there are an entirely different class of people from those you desire to benefit now. We were able to attract to the forest settlements people out of employment through no fault of their own, but owing to the particular economic circumstances through which the country was passing at that time, We found, and I daresay the Minister of Agriculture has found since, that in some of these forest settlements a large proportion of people has made good. Some have been on daily pay, and others on piece work, and I understand there has been a continuation of a large number of these people making good. The idea was that they should have the opportunity of rehabilitating themselves, and again being placed on the land. I hope in any arrangement the Minister is making he is not going to curtail the benefit or the extent of these forest village settlements. I think the Minister will agree with me that to make the settlements a success, you cannot have too many people on one settlement, and if the Forestry Department is going to surrender to the Minister one of the settlements for the purpose of placing this class of people there, it must curtail the opportunities for employing the other class of people for which the forest settlements were established. I do consider it would be a great mistake if we were in any way to limit the good work the forest settlements have done, and I think the Minister of Agriculture will be able to bear me out that there were cases where men out of employment, through no fault of their own, were taken on to these settlements on piece work, and made as much as £20 or £21 per month. We had to introduce a regulation to prevent people from working with their families by moonlight, and even on Sundays, such was the desire of these people to make good. I hope the Minister will not take any steps which will curtail the possibilities which the Forestry Department have of from time to time, taking suitable people and placing them on these settlements.

I am glad the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has raised this point, because it is just as well that the House should have a little information on it. The position is this, that on all the forestry settlements today there are just under 1,000 families. We have come to this conclusion, that to a certain extent it provides a dead end for numbers of men who, if they had a different chance, would make good farmers on small holdings elsewhere. But they have got to the dead end of forestry, as it were, and there they stick, in some cases detrimentally to their health, because the work is heavy. During the last 12 months the department has, by persuasion, and now by compulsion, taken some of the best men off the forestry settlements, and we are compelling them to go on to training farms where they will get three to eight morgen plots. Under the last Government there was no provision for a man to go from the forestry settlement outside. We are saying to these people—

Where are you training them ?

At Hartebeestpoort. We have 33,000 acres. There are about 250 men taken from all places and put on communal farming—general farming. We pick out the best of them, and put them on three-morgen plots under water, and they get the ordinary rate per day, and, in addition, they get the balance of what their crops produce. When they have been 18 months on the three-morgen plots, we have a provision for passing them on to eight or ten-morgen plots, where some are able to make £300, £400 or £500 a year. We are now reaching the stage when we can see exactly what we are doing. We have taken over 200 from the forestry settlements and are putting them on this other scheme. So there will be no difficulty about transferring these people and making openings for the numbers we want for this particular purpose. There will still be 800 or 900 on forestry all the time, but they will not be the same people.

You will not mix them up ?

No.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move—

It is the same in English. The name “ labour colony ” is a standard term with us, and it means something quite different from what is here being created. The first colony which I have in mind was established about 25 years ago. The name may be a little incorrect, but the colonies have always been known by that name, and I move the amendment so as to prevent confusion with regard to other Acts which also refer to labour colonies.

I am prepared to accept that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The committee reverted to Clause 6, standing over.

Would the Minister consider whether a court in which the judge sits with assessors comes under this section as it stands ?

I presume it does.

You might consider that.

The amendment I suggested was the omission of sub-section (3) and a certain corresponding amendment in sub-section (4); but I would be quite willing to see this clause passed by the committee and bring up the matter on the report stage. I withdraw the amendment.

With leave of committee the amendment proposed by Mr. Duncan withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On the title, an alteration was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments and specially an alteration in the Dutch version of the title.

I move—

Does that give time to put the amendments on the paper ?

I will make it Monday.

Amendments to be considered on 28th March.

I move—

The Bill does not make its appearance in the House for the first time. It was introduced by me last session, but, unfortunately, owing to lack of time and pressure of other business in the House, it could not be put on the statute book, though already last year I thought that this Bill was fairly urgent. The Bill is reintroduced this year in practically the same form as it was introduced last year, and if there are any alterations they are only slight. The Act which this Bill proposes to amend is the Public Health Act of 1919, which is well known to every member of this honourable House, and was passed after the unfortunate experiences through which the Union passed as the result of the ’flu epidemic in 1918, as a result of which the Union lost no fewer than over half a million of its inhabitants. The legislation which was introduced at that time was based on the experiences of the ’flu epidemic, and it certainly marked a new epoch, and was certainly a new departure as far as public health administration was concerned. But, as is the case with all new legislation, it itself had to be tested by experience, and we have now had the experience of the Act for the last eight years, which has shown that there certainly is a necessity to make amendments to that Act, to clear up quite a number of doubtful points, and to remedy certain defects in that Act. Apart from that, there have been certain new developments in the Union of which the Act of 1919 could not naturally take any account. I more especially refer to developments in connection with the alluvial diggings. In the committee stage I hope to deal with a number of amendments which are of minor importance, and which it is unnecessary for me to touch on at the second reading stage, and at this stage I will confine myself to the more important features of the Bill. The first provision I wish to deal with is in connection with the alluvial diamond diggings. Since 1919, when the Public Health Act was passed, there has been a very remarkable and unforeseen development. At that time we had alluvial diggings in the district of Barkly West only, but since then they have been proclaimed to a very large extent in the district of Hopetown, and recently in the district of Lichtenburg. This extension of the alluvial diamond diggings far exceeds anything previously known. From a health point of view the distinguishing feature of these diggings is that in a very short time—very often in a single day—large masses of people are concentrated in a very small area. These people, to a very considerable extent, are there for temporary purposes only, and many being disappointed, remain on the fields only for a brief period. Under these circumstances we have to deal with a position in which no provision can possibly be made before hand to grapple with, either in the shape of the taking of sanitary measures, or in providing for housing accommodation. If, under such circumstances, sanitary conditions are, to say the least, deplorable, and epidemics are to be prevented, then that situation calls for rapid and firm action. Unfortunately, the machinery we have at present is not suitable for dealing with such a situation. Under the existing laws the responsibility is shared by different authorities. In the first place, the provision of sanitation and hospital accommodation, and the taking of preventative measures generally, are the function of the local authority. The Public Health Department, according to the Act of 1919, performs only the general function of supervision, and under certain circumstances it may direct what is to be done. But the department cannot act of itself, nor has it the necessary machinery to enable it to do so. If it does not it may do so only in the last instance, and only when there is an actual outbreak of infectious disease. Behind the local authority is the Provincial Administration. In the Cape the local authority is the Divisional Council, but the difficulty with the divisional councils is that, as far as public health is concerned, they have practically no experience at all, and when they have to face a new situation such as that which arose in Hopetown or Lichtenburg, they do not know what to do. In the other provinces there are no divisional councils, and the local authority is the local magistrate. The difficulty again is that the magistrate may not live in the actual locality. That was the case in connection with the alluvial diggings in the Hopetown district. The magistrate lived in Hopetown, but the diggings were from 80 to 100 miles away, so the magistrate was not the most suitable person to grapple with the situation. There is another difficulty, and that is of a financial nature. I will cite the Hopetown diggings. Last year, or the year before, enteric fever broke out in a very serious form at the alluvial diggings at Brakfontein. The Public Health Department asked the local authority to take the necessary sanitary measures, to erect a small temporary hospital for the serious cases and to isolate them. The Divisional Council replied that the financial responsibility was too much for them to bear, and they pointed out that 3,000 people had been concentrated in the district of Hope town by a proclamation of the Union Government, which was not the responsibility of the Divisional Council. They also pointed out that the revenue from these alluvial diggings went to the treasury, and that the Divisional Council did not derive any revenue from these people. They added that they were a poor council and that it was impossible for them to shoulder the responsibility. Under the circumstances the Public Health Department could do nothing but report the matter to the Administrator, and ask him to compel, if necessary, the Divisional Council to act, or otherwise to act himself and pay the necessary expenditure out of provincial funds. The Administrator replied that he was not willing to do so, and only after a good deal of negotiation did we get the Administrator to act, and to secure the cooperation of the Divisional Council, to a certain extent, but under the clear understanding that legislation would be introduced to amend the law and to place some of the responsibility which now rests on a small and poor local authority, on to the shoulders of the Union Government. The position of the Public Health Department in the case of the outbreak of enteric at the Brakfontein alluvial diggings was, that if the Administrator did not want to act, to compel him to act and make the Administration pay all the expenses incurred. It was an invidious position; it was either that or let these people die without proper care. The Bill now before the House seeks to amend the Public Health Act in this way, that the local mining commissioner shall be the local authority on the alluvial diggings. The diggers’ committees shall be held responsible to cooperate as far as possible with the mining com-commissioner, and the mining commissioner, as the local authority shall act under the instructions of the local Health Department, and the Government, which proclaims these alluvial diggings, and receives all the revenue from them, shall foot the bill. There is another section of some importance in the Bill which also deals with a situation which has arisen during the last eight years. There are certain districts, especially in the north of the Transvaal, which are malaria stricken, and the people in these parts insist that in every small centre provision shall be made by the Government by the appointment of district surgeons. The Public Health Department has found that practically impossible. It will be too expensive a system. We initiated a system by which a district surgeon in certain centres should at certain times visit a number of out-stations in his area and people can come to these out-stations to be treated. All the Government did was to pay the travelling expenses of the district surgeon from headquarters to the different out-stations and back. That system was initiated by one of my predecessors, either the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) or the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). It worked very well, but, unfortunately, the Auditor-General disallowed the expenses, and said we had no power to initiate such a system, and we are now asking that the possibility of such a system shall be legalized by Parliament. I realize the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will ask what expenditure that will lead to in the end, and that he will point out that in sparsely-populated districts the people will come and ask for similar out-stations. Now let me say generally that if we could find the money, such a system would certainly be of very great assistance to people living in sparsely-populated districts and to the rural population generally. If we institute such a system in sparsely-populated districts generally, it would be possible for the Public Health Department to appoint district surgeons on the condition, if they visited the out-station at certain stated times, the people from surrounding districts should come to the out-stations to be treated by them, and they should make the people pay as if they had been treated at headquarters and not at the out-station. If they visit any farms they should make the farmer pay according to the distance from the out-station to the farm, and not according to the distance from headquarters. I realize this system is capable of great extension—

And abuses.

Yes, abuses are possible, but the safeguard is that we make provision in the Bill that any money to be expended shall be specially voted year by year by Parliament, so that it is possible for the treasury and Parliament to control the expenditure in that direction. It is more economical generally to introduce this system in some parts of the country than to multiply the district surgeons. There is another provision of importance in this Bill, and that is the one dealing with the training of midwives. Everybody realizes of what great importance the supply of a large number of well-trained midwives is for the country. I have stated, and my predecessors have stated on various occasions, that the infant mortality in South Africa is certainly abnormal, and the only way to deal with it is to spread information and have a good supply of well-trained midwives. With regard to the expenses of the training of midwives, there has been a good deal of uncertainty up to the present, and because of that the training of midwives has been one of the most neglected services in connection with public health in the country. There was some doubt as to where the responsibility rested. Of course, there is no question as to where the responsibility rests for the establishment and maintenance of maternity homes. That is a matter for the provincial administration. There is also the question as to where the responsibility rests for the training of midwives who serve in these maternity hospitals. There is also a responsibility resting on the shoulders of the provincial administration, but the question is what is the authority responsible for the training of midwives who work outside the institution. There has been a difference of opinion regarding that between the provincial auditor of the Transvaal and the provincial auditor of the Cape. The provincial auditor of the Transvaal took the view that it was not a responsibility resting on the shoulders of the provincial administration, but that it belonged to the functions and the responsibilities of the Union Government. The provincial auditor of the Cape allowed any expenditure in that direction. A year ago, or a little more, I had a conference with the four Administrators of the provinces in Cape Town, and this matter was discussed with them. Then we agreed to refer this whole question to the law adviser and find out exactly what the legal position was. The opinion of the law adviser was that the provincial auditor of the Transvaal was right, and that the training of maternity nurses to work outside or over and above the needs of maternity institutions was a responsibility that rested on the shoulders of the Union Government. This placed before us a new position, and it is this—that if the Union Government is to train maternity nurses for work outside institutions, then we must do one of two things, and that is, establish in different parts of the country special training institutions for such maternity nurses as institutions of our own under the direct supervision of the Union Government, or, otherwise, we must make use of the existing institutions under the provincial administrations for the training of maternity nurses. All hon. members will agree that the second alternative is certainly the least expensive, and that is the method we have to adopt, but if we decide to adopt that method, then we are up against this difficulty again, that under the Public Health Act of 1919 the Public Health Department has got no power to subsidize such institutions or the provincial administration for the training of such maternity nurses, and, therefore, that door was closed to us. Now to obviate the necessity of choosing the more expensive method, we come to Parliament, and, through this Bill, we ask Parliament to come to an arrangement with the provincial administrations and have maternity nurses trained in maternity hospitals under the provincial administration. Now there is another provision in connection with maternity nursing, and dealing especially with maternity and nursing homes. As the matter stands now, the supervision over these institutions, which are private institutions, is very lax, and the only provision that we have in the Public Health Act of 1919 is that such institutions may be registered by the Public Health Department. But if these institutions, nursing and maternity homes, are inspected, and it is found that they do not fulfil the requirements of the department, we have got no power, if they apply for registration, to refuse such registration on the ground that they are not satisfactory, and the power that we now seek is not only that we may register such institutions, but if we find that the grounds for refusal are sufficient, that we may refuse, in certain cases, to grant registration.

Are you compelling them to register ?

No, but they may be inspected compulsorily.

I come to another provision in the Bill which is of importance. It is of importance because it has a direct bearing on the future hospital policy of the country. As hon. members will know, the responsibility for the erection and maintenance of hospitals for ordinary diseases rests on the shoulders of the provincial authorities, but, as far as infectious diseases are concerned, there the responsibility rests on the shoulders of local authorities, acting under the direction of the Department of Public Health. Now the result of this system is that in quite a number of centres, because these authorities are quite different, the local authorities, acting under the direction of the Department of Health, have to erect their own isolation hospitals practically for all infectious diseases. That is a very expensive system, and not only is it very expensive, but it is also very ineffective. For the larger portion of the year in most of these centres, there are no infectious diseases to speak of, and, therefore, these isolation hospitals remain empty, but you have got the buildings to maintain, and you must maintain a staff for that hospital specially without any work to do, and when an epidemic comes then it is the experience that the accommodation available in these isolation hospitals is altogether insufficient. From a health point of view, there is nothing against the combination in one hospital of accommodation for patients having ordinary diseases and patients suffering from infectious diseases. That is the information I have from the medical authorities, that in principle, or from a health point of view, there is no objection to combining, as long as the wards are isolated, the one from the other. As a matter of fact, under the Public Health Act, the Minister of Public Health has got the right to insist that provincial administrations shall make provision in ordinary hospitals for cases of tuberculosis. Now all we ask in this Bill is that we shall have the same power to demand or insist that provincial administrations shall make proper provision in isolation wards for other infectious diseases as well, and in that way we can have in most centres one institution dealing with both kinds of disease, and using the staff which is connected with the hospital for both. That will be more effective and less expensive. Now there is another provision in the Bill which deals more especially with venereal disease. As Parliament knows, venereal disease has become a very great menace to the community, and it is certainly one of the most difficult diseases to combat, more difficult than other diseases on account of its secret nature. Now the difficulty in the combating of this disease does not lie with the existing law. The laws that we have in connection with venereal disease are very stringent. It is, for instance, an offence for any person suffering from venereal disease not to go for treatment to a medical practitioner. It is also an offence for anybody to employ a person who suffers from venereal disease knowing that that person is suffering from that disease. It is an offence for anyone suffering from that disease to be employed anywhere. The law as it stands to-day is very stringent, but in the nature of the case it is very difficult to carry out this law. It is all a question of how such cases are brought to the notice of the proper authorities. As the law stands now, the only persons who are entitled, who are obliged, under the existing law to bring to the notice of the proper authorities all cases of venereal disease coming under their notice which are not under proper treatment are the district surgeons. The ordinary doctor is not obliged to do it, and as the law stands now it is rather dangerous for them to do it. They may be sued for libel; and what we now seek under the amending Bill which is being introduced is that it shall be made obligatory on all medical practitioners to bring to the notice of the proper authorities, so as to enable them to deal with such a case, all cases of venereal disease of which they know and of which they also know that the patients refuse to be treated, or to be properly treated by medical practitioners. If this becomes law and comes into operation, I think it will be a very important step forward in dealing more effectively with this dangerous disease.

Supposing the doctor makes a mistake.

Doctors make mistakes just like business men and just like lawyers. As long as he acts bona fide. There is another section of the Bill which deals more especially with refunds by the Public Health Department to local authorities. First of all I deal here with an amendment of Section 9 of the Public Health Act of 1919, Section 9, sub-section (2) (b). As the law stands now, as that section stands now in the Act of 1919, the Government must refund to the local authority, that is to say, in cases where the magistrate is the local authority; it applies to the three northern provinces; they must refund to the provincial administration what should be refunded if that local authority were a divisional council or were a municipality, and at the same time it must refund the half of the rest of the expenditure incurred. It is quite clear that this provision was based on the previously existing financial relations between the Union Government and the provinces, which was based on the pound for pound principle. But during the last few years we have had another arrangement between the Union Government and the provinces, and we now pay to the provinces a subsidy in respect of education, hut for other services the provinces are alone responsible. Now in the light of that new arrangement, this provision 9 (2) (b) must be amended, and what we now ask Parliament to do is to amend this section in such a way that to the provincial administration in such cases will be paid by the Union Government what is due in ordinary circumstances to a local authority, but that the rest of the expenditure incurred shall be borne by the provincial administration alone. In connection with refunds, there is another provision, and that is to meet a complaint that we have heard from all sides from small local authorities. As the law now stands, the Government can refund to a local authority one-third of the expenditure incurred in connection with the appointment of a full-time and fully-qualified sanitary inspector or medical officer of health, but now these small municipalities say, and say justly, that this is really a provision in the existing Act creating a privilege for the larger centres, and that it is impossible for the smaller centres to benefit under that arrangement. The appointment of a full-time sanitary inspector who is well qualified does very often make, as far as sanitation in a small centre is concerned, a world of difference. That world of difference can be very easily noticed by anyone who visited, for instance, Beaufort West 10 or 15 years ago, and visits Beaufort West to-day. In the meantime, Beaufort West has appointed a full-time sanitary inspector, and that has made all the difference.

That is not a small place.

I am speaking of the smaller centres. For instance, Laingsburg. Laingsburg says it is too small to appoint a sanitary inspector who is a full-time officer, because there is really not sufficient work for him to do, but they say if the duties of sanitary inspector could in their case be combined with the duties of location superintendent, then they could appoint a fulltime man for these duties combined, and they would very much like, under such circumstances, to benefit under the refund provisions of the Act. What we propose to do is to extend the provision of the Act in such a way that the smaller municipalities will be able to appoint such officials and to benefit. In connection with refunds there is one other point, and that is that we ask Parliament to give powers to the department to extend the maximum of £750 as a part refund for the appointment of a full-time health officer. As hon. members will see, under the existing Act it is in the discretion of the Minister to approve the appointment of a full-time health officer or sanitary inspector, not for one municipality, but for a group of municipalities or local authorities, as has been done, for instance, in the case of the Cape Peninsula. But no provision is made under the existing law in such a case to exceed the limit of £750, which is put there. Now it is very often very much more economical to exceed the limit of £750 to a slight extent, than to appoint for each of these local authorities a full-time sanitary inspector or medical officer of health, and then to make a part refund to all these authorities under the existing law; so we ask power, under certain circumstances and in the case of groups, that the maximum of £750 can be exceeded. Now I come to the last provision, which I think is one of the most important, and that is in connection with vaccination. We ask the amendment of the existing law in such a way that we can meet the scruples of conscientious objectors. I need hardly say that the headquarters of these conscientious objectors against vaccination is to be found, of course, in that human curiosity shop—Durban. Let me first state the position as it is under the existing law, or rather, the position as it was before the Act of 1919 came into force. Before the public health laws of the four provinces were consolidated, we had compulsory vaccination provisions in the Cape Province, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, but provision was made in the Natal laws for the exemption of conscientious objectors. When the Act of 1919 was passed, compulsory vaccination was introduced, and in that way the privilege which the conscientious objectors in Natal had was taken away from them. The history of the case is this—some time after that Act was passed, the then Prime Minister of the Union, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) visited Durban, and I think it was shortly before the by-election which took place at that time at Stamford Hill; and these conscientious objectors raised their voices, as they very well can, at a meeting the right hon. member held there, and he promised them he would see to it that the law was amended some time or other, but that in the meantime no prosecutions were to be instituted against those who refused, on conscientious grounds, to be vaccinated. Well, the result of that was that there has been a very rapid falling off in the number of vaccinations in the Union. That has taken place to an extent which has certainly become alarming. In 1920 the number of vaccinations was 523,300; in 1921, 622,000; in 1923 it had fallen to 543,000; in 1924 it was 394,000; in 1925, 364,000. In the last year there was a slight increase again, and it rose to 433,000. The reason was because there was a serious outbreak of smallpox in Durban, and I can tell the House that the number of people coming to be vaccinated—including the conscientious objectors—was really very satisfactory in Durban. But the position has come to this to-day—that of the registered births for the year ended 30th June, 1925, out of 76,800 European and coloured births registered, only 10,331, or 13 per cent., were vaccinated. If we go further in this direction, the result will be —it is already the result at present—that a most dangerous position will be created in the Union.

Are you sure you have a record of all the vaccinations ?

Yes. All these vaccinations are recorded by the registrar of vaccination in every province The amended Bill proceeds upon this principle—that it makes a distinction between the position when there is an actual epidemic or a threatened and a threatened outbreak of an epidemic, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, normal circumstances and conditions. As far as an actual outbreak of epidemic or a threatened outbreak of epidemic is concerned, no exemption is allowed for conscientious objectors. The view underlying this distinction or this refusal to make an exemption in such cases is that when there is an acutal epidemic or a threatened outbreak, we have a state analogous to a state of war. When there is a state of war, private right is not allowed to stand in the way of public safety; and when there is an actual epidemic of such a virulent disease as smallpox, private rights or objections must not stand in the way of public safety. I think that is the sound view underlying this distinction. We are quite ready, in normal times, to take account of the objections of conscientious objectors, and make exemptions for them. Let me just say, in passing, that these provisions in the Bill have been taken over just as they have been drawn up by my predecessor. The whole question was dealt with by him in this House, and he had contracted negotiations with the conscientious objectors themselves. I have simply adopted the amendments as they were drawn up by him. The procedure to be followed in normal times is that they must apply, within six months of the birth of a child, or within a certain period, if they are themselves not vaccinated, on a certain prescribed form. They must appear in person before the district registrar of vaccination, and must make an affidavit stating on what grounds they object to compulsory vaccination. The application and the affidavit are transmitted to the registrar of vaccination of the province, and it lies with him to take a decision concerning these objections. In reaching his decision, he takes into consideration whether the applicant for exemption has sufficient knowledge and intelligence to form an intelligent judgment, and whether his objection on these or other grounds are genuine or not. The method which is adopted to find out whether an applicant is a bona fide conscientious objector or not is that of sacrifice. In other words, it is easier for a conscientious objector to comply with the law than to obtain an exemption. The small sacrifice that is required is the test whether the objection is genuine or not.

What is the sacrifice?

Generally, it is easier for a person to comply with the law than to get exemption. I think these provisions are very fair, and go very far to meet genuine conscientious objections. I hope the House will assist us in placing this measure on the statute book.

We are all indebted to the Minister for the extremely careful manner in which he has explained the Bill, but I am disappointed on one point, and that is that the measure will throw a very considerable burden on the taxpayer, for the Minister talks about title provision of proper sanitation on the alluvial diamond fields, increasing the subsidy for certain sanitary inspectors and giving subsidies to training institutions for midwives. But he has not told us what this is going to cost. I cannot conceive the Minister of Finance not insisting on that information.

Oh, yes; we have got it all right.

Then the Minister should have given us the figures.

There are one or two points I would like to touch upon, but I do not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill because I agree that it is urgently required. I know from my own experience the difficulties encountered regarding the insanitary condition of the alluvial diamond diggings, but I am not quite sure that the provisions in the Bill will go far enough. Since the trouble first arose in the case of Hopetown our alluvial diamond diggings have grown out of all recognition, and are more like enormous cities than diamond diggings. It is rather doubtful whether the mining commissioner will be capable of coping with sanitary problems on the great alluvial diggings. It occurs to me that in these cases it might be better for a special health officer to be appointed. I am afraid the mining commissioner, who will be worried with all sorts of questions pertaining to his own particular duties, will hardly have sufficient time, and certainly not enough experience, to deal with health problems. I quite agree as to the necessity for provision being made for district surgeons to visit outside places and their travelling expenses being defrayed by the Government. I know that opens up the far-reaching question of what some people call a State medical service, and whether the State is justified in providing medical services for people who can themselves pay for such services, either wholly or partly. The answer to that is that this is a country of peculiar conditions. We are trying to have the land opened up in parts far from towns and railways, but one of the great obstacles is the absence of any provision for medical attention to the settlers and their families. If they are left to provide that for themselves then we shall find it a great deterrent to people wishing to settle in the outlying parts of the country. I am in sympathy with the proposals of this Bill which are that the Government will pay the costs of the transport of the district surgeon to the outlying stations and that the outlying stations, for the purposes of his attendance, will be considered as his headquarters. I agree with the Minister it is a matter which will require to be carefully watched and carried out under special safeguards. Another point upon which I want to touch was the training of midwives. I do not want to deal so much with the question of training but rather with the provision made under section 19 of the Bill which provides that the Minister can make certain regulations, particularly in the new sub-section (3), where the Minister can make, after consultation with the medical council, regulations as to provision by the local authorities in the interests of public health of persons other than medical practitioners, as nurses, and empowers the local authority to keep a list of such persons and to prohibit any persons not on the list from practising. We must be careful there will not be a clash between this Bill and the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill which provides for the registration and certification of midwives and the removal from the register of people who may become disqualified. I am not quite clear in what way the local authorities will be able to exercise their powers without coming into clash with the powers of the Medical Council under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill. I would like to know if the Minister has considered the question of making provision by subsidy or otherwise for the creation of nursing centres in outlying parts of the country. There is a crying need particularly for maternity nursing, and nothing is being done except what is provided by private organizations Is anything going to be done to facilitate the establishment in small country districts and towns of providing nurses and midwives ? The only other point I should like to deal with is the question of vaccination. As the Minister said, the great difficulties in the way of conscientious objection to vaccination have come from Durban. I will not apply the term he applied to it, because one of his valued colleagues comes from what he calls—

So I will not harrow his feelings with that, but at one time he held very peculiar views on the question of vaccination. I do want to take exception to what the Minister conveyed, rather than said, in regard to the undertaking given to a certain society in Durban which had conscientious objections to vaccination. The undertaking was that pending a certain time, prosecutions would not be taken against them. The Minister gave us to understand that the late Prime Minister went down on the eve of an election and had an interview and the innuendo was, that in order to fish for votes, he gave an undertaking not to prosecute them for offences against the vaccination laws. If the Minister intended to convey that meaning, it was altogether unfounded. The circumstances are that the late Prime Minister visited Durban, and I was present with him as the Minister of Public Health, and we met by appointment a deputation from the particular association in Durban which objects to vaccination —the Anti-vaccination Society—and they came to see him, not because of an election pending, I don’t remember whether it was pending or not, but as far as I was concerned as Minister of Public Health, it did not enter my head, what was happening in regard to the election or otherwise. The trouble was that a number of estimable people were being pressed regarding vaccination, and they threatened that they would go to prison for the rest of their lives, rather than submit to the vaccination laws, and we know from experience from other countries, what people can do in the direction of making martyrs of themselves in regard to vaccination, and it was my desire to meet them by amending the law without giving up the principle of compulsory vaccination, rather than to fill the gaol with the people who would have gone there in defence of their principles. We gave an undertaking that, pending their being able to come to Parliament on the question of conscientious objection, pending the time when Parliament would meet, and they could put their views before us, that we would not enforce prosecutions against them for non-compliance with the vaccination laws. That was the undertaking given to them, and there it ended, and as far as I am concerned as Minister of Public Health, that was the only undertaking to which I considered myself bound.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.8. p.m.

When the House suspended business I was dealing with the clause of this Bill relating to vaccination and with the suggestion made by the Minister which, I think, was wholly uncalled for and unworthy that the arrangement made between the late Government and the Anti-vaccination Society in Durban was made purely for electioneering purposes. No, it was made because I, at any rate, as Minister of Public Health, recognized that the people who belong to anti-vaccination societies, although they may be fanatics, and, in my opinion, are at times dangerous fanatics, are, at any rate, men who are entitled to their opinions and men who are prepared to undergo very considerable sacrifices for the sake of what they regard as their principles. I do not agree with them, but I recognize that that is their attitude, and I particularly, as Minister of Public Health, was very anxious to avoid having repeated in South Africa what has happened so often in other countries, that is to say that large numbers of respectable citizens are sentenced to imprisonment for the sake of principle, and I was willing to make any sort of reasonable arrangement which would meet their views and, at the same time, safeguard what I regard as a very important principle, the principle of compulsory vaccination. What they represented to us—when I say “ us ” I mean the late Prime Minister and myself—was that they had not an opportunity of bringing before Parliament their particular views in regard to compulsory vaccination, and they believed that if they were allowed to bring their views before Parliament, Parliament would allow them to have an exemption from the principle of compulsory vaccination. What we agreed to was this, and nothing more—that we should not institute prosecutions against them for failure to comply with the vaccination laws until they had had an opportunity of bringing their case before Parliament and of taking the decision of Parliament upon it. That they intended to do, as I understood, by means of a Bill introduced by a private member of Parliament purporting to give effect to their views in regard to compulsory vaccination. That was the agreement, and it was made, as far as I was concerned, with a view of avoiding, as far as possible, a conflict between the law and a body of men whose opinions, however much you might differ from them, I felt we had to allow a certain amount of respect to, and it was not for any electioneering purpose whatsoever. The Bill which they said they proposed to bring forward was duly introduced into this House in the session of 1923; at any rate, I take it that that was so, because in that session a Bill was introduced by a then private member, now the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Durban (Greyville).

One of the “ curiosities.”

I suppose that is one of the specimens from the “ curiosity shop ” that was mentioned this afternoon. The present Minister of Labour introduced a Bill to amend the Public Health Act of 1919 in respect to vaccination, and the substance of it was that if any parent or guardian of a child came before a magistrate and made a declaration stating that be conscientiously objected to the vaccination of his child, then ipso facto that child should be exempt from vaccination.

That is the English Act.

I am not concerned now whether it is the English Act or whether it emanated from the “ curiosity shop.” My point is that this was a Bill introduced by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville), as he then was, in order to give effect to the views of these anti-vaccination societies in Natal, who interviewed the then Prime Minister and myself. On the motion for the second reading of that Bill, some members of the House, including myself, voted against it, but the second reading was carried. When the Bill came into committee the hon. member in charge of the Bill apparently discovered what he had previously overlooked, and that was that he had not provided for the extension to Clause 100 of his principle of conscientious objection. That is the clause providing for the outbreak of an epidemic. He had only provided for the allowance of exemption to conscientious objectors in the case of the vaccination of children, and he had not provided for the case of an outbreak of smallpox, which is provided for in Section 100 of the Public Health Act, and so he moved an amendment intending to include Section 100 within the terms of this Bill. That was rejected by the House in committee by 55 to 31. Thereupon, as Minister of Public Health, I moved an amendment to substitute a new Clause 1 for Clause 1 of the hon. member’s Bill, and that Clause 1 was practically what the Minister is now bringing forward in this present Bill. That Clause 1 laid down the conditions under which I, as Minister of Public Health, was prepared to meet the conscientious objector and it embodies, as I say, practically identically the terms included in the Bill now before the House. That new clause was strongly opposed by the present Minister of Labour, who was then the member for Durban (Greyville).

I still oppose it.

The Minister of Labour is maintaining his character for consistency, perhaps at the expense of other qualities which we need not go into. I was just wondering what the attitude of the Minister of Labour would be to the Bill introduced by his colleague. I have gone into the details to this extent, because I thought the Minister who introduced the Bill might have given these facts to the House, instead of leaving them under the impression, as he did, that some kind of vague promise had been given in order to meet the exigencies of an election, a promise given by the then Prime Minister that no conscientious objector would be subject to any fear of prosecution. That undertaking was given simply and solely in view of the undertaking given by the Anti-vaccination Society that at the next ensuing session of Parliament they would bring a Bill before Parliament, or in some other way test the feeling of Parliament on this question. Their Bill was brought forward. It was not passed by Parliament; in one essential item it was rejected by Parliament.

The principle was affirmed.

The Minister may be entitled to say that the principle was affirmed insofar as the second reading was accepted by the House, but when he got to the committee he could not go any further. As far as I am concerned I want to support the clause which is contained in the Bill introduced by the Minister, and I think that is as far as we can safely go as a House responsible to the country for the preservation of the health of the people. In my opinion, if we go further than this, if we go to the extent of accepting the principle which was contended for by the now Minister of Labour, and if we allow the principle that anyone who goes to a magistrate and says—

is, therefore, relieved from the necessity of either being vaccinated himself or his children, I say to accept that principle in a country such as this, is to expose the people of this country to a very serious and grave danger. Therefore, I support the clauses in this Bill dealing with compulsory vaccination. It seems to me we go as far in this clause as we reasonably can go to meet the views of people who have conscientious objections to vaccination. The clause says a magistrate can allow exemption provided he is satisfied that the person objecting really understands what he is objecting to, and really has some rational motive underlying his objection; that in that case he can be allowed exemption in regard to his children from the provision about compulsory vaccination, but where a serious epidemic is threatened, then it becomes a question of the preservation of public health, and objections of that kind should not be allowed to prevail against a body of scientific doctrine which has grown up in the course of a hundred years, and which, in spite of all the literature with which I have been favoured from anti-vaccination societies and other people, I am still convinced is sound, and that vaccination is a safeguard against smallpox, and that communities, which are largely vaccinated, are far more immune from epidemics of smallpox than communities which are largely unvaccinated. Therefore, I say that we, as a community, are justified in adopting a principle that on the outbreak of a serious epidemic of smallpox the safety of the community should prevail, and that people should not be allowed, even in the indulgence of conscientious objections, to make themselves a danger to the general community by refusing to accept what science has demonstrated, as far as a scientific proposition can be demonstrated, to be a protective against this disease. Therefore, I support the provision in the Bill with regard to vaccination, but it seemed to me it was necessary to explain the circumstances under which the undertaking was given to these people in Durban, that for a time, until they were able to bring their views before Parliament, we should not expose them to prosecution.

As the representative of a constituency where, unfortunately, there are few district surgeons, I am very glad that this Bill makes provision for district surgeons from time to time visiting certain out-stations. It is, however, disappointing to learn from the Minister and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that it is necessary to economise in such a matter. I hope the Minister will not give effect to that, because I think that there should not be economy at the expense of people who make those regions inhabitable under difficult circumstances. This is one of the votes on which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will agree that we must not try to save a few shillings. As doctors will from time to time be going to outside stations, I hope the Minister will see that they remain there for a time. It will be little use if they only remain a few hours at the outside stations, because then they will not be able to visit the people in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the visits should be made regularly and often. If the doctor, e.g., only visits an out-station in the Northern Transvaal once a month, it will not be satisfactory at all. People cannot postpone an illness until the doctor comes. The district surgeons will have to be away from their chief town for some time, and I hope the Minister will also use doctors who are not district surgeons. When the doctor gets to the out-station, then one should not insist upon to make careful enquiry whether the patients are able to pay. To-day, before anybody is treated gratis by a district surgeon, he has to obtain a certificate from the magistrate that the man cannot pay. On an out-station no one will be able to get a certificate from a magistrate. Doctors are only human, and when they can, they will possibly expect payment from a man who, in the village, would be exempted. I hope the Minister will see to it that it is not done. I am, however, very glad about the provision made, and I hope it will be successful. With regard to the matter of midwives in the outside districts, I want to say that I see considerably longer in the clause. The Minister gives the power to the local authorities to prepare a list of midwives, and to prohibit persons whose names are not on the list from practising as such. We know how things are on the countryside. The whole district is from time to time dependent upon people who are not exactly trained, but are able to do the work, and if they are now to be prohibited the results will be undesirable. I shall be glad if the Minister will explain the position, because it is stated that the local authorities can take steps in the interests of public health in their areas. That does not only mean the village in which the local body may function, but the district. If a person who has hitherto regularly carried on the occupation in the district is going to be prevented from doing so, then it will cause trouble. I hope that it is not intended. I am glad that the Minister has provided for more information being obtained with regard to venereal disease, because that is one of the matters with reference to which the Public Health Department is not doing its duty. I can quote figures to show that there are thousands of natives in the Northern Transvaal who suffer from that disease, and nothing at all is done to improve the position. In one year almost 10,000 natives were examined for venereal disease at a leper hospital, 8,243 of whom were treated in the open air. That large number of people were examined in one year by the woman who also looks after the lepers, and they are people who are already so bad that they come of their own accord to the hospital. Thousands of others are wandering about, and nothing is done for them. I do not know what good it is reporting the cases unless any steps are to be taken. I want to ask the Minister to have a thorough examination made of natives in the Northern Transvaal, so that we can get information about the alarming position. The natives and their womenfolk come from the kraals to the villages, and there look after children and work in households. Male natives are liable to examination, but not the female. These are all cases where, I think, something can be done. I hope the Minister will see his way to make provision in the Bill that native women also shall be liable to medical examination.

The local authorities must do that.

The local authorities have not the power to compel native women to undergo a medical examination. It can only be done for male natives. If a proper examination is made, then we can ascertain the numbers about which the public, and the Public Health Department, know nothing. I am glad that the Minister of Public Health appreciates the seriousness of the matter, because I think something should be done to counteract the spread of the disease.

There are some of us who do not look at things from the financial side, like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). For that reason, some of us are rather disappointed that we do not find more measures in this Bill which will make the application of our health laws more efficient. There are, for instance, a number of things which at the present time we would like to see taken up in our public health law. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) stated this afternoon that there was a crying need for nurses in the country districts, and only a few private institutions are providing for that need there. I wish to associate myself entirely on that point, and it would have been, I think, possible within the precincts of the Bill to make provision for that need in the country districts. Apart from that, there are several other things we may look for, and amongst these I may mention one—better provision for medical inspection of schools. This is entrusted to the provincial council, but we cannot get away from the fact that this is one of the important services to which we may look to the State, and for that reason this is the proper place to which we might look. In this country, where we are faced with many peculiar problems in regard to diseases, we may expect—and I suppose we shall expect at another time—that more provision will be made for research work in South Africa. I hope that more provision will be made for that particular branch of public health. Just at present our minds are very much agitated by the press report of the discovery of a new trouble in the Transvaal, and I trust this matter will be investigated, and that steps may soon be taken to fight that disease, if it is true it has been discovered in South Africa. But apart from that, we welcome a number of provisions provided for in this Bill, because provision is made for a number of very distinct needs. I suppose the Act of 1919 was suited to the times, but as a growing community we realize our needs more and more, and to those who have been compelled to investigate the working of the public health laws, it has become very evident that a number of gaps do exist, and in this Bill provision is made, to a certain extent, to fill these gaps. I want to thank the Minister of Public Health for the provision made to deal with public health at the diggings. Our minds are agitated at the present time with the evils that are alleged to be accumulating at these diggings. I do not wish to enter into details, but one of the most important, most urgent, and I may say most crying, needs at these diggings is the question of the neglect of the most elementary provision for the safeguarding of the public health. I know the conditions as they prevailed at certain diggings at one particular time, and I suppose that the conditions as they were at that particular place must be more or less the same at the other places developing at the present time. It simply baffles description for those who have not seen these conditions, and they can only be realized when seen. They are conditions which must inevitably lead to endangering the public health, and they must lead of necessity to certain outbreaks which could have been avoided had proper steps been taken at the outset. Every community, as it becomes more developed sets about improving its environment and its public health, but these steps are only taken when an epidemic has taken toll of the lives of that community. We must have the power by law and authority to look after the people on the diggings. In the past conditions have certainly been very unsatisfactory. Difficulties are still accentuated further by the fact or knowledge that the provision for public health measures in the various provinces have fallen on different shoulders. Whereas in the Transvaal the provincial council, through the agency of the magistrate—the local authority who has to bear the financial burden for the means taken—has to foot the bill, in the Cape Province farmer taxpayers have to provide the necessary funds for the safeguarding of public health. In one district—which I have the honour to represent—with only a small number of farmers as taxpayers, we had at one time 3,000 Europeans also 5,000 coloured and natives. These alluvial diggings were and are a source of income to the Government, but the local taxpayers have practically no benefit from this, and farmers feel it very acutely that, in spite of having had no control over the alluvial diggings—the flow of people is controlled by the Government and not by the local authorities, they have to provide the funds for the safeguarding of public health. On their behalf, I wish to congratulate the Minister for the recognition of this, and the realization of the conditions which have prevailed in the past, and making provision for a different source, at any rate for paying the expenses in connection with public health. With regard to the remedy proposed by the Government, I am inclined to think it is a very great improvement on conditions as they exist to-day, but whether the mining commissioner as such is the best person, I am inclined to doubt. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) certainly requires serious consideration. I do not think the mining commissioner as such is the best person to supervize these things, because he needs expert knowledge for that particular part of his new duties. I am not prepared to make a definite assertion as to what alternatives must be adopted in this case, but I would suggest that an expert or body or individual that has the same power as a local authority in regard to public health would be better qualified for these duties than a mining commissioner. Whether he ought to be an official of the department of mines or of the department of public health is a minor matter. There is another matter which I regard as a great improvement in this Bill, and that is Section 7 (2)—the provision for the burial of deceased paupers. This has proved a difficulty in certain of our smaller hospitals. In emergencies a hospital or the medical superintendent has not and is not supposed to inquire into the capability of these inmates to pay, or more so when they came from outside the hospital district. I would suggest that in such cases where paupers come from other districts the local authority in the district whence they came and they were last domiciled should be made responsible for the funeral expenses, and not the hospital as such. Section 10 (2) makes provision for a decided weakness in our public health law as applied for the last eight or nine years—with regard to the notification of venereal diseases by medical practitioners. The law places certain responsibilities on district surgeons and other Government officers, and in Section 58 of the Act certain responsibilities are placed on these officials, and it says it shall be the duty of these officials to do so and so. They were compelled to see that individuals suffering from venereal diseases coming within their purview should be treated, but a certain number of these people did not come to them, but consulted their private doctor or family physician, and although he had to warn them, he had no power to compel their treatment, or was not compelled to treat them. It must be obvious to some of us who have knowledge of human nature that people come once or twice for treatment, and then remain away. They are indifferent to their own health, and that of the community, and are a constant source of infection to the community. Provision is now made that a medical practitioner is compelled to notify such cases as come within his knowledge, and do not submit to efficient treatment, to the district surgeon, and I can only see good resulting from it. Times have changed considerably, and public opinion has changed too, and I believe that these provisions will not prevent people from coming and being treated by their medical practitioner or the district surgeon. I think people realize that they can be cured of that type of disease, and I do not fear that they will stay away from the doctors because of compulsory notification. Even if a few should escape in consequence, compulsory notification will still be an advantage to the community, as it will considerably diminish infantile mortality, and I am convinced that if this provision is properly applied it will lead to reduction in the number of inmates of certain institutions which I do not wish to mention. I am very thankful that provision is made for the compulsory registration of nursing homes. I hope that periodical inspections will be made of these institutions. I have nothing to complain about in regard to private nursing homes which I know; they are very well equipped, some indeed are better equipped than our State-aided hospitals Others, again, are not so well equipped, and until they are they should not be allowed to receive patients, for as a rule they charge very substantial fees. There is one big peculiarity in the land whence so many queer things come—Natal; there are private nursing homes which are subsidized by the provincial authorities, and they compete with the ordinary hospitals. I hope that with proper supervision this type of Natalian liberality will be put a stop to in future. I am very glad the power is conferred on municipal councils to keep a record of persons practising midwifery. If we added to that a provision that midwives should keep a register of their cases, we should safeguard many unfortunate individuals who are suffering from uncontrolled experimentation on human life. With regard to the conscientious objector, when I first noticed the clause, I wondered whether the Minister responsible for this Bill is the same as the one who holds the portfolio of Minister of Public Education. I see less reason for conscientious objection in the physical world than for conscientious objection in the spiritual world. It is an accepted tenet embodied in the Bill which I cannot appreciate. The liberality seems to emanate from some other argument than from pure science. The Minister of Public Health is always very logical in his deductions, but I do not know how he came to this conclusion, unless he accepted it as a bequest from his predecessor.

You have got it.

When one realizes the enormous loss of life incurred through epidemics of smallpox, we must shudder at the possibility of exposing ourselves to similar epidemics. People, fortunately, are realizing what benefits society has reaped from cleanliness and the isolation of affected persons. If we listen to the arguments of anti-vaccinators that similar things cannot happen again, because of our increased knowledge, we admit they are right to a certain extent, but the practical stamping out of smallpox in certain countries is not entirely due to isolation, but largely because public vaccination has gained more and more ground. When we have to deal with a problem like this, and the State puts forward an excuse for certain people who become a source of danger to their fellows, we must divest ourselves of all sentimental predilections. Vaccination is explained by the fact that the theory of immunity has been effectively proved. Only if we accept the principle that vaccination confers immunity from certain diseases, then we can realize its value. I believe that even—

must admit that in their own environment measles attack people only once. This theory explains the usefulness of vaccination against smallpox. By vaccination you induce a mild form of cowpox, which is a weakened form of smallpox. It will be argued that people still die of smallpox, although they have been vaccinated, but they do not die to the same extent as those who have never been vaccinated. Germany, which has practically stamped our smallpox, insists that people shall be vaccinated two or three times—in their first year, in their eighth or ninth year, and during the stage of adolescence. If that is done, people will be saved from an attack of smallpox. Diphtheria can be defeated by the injection of one particular serum. No man in his senses would prevent a child suffering from diphtheria from being injected with diphtheria anti-toxin. We cannot allow the exception to be made. The argument will be advanced that people are still liable to smallpox after vaccination, and that is true, because they are not sufficiently repeatedly vaccinated. I have with me a textbook by Prof. Hope, of Liverpool, which deals with vaccination and the spread of disease, and I wish my hon. friends could see some of the pictures. Quoting Sir William Power, he points out that protection against smallpox in infancy becomes diminished as age advances, and defence against the attack appars to diminish more rapidly. Even before puberty a portion of the original protection is often lost, and this is more particularly the case when vaccination in infancy is incomplete. Before vaccination was discovered, smallpox was, as for instance in London, a disease especially of children, but now, among vaccinated people, owing to the general protection of children, such smallpox as prevails is principally seen in adolescence and adults.

Is he a final authority?

No. But he is an unbiased authority. I admit you can prove anything with figures, but from these figures which I am now going to quote some interesting points may be learned. These are mortality figures given of cases having one or more vaccination scars. With good scars in 284 cases there were five deaths, equal to 1.7 per cent. In 374 cases with indifferent scars there were 21 deaths, equal to 5.6 per cent. In doubtful cases of 38 there were eight deaths, or 26 per cent., and in 139 unvaccinated cases there were 66 deaths, or 44 per cent. We wish to meet our anti-vaccination citizens as far as possible, but I believe in doing so we are opening the door, and running the risk of exposing the community to serious consequences, and in trying to meet the conscientious objectors, we establish a precedent which will recoil on ourselves. We are adopting a wrong principle in practice. In 1925 some statistics were published in the “ English Review.” Conscientious objection in England was established by the law of 1898, and in 1902 in England and Wales there were 715,000 children vaccinated and 34,000 exempted. Ten years later, in 1912, there were 460,000 vaccinated, and 296,000 conscientious objectors had exemption, and the result was the numbers of reported cases of smallpox have doubled in those ten years. In the first four months of 1922, the cases of smallpox reported were 350 in England and Wales. In the same period of 1923 there were 700, and in the first four months of 1924 1,400, and same period for 1925, 2,300. I regret this is incorporated in this Bill. It is embodying a wrong principle, and I hope the Minister will not insist on retaining these two clauses in the Bill. We are steering a wrong course, and we cannot estimate what the future generation will have to pay.

We were, fortunately, long since convinced that we should have a law on our statute book on public health. I welcome this Bill because it supplements the existing Public Health Act. There are, however, a few points in the Bill which I cannot agree with and want to point out. Let me first say that the medical faculty is out for and striving for the avoidance and prevention of disease in the first place, but if disease does occur then in the second place the idea is to cure it and to cure it with the least chance of danger to other people who are free from it. If that principle is laid down as a basis in our legislation to do everything in our power to obviate disease, then we must see at once that the practitioner requires experience, research, but especially knowledge of the practical application of the incidence of disease in order to know what steps should be taken to prevent the disease, or to cure it when it breaks out. We have had a typical case of this recently in South Africa, for we are at the moment anxious about the outbreak of influenza in South Africa, but steps have already been taken to prevent that disease from breaking out here, steps based on experience we have obtained in the past, and if the disease should nevertheless break out, we must cure the people who introduced the disease by the experience we have had, and prevent them infecting other people who are still healthy. Starting from that, we must at once see how very important vaccination is seeing the whole world has had experience, and knows the value, of vaccination as a preventive against smallpox and plague, and if we appreciate that, then I say we must adopt the attitude that vaccination should be compulsory. I, therefore, deplore the concession in the Bill to people who have conscientious objections to vaccination. In the first place I cannot see how the provision does not conflict with. I think it is section 100 of the existing Public Health Act, which deals with an outbreak of smallpox. But we have the clear proof in South Africa of the conviction of the public of the value of vaccination in the conduct of the people in Natal. When the old Bill was before the House I said that if smallpox were to break out in Natal or in Durban, we should see the people there running to be vaccinated. And what happened? The people ran so fast when smallpox broke out that those who had charge of the vaccination had an impossible task to perform. Now I am sorry that the persons with conscientious objections are exempted in the Bill, but I want to tell the Minister that if he secures the second reading, I hope to be allowed to move in committee that these people should pay for the exemption. I hope that the House will pass such a motion, so that the people who are a danger to society shall pay something in times when contagious disease causes the country expenditure, to cover the cost. As for Natal, where this peculiar thing comes from. I want to suggest that in all the towns or villages where there is more than one person who has conscientious objections that each such person shall pay into the Treasury a certain amount, so that if such an epidemic occurs, money will be available to fight it. I am certain that this suggestion will meet the universal approval in the House. Let me just say that the fact of this House passing such a clause, which will be regarded by some people as a kind of excuse for not regarding vaccination seriously, will set a bad example. Many people will regard the vaccination of their children as a matter of little importance, and the Minister should not give the impression that he also regards it as of so little importance. We must make the people feel that vaccination is necessary, and that there is no excuse not to do it. I say that vaccination should be made compulsory. If the people who refuse to be vaccinated do not themselves get smallpox, well and good, but their children and other persons are infected by them and from that point of view in the interests of society it is a serious matter. It is said that there is so much done in the big towns for health and to enable us to live healthily that the danger of the spreading of smallpox there is small. I admit that the presence of sanitary arrangements and the measures that are taken for the public health are of very great importance, but we know that in South Africa there are locations in every large town or village where the sanitary arrangements leave much to be desired, and even the sanitary arrangements among certain sections of the white population leave much to be desired.

And in the Cape?

Yes, and in the Cape as well. If that is so and when we remember the large number of natives in the country, we shall understand that it is necessary to save people from the danger of smallpox. When I speak of sanitary provision, then I also refer to the amount which will be paid back to local bodies. I am glad that such provision is being made. We have a hospital in my constituency which is large enough for the purpose for which it was built, and there is ground for further extension. I have suggested that the State should assist the town council and hospital board, so that a hospital for contagious diseases can be erected on the same ground. The Minister has suggested in his speech that all kinds of diseases can be treated in one hospital provided the wings are isolated.

Not all.

I am glad the Minister says that, because I should not permit cases of, e.g., white sore throat and meningitis in the same hospital as ordinary cases. It will result in the nurses and the staff being infected. It is said that typhoid fever can be dealt with in the same hospital, but I will mention the position with us. We built four wings to the hospital, and, as medical superintendent, I agreed that we should not have more than one case of typhoid fever in one of the wings. Last year, however, I was forcibly compelled to take in nine cases and as a result one of the nurses got typhoid fever. If the ratio of typhoid cases is too high then there is the danger of the staff becoming infected. The existing hospitals must be assisted along the lines I have indicated, even if additional ground has to be bought. Where the hospital already had the ground the Minister must assist and place a separate hospital there, so close to the existing hospital that it can be administered from the latter, and far enough that it can be isolated from it. There are certain diseases which we cannot take in the ordinary hospital, and which take a long time to get rid of when once they are admitted. The capital cost is higher, but, as the Minister said, it saves costs of administration. The general hospitals are not always full, and the nurses can also be used in the other one and be isolated for a period. The Bill also deals with the question of venereal diseases, and I hope that what the Minister proposes is only complementary to the existing Act, and is not put in place of it. According to the old Act, I warn patients, e.g., when I know they are suffering from the disease, of the effects it may have.

The position remains the same.

I accept that, but the Bill proposes that doctors shall be obliged to notify the authorities of cases of venereal disease. Under the existing Act, I notified the authorities when I had a case of someone who was not under treatment or continuing under it, because I then gave him a letter to the magistrate who could send the patient to the district surgeon.

Was it compulsory?

No, but we did it. I want to show where the danger of compulsion comes in. In a small village a doctor cannot possibly treat a person who has been suffering for one or two years from venereal disease without people knowing that he is sick, although they do not know the actual complaint. The fact is that the patient may be a prominent man, a member of Parliament, or a clergyman, because the disease is not always caused by misconduct. A large percentage of people get it in an innocent way, and do not know that they are affected. They get it by contact with others, and the man who most comes into contact with sick people is the clergyman. He then goes to a doctor, who treats him, but if he continues under treatment and the public asks whether he is still sick, it might make him think that people are suspicious, so he prefers stopping away from the doctor. According to the Bill, I shall have to go and report him. The existing law is better, where the doctor is not obliged to go and report such a person and notify the authorities. The man should not have the idea that I shall be obliged some day to go and notify his case, because he must not be frightened off. The Minister says that I must give notice to the medical officer of the council, that I, as a doctor, must tell another doctor that someone has venereal disease and is not under treatment. I think that the case should be brought to the notice of the medical officer without his knowing who has reported it. The notice should only be given to the chairman of the board, who must be compelled to secrecy, and he can then tell the officer that the individual has venereal disease. That is one objection that I have against the Bill. There is another. The Minister is going to have two lists of midwives prepared, one under the Medical Act and one under this Bill. This will cause great trouble, because the local midwives will commence quarrelling, viz., those registered by the medical council, and those registered by the town council or divisional council. It is quite right to have a list, but I think the provision contained in the Bill will lead to trouble, and that the qualified midwives will not be able to compete with the others. If there were no one else, then people would have to go to the nearest midwife, whatever her qualifications may be, but there is a chance here of the well-qualified midwife being ousted, because her qualifications are registered in Cape Town, while the other is locally registered. The latter will consequently get the preference. In connection with this, I do not see how we shall provide in the immediate future for the need for midwives in the outside districts. In this connection, the Minister gave us the impression that the large mortality among the children was due to the incapacity or absence of midwives. I agree that many of the deaths are due to the midwives not having the experience or knowledge to tell the mother what to do.

Not so many children die at that stage.

Many die through ignorance. Where the mother feeds the child things go along well, but when that is not the case trouble arises. But the large mortality among children is with those who are reared artificially. The people have no knowledge how to act in that connection. And where do we find the most children being brought up on the bottle? In the villages. I want to explain the matter a little, because I want to make a suggestion which may assist matters. The reason so many children fed on the bottle die is on account of the soil. The germs of disease develop in the soil. When it rains the water soaks into the soil, the wind comes and carries the germs out of the ground to the water and the milk in the home. Germs are also attached to appliances and feeders which are used to feed children with, and in this way they are conveyed to the children. The child’s food is contaminated by germs, and the result is that the child gets rickets and cholera, from which he dies. That occurs less frequently on the countryside, because the mothers there are better able than those in towns to nurse their children. Proper care ought to be taken so that everything is free from germs. The ground from which the vapour rises is usually the yard behind the house, where the dirty washing water is thrown. The germs very quickly develop in the water, and therefore it is of the greatest importance for the sanitary arrangements to be effective. This is provided for to a certain extent in the municipalities, but it does not go far enough. We have a large native population, and sanitary arrangements amongst them leave much to be desired. Among the natives, especially in districts like Mafeking, Pietersburg. etc., venereal diseases are very prevalent, and we are doing practically nothing to remedy them. Our methods are not effective. What is the solution? I believe the Minister will do well to include a course at our universities for the special training of people to study sanitary conditions and the eradication of venereal disease. These students can then be sent out to the areas where such diseases are prevalent, and they can not only be occupied in curing the disease, but also in enlightening the people how to prevent the disease. It will be said that the cost would be too great, but it will reduce the expenses of the district surgeons in this connection, and we shall then have something effective. It is not necessary that it should be a long course, but it must be adequate. The people on the countryside have not many opportunities of reading about these matters in books and periodicals. They do not have books, and therefore something must be done on the countryside, and especially where there are many natives, to instruct the people. Only then shall we do efficient work, and not only save the sufferers, but also do something for the protection of society as a whole. In conclusion, I only wish to ask the Minister how the doctor is protected if he diagnoses a person as suffering from venereal disease. If I, e.g., find a person who in my opinion has venereal disease, and he denies it, and I send his name to the magistrate, how am I indemnified?

If you do it bona fide, you are protected.

But there are people who are very irresponsible, and who take a different view of bona fides to myself and others. Who then will pay for the examination of the blood of such a person to make absolutely sure that he has the disease?

The Government laboratory in Pretoria analyses the blood.

Then it would be as well to mention something about it in the Bill.

I should like to bring a few points to the notice of the Minister. When the Public Health Act of 1919 was under discussion, there was a proposal for compulsory vaccination, which was rejected after a long debate lasting for days. The same clause is now proposed by the Minister, and it looks as if this time, because the Minister proposes it, it will be passed. I think that if the Minister had not inserted it, and a private member had moved it, it never would have passed. I was one of those at the time who opposed the proposal to exempt people who had conscientious objections to vaccination, and I have never yet regretted my attitude in the matter. I do not hope that the exemption will be made so easy that persons who are merely too lackadaisical to take the trouble of having their children vaccinated should be exempted, nor the people who are afraid that vaccination may leave marks on the arms of girls. If people have conscientious objections one can possibly understand it, but the devotees of Christian Science who do not believe in doctors, are compelled to send for doctors in case of sickness. They are punished if they neglect to do so, but I hope that the exemption in the case of people who have conscientious objections will be made very narrow. I agree with a great deal of the Minister’s proposals in connection with compulsory notification of venereal diseases amongst people by the doctors, but I am afraid that it will retard people from stating their complaint if they are to be reported to the medical council.

That is not the intention. A person is reported if he refuses to undergo treatment. Then a doctor is obliged to report him.

Only if he refuses.

I hope the new way will help, but I was afraid that people would be ashamed and, therefore, hold back. The danger is not great among the better classes, because if one of them possibly without his fault acquires such a disease he will himself seek treatment. What, however, about the thousands of people who live in a half-wild state? What about the natives in the Northern Transvaal? These people are a great danger. They are at a very low rung of development, but the native women look after our children. We appoint them in our houses and the native doctors who there treat them do little for them. In Waterberg there are no hospitals for them as there are in Pietersburg. The doctor comes every three or six months to examine the natives, and then only the men, not the women. If there are cases which are serious, the native is reported to the magistrate, and he is given treatment. I agree with the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) that even if it costs a little money, it will be necessary to have a special course at the universities to combat this disease. The people who suffer from it are of value to us. They are our workers, and, under existing circumstances, their health is undermined by the terrible disease and the children die, and they are a danger to the white population. I hope the Minister will give his close attention to the great question of making provision for the natives. Now I want to add a few words to what the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) said, viz., that the local authorities should also have the right of deciding in their areas whether anyone shall practise as a midwife or not. It is said that the countryside around the villages is excluded, but the word “district” is used in the Bill. I hope the time will come that we may even have capable people in the outside districts. In connection with the facilities which the Minister is giving us by the visits of district surgeons or other doctors to outside stations, I want to say that I am glad that the Minister is not confining it merely to district surgeons. The Bill uses the word “ centres,” but I want an amendment to be made in committee to make it read—

Cases of typhoid fever may become general in the area, and therefore the word “centres” ought not to be specially named. They may be exceptional cases, but I hope provision will be made. I also hope that the Minister will not confine himself to that provision, and think that we shall be satisfied with it. The hon. member for Pietersourg said that we cannot allow people to become sick whenever we wish, and, therefore, I hope that the Minister will meet the people in the far-off districts where doctors are not to be found for miles and miles. Where the distances are long, the Minister ought to appoint separate district surgeons, and they can be paid a salary of £400 or £500 per annum. Then they will be prepared to go and practice there. This will not cost much more than the scheme proposed by the Minister, and I, therefore, hope that he will increase the number of district surgeons in the large stretched districts.

It is a pity when we have a debate on public health that the interest manifested in the House is so small and the attendance of members is so meagre. Yet, when we have a debate on any cattle disease we have a full House and the greatest possible interest displayed. It is very depressing that the amount spent in South Africa on research in connection with human diseases and public health is very small compared with the enormous amount spent in research on every form of animal diseases. I am not regretting the latter expenditure, but the comparison is so striking that the figures make one ashamed. I am reminded of a speech delivered by the principal of the Cape Town University at the opening of a medical congress in Cape Town a few years ago. He laid great stress on the fact, and added that you may have all the sheep, cattle and minerals possible in the country, but you cannot make anything of the country unless you first attend to the people. He found that in the Government’s financial statement research was mentioned twice—£120,000 for veterinary research, and £5,000 for medical research. That is to say, he reckoned if you take 7,000,000 human beings in the Union you spend on the average human being the equivalent of one-fifth of a sheep. There is no doubt that the contract between what we spend in the investigation of human disease, compared with what we spend on animals, points to a scandalous state of affairs, and unless we remove that scandal we are wasting our time talking about legislation on public health. I have the report of the Hospitals Enquiry Committee before me containing valuable information as the result of a motion in this House. It has all been pigeon-holed, and the enquiry might as well never have sat at all. It dealt with the system laid down for the control of hospitals which, it said, should be supported by the Union Government as to three-fifths and two-fifths from patients’ fees, general donations and the balance levied on local authorities. That and other recommendations were ignored. One thing was revealed, that we may be progressing in other directions, but as far as hospitals and sanatoria are concerned we are back in the middle ages. We may be A1 in some respects, but as far as hospitals and sanatoria are concerned we are C3. That is the depressing fact which should run through this debate. I am not opposing the second reading, because any effort to combat disease must receive the support of the House if hon. members want to see the country better than it is at the present time. In committee I am going to make proposes for improving some of the clauses. There are a few matters I want to direct the Minister’s attention to and see whether it is possible to meet these in the committee stage. I regret the Minister did not say anything about sending this Bill to a select committee. In 1919 the Public Health Bill was sent to a select committee, and its passage was more rapid than it would otherwise have been. There are a number of matters and principles in this Bill to-day which ought to receive the consideration of a select committee, and people closely affected by this Bill in the Union should have an opportunity of giving evidence. The other House has adjourned to the 11th May, and the Minister can fix a time for the deliberations of the select committee, so that their report can be ready before the other place reassembles. One of the matters not provided for in this Bill is one I drew the Government’s attention to in 1925, when I introduced the Health Inspectors’ Bill, but I withdrew it because the Government proposed introducing a Public Health Bill, and I thought it would be better that this matter should be dealt with in that measure. I hope it will be possible to incorporate this in this Bill during the select committee proceedings, if there are any, or during the proceedings in the committee of this House, namely, the provision for a proper registration of health inspectors, and also provision made that after a date fixed, none but persons registered should be appointed to various positions in the country, except that the Minister is given power to exempt local authorities from the law. They want registration and protection; the principle of registration they have not yet got, but the principle of protection was recognised by the House in 1919, when the clause was passed which made provision in Section 14 under which local authorities appointed sanitary inspectors. In that clause no inspector was without his consent to be removed from office, or to have his salary reduced without the Minister’s approval. That was put in because there was evidence before the select committee that serious cases of vaccination were prevalent, and the evidence of Mr. Beattie of Johannesburg gave a number of examples. Other examples could be given where sanitary inspectors were made seriously to suffer. Members will find the evidence on page 152 of the select committee report of 1919. In 1912 a Johannesburg sanitary inspector had reason to complain of the neglect of the scavenging service in his district. The Scavenging Department sent to see if neglect existed, and the sanitary inspector was never asked to report. The medical officer of health and the Public Health Committee dealt with the matter, and the result was the inspector was reduced from first to second grade and suffered a £60 loss in salary, i.e., a loss of £2 10s. a month in salary and a loss of £2 10s. a month increase. The inspector was never called by the committee to give his version of the matter. There are a number of other cases similar to that in which Mr. Beattie has shown by quoting chapter and verse that sanitary inspectors in the course of doing their duty were in serious danger not only of dismissal but of reduction of status. We put in this clause to protect them, but unfortunately difficulty has been found in the working of that clause, as is known to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan.) I have in my own mind one particular case in a suburban municipality. No particular procedure is laid down. Where an inspector has been dismissed and the case goes to Pretoria, the inspector concerned sends his papers to Pretoria and the municipality concerned does likewise, but it is impossible for the Minister to do justice in that case unless he has the parties before him or conducts a proper inquiry through some person appointed by the Minister. The late Minister took the view that he could not go and conduct a further inquiry and all that he could do was to see if anything unjust had occurred in the inquiry which had already taken place. When that clause was placed in the Bill we intended that there should be a full right of appeal to the Minister from an alleged case of victimization. We have not got that and I hope that in committee we shall be able to introduce an amendment so as to provide that the Minister may have a proper inquiry into cases of this kind. Another point I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to is clause 23. I would like him to give an explanation when he is replying in regard to the necessity for that clause. I know that in the existing Public Health Act of 1919 there are one or two provisions by which, for instance, in regard to vaccination, you can apply your notices to a particular class or race, but in section 23 the Minister takes wholesale powers which one would like to know the reason for. The third matter which I want to draw the Minister’s attention to is this question of conscientious objectors. I would certainly have preferred the Bill as it was introduced by the present Minister of Labour, then member for Greyville, because it seems to me that if you are going to allow an exemption for conscientious objectors you should also allow them on their sworn statement to have exemption. This Bill does not go as far as that, but it limits exemption in all sorts of ways and it also does not go beyond the sections that were mentioned in the Bill of the hon. member for Greyville. It does not include sections 100 and 102. I submit that that is illogical. We have come to the conclusion, according to this section, that in certain circumstances and with certain safeguards and limitations a man who has a conscientious objection will have that objection clearly and substantially met, and then you go on to say that he may be as conscientious as he likes, he may have a valid objection, but because it is not a normal state of affairs, because a number of cases of smallpox are occurring and there is an epidemic, therefore his conscientious objection is going to be overruled. That comes under section 100. It is illogical, but it is more illogical still when you come to section 102, because even in normal times, if you happen to be a patient in certain institutions, you may have as many conscientious objections as you like, but you are not allowed exemption. Certainly he ought to be exempted all the way round. Does this exemption constitute a public danger? I am not a conscientious objector myself, but I can also respect the views of others and surely the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) knows that some of the most eminent medical men do not believe in vaccination. The hon. member will also realize there have been some of the most serious results from vaccination itself.

Not results, accidents.

Unfortunately the same grave buries the accident as in any other case. The possibilities of error are so great, and the idiosyncrasies of the particular individual in reacting to the test are so peculiar, that there have been a large number of deaths, and that is why many people have grown nervous. Apart from that, the hon. member has admitted that there are people who have been vaccinated, and who died from smallpox; therefore, it is not an absolute preventative. When the hon. member talks about the danger of conscientious objectors, I really fail to follow him. If you really believe in vaccination, your vaccination ought to protect you against the man who has not been vaccinated. There is more in this than would appear from some of the speeches made. There are a number of people who object to vaccination on religious grounds; a number who object because eminent medical men have assured them it is not a preventive, and some have even been told it is actually prejudicial to health; and also because they believe in the liberty of the subject, and they do not see, unless it is proved that it does ensure public health, why they should be deprived of individual liberty. The hon. member gives the case of diphtheria, and there he shows the weakness of his position. He said you have an antitoxin, and it is the only cure known. There is, however, no compulsory taking of an antitoxin; that is the whole point at issue. I would like my hon. friend to bring forward a Bill to provide there should be compulsory taking of a doctor for diphtheria, and see what the House would do with regard to that. The Minister has met the conscientious objector to a certain extent. He has admitted that the conscientious objector is entitled to exemption under certain circumstances, and I submit that logically, provided he is certain that this is not made an excuse of by people who are not conscientious objectors at all, and that he has provided all the machinery to prevent fraud, when there is a genuine case of conscientious objection that genuine case should be treated and exempted not merely under the section he mentioned, but also under the other two sections. I regretted one thing in the Minister’s speech; I regretted his reference to Durban. I think Ministers ought not to make remarks like that which are likely to be regarded as offensive by many people. To refer to one of the largest cities in the Union as—

will cause a lot of ill-feeling, and it is unnecessary. While many differ in their political views from the people of Durban, as far as health is concerned, there is no doubt about it, it is one of the best managed towns in the Union. I may say that the curiosities of to-day are very often the leaders of to-morrow. I hope that the Minister in his reply will tell us that no serious attention should he paid to that remark of his, because it is likely to cause unnecessary offence. I had a letter a little while ago from one of the bodies in Durban which feels strongly on the subject, and in this letter they speak of sending a deputation from the different centres to Cape Town to represent their views. I hope that the Minister will allow a sufficient interval between this stage and the next to give us an opportunity of putting our amendments on the paper, and to allow any people to put their views fully and fairly before hon. members; that is, in the event of the Bill not being referred to a select committee.

I should like to say a few words about Clause 20. It provides that certain amounts shall be specially granted to the provincial councils as allowances to the respective institutions where midwives are trained. It is a matter of so great importance that I should like to inform the Minister that there are certain bodies in the country that specially undertake this work. There is, e.g., the child welfare board and the mothers’ union. The latter consists chiefly of mothers on the countryside who know the need for midwives there. Good work has been done in the past, but on account of lack of the necessary funds, the mothers’ union could not do what it would have liked to. Unfortunately, there is now a large number of women awaiting training, and if the union does not receive State aid, then they cannot be trained. I therefore want to ask the Minister to place a considerable amount on the estimates to meet the institution, so that the women can provide for need of the countryside. We shall be doing a noble deed if we assist these bodies. There is yet another matter about which I should like to tell the Minister. Perhaps it may be done by regulations, but I do not see that the Bill provides for needy people who are sick being able to go into hospitals. I do not know how things are in the other provinces, but in the Transvaal they are not what they ought to be. Such a person has first to get the magistrate’s certificates, but in many cases the magistrate does not know the person, so that it has often happened in the past that the man dies before he can get to hospital.

That is a matter for the Provincial Council.

If the Minister cannot do it, then I wish he would urge the Provincial Administration to see to it that the sick man is immediately received in the hospital. Inquiry can be instituted later whether he can pay or not.

I should like to say a few words about the Bill. I am very glad that the diggings are mentioned in the Bill, and that provision is to be made for the improvement of the sanitary conditions there. I have a letter here from a land surveyor at Grasfontein, and he writes that I should call the Minister’s attention to the bad sanitary conditions, and that there is no provision for native locations. According to him, the Europeans and the natives are living mixed up. This is a very undesirable state of affairs. The Bill now makes provision for the diggings, but I would like to bring it to the notice of the Minister that it will not be sufficient to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister of Mines. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) mentioned that special sanitary inspectors will be sent there, but I do not know whether the Department of Mines is the proper body.

That is not the case.

But that is clear from the Bill.

It says “ mining commissioner.”

The question is whether he is the desirable person, and whether a separate body should not act. A difference should be made between Europeans and natives, because it is impossible for the position at present to continue any longer. The Minister must take steps, and a certain body must be established to be responsible for the matter. Certain provision is now being made, but I trust that the steps will be made more effective. In the second place, there is the matter of midwives. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) said that in the country districts the position was very difficult. Old women are doing the work, and are possibly not sufficiently competent. Now the division of midwives is mentioned, one class to be under the medical council and the other under the local bodies. The result will be that the qualified midwives will not be employed. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) spoke about the training of midwives in Pretoria, and I shall also be glad if the institution there is given more support. The mothers’ union has already 71 midwives in the country, and the union will be able to send out more if they get more support. As for people with conscientious objections against vaccination. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). I have the greatest respect for a man with conscientious objections, especially when they come from the depths of his soul. I have myself seen children suffer terribly from vaccination against smallpox, and cases of gross cruelty have already taken place, because irresponsible persons are sometimes send to do the vaccination. I am glad that the Minister has inserted a clause to protect conscientious objectors, and I must say that I cannot understand that the doctors who have spoken about the matter cannot sympathize with the people who have real conscientious objections against vaccination. I support the principle that we must respect conscientious objections. The feeling of the Quakers about war is respected, because they were ready to go to gaol for their convictions. The hon. member for Pietersburg also mentioned the matter of venereal diseases. Take, e.g., Basutoland, where I grew up as a child. According to what the doctors tell us, the state of affairs there is terrifying. The women do not go to the Free State to look after children, and the local bodies have not an opportunity to have the native maidservants examined. A law should be passed to compel people to be treated for venereal disease. I think that the Bill is indispensable, but there are possibly a few things which can be altered in committee. I trust that the matter of the large extended districts will not be left merely with the sending out of doctors to outside stations, but there must be time and opportunity to visit the people. I think, however, that the steps which are being taken will be a practical advantage to the people.

Hon. members who want to speak about the Bill will have another opportunity in committee of putting their views before the House. Nor do I think that it is necessary for me to go into all the points mentioned, because I also shall have an opportunity at a later stage to do so fully. I want, however, to answer the chief points. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that in introducing the Bill it should have been stated what the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill would cost. I have the figures here. With regard to Clause 2, i.e., expenditure in connection with sanitary arrangements on the alluvial diggings, the expenditure is estimated at from £5,000 to £10,000 a year. The hon. member knows that the Government obtains considerable revenue from the alluvial diggings. With regard to Clause 5, part payment to local authorities, the expenditure is estimated at £3,000 while in connection with the work of district surgeons, the extra cost is estimated at from £2,000 to £3,000, i.e., the estimated expenditure so far as we can ascertain at the moment. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) expressed the opinion that sufficient provision was not being made for the alluvial diggings, and other hon. members expressed the view that the proposals were not adequate. I think that there is considerable misunderstanding in this regard. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) e.g. clearly thinks that the mining commissioner on the alluvial diggings will regulate everything as local authority, that he alone will decide on the sanitary arrangements. The hon. member even thinks that the whole question of the arrangements in this connection should come under the Minister of Mines. That is due to misunderstanding. The mining commissioner becomes the local authority in place of the magistrate who, is the local authority, under the existing law, because the magistrate is only local. But, in addition, he is assisted by the diggers committee, and then the mining commissioner works under the direct supervision and under the instructions of the Department of Public Health. The district surgeons stationed at the place, and the inspectors, report to the Public Health Department, and the department instructs the mining commisioner as to the measures to be taken, and he is merely the executive power at the spot. With regard to the control of midwives by local authorities, there is no conflict between this provision and the provisions of the Medical Act. If hon. members will compare the clauses they will see that in the Medical Act provision is made (by regulations published on the recommendations of the medical council) with reference to the qualifications and general requirements as to unqualified midwives. Those who are registered come under direct control of the medical council, but for the unqualified ones certain conditions are laid down under which they can do their work. But even then local control is necessary to see that everything complies with the regulations of the Minister, and the body which is local and has the supervision will be the local authority chosen by the public itself. There is therefore no conflict between the two.

Then we shall have three lists of midwives.

No, the Minister does not prepare a list, and there is no objection to two lists as long as they agree with each other. The question was asked what provision is being made for the future training of midwives. We gave considerable attention to the matter and I cannot tell the House at the moment which institutions we shall subsidize and which not. We ask for authority here, and will then make our arrangements. As it will anyhow be too late to put an amount on this year’s Estimates we shall have plenty of time to carefully consider the matter before next year’s session. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) mentioned the deplorable conditions in the northern Transvaal with regard to venereal diseases, and he, and other hon. members, accused the Public Health Department of not doing its duty. I think the accusation arises through misunderstanding in connection with the actual duties of the department. The law provides that the treatment of such people should be provided for by the local authorities but the Public Health Department gives two-thirds of the expenditure in connection with combating venereal disease to all the local authorities under certain circumstances.

Who is the local authority in the Transvaal?

The magistrate. The magistrate acting under the supervision and on the instructions of the provincial administration. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) mentioned the poor people who die in hospitals, and he claimed that the responsibility was thrown on the district where the hospital was, and not on the district from which the patient had come. Often he said, patients came from other districts Provision is actually being made for that. If another district sends a patient to a hospital in a certain district, the local authority where the hospital is situated is not responsible, but that of the district which sends the patient, and if a patient has come on his own account and has not been sent, he is accepted for the account of the Provincial Administration of the Union Government, according to whether the Government subsidizes such a hospital and to what extent. I cannot see why the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) has so much objection against an ordinary doctor having to report to the medical officer of the local authority when a case of venereal disease comes under his notice and the sufferer does not have himself treated. The man is dangerous to society, and the provision is the same as exists to-day with regard to district surgeons. In other respects other doctors have to notify diseases coming to their notice. Why not here? The hon. member says that it does not concern people of the better classes. Those are the very people who in the first place feel their responsibility not to expose the public to danger by not undergoing treatment. But the difficulty lies not so much with those people, but with the class under which servants especially fall; the natives of whom the hon. member for Pietersburg spoke. They do not realize what they are exposing society to, and therefore they do not understand the value of being treated. Therefore the provision is necessary, so that such people shall not, after they have been treated once or twice, fail to return, and in order that such cases should be brought to the notice of the magistrate in order that their further treatment may be provided for. This is one of the few ways of acting effectively against the evil. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) asked if I was not prepared to send the Bill to a Select Committee. This Bill only aims at amending the existing law, it does not include any new principle. There are a few stipulations about which there is a difference of opinion, and which may cause trouble, but generally the provisions of the Bill are such that there can be no difference of opinion about them, and I do not think that it is necessary to send the Bill to a Select Committee. With regard to the difficulty of the hon. member against the imposition of restrictions on a certain section, a certain race in the community, and his fear that this would create a new colour bar, I only want to say that his supposition is entirely wrong. There is no intention to create a colour bar, but it happens that a disease only appears in a certain section of the population, and it is not necessary to apply the stipulation to the other section as well. The plague at De Aar recently was a good example. It actually occurred only amongst the natives in the location, and not at all amongst the Europeans, and probably there was not one white man in contact with the patients, so that it would have imposed unnecessary hardship on the Europeans to subject them also to the restrictions.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

On the motion to go into committee on the Bill on 28th March,

Cannot it be postponed to 30th March? People are coming from Durban to Cape Town specially for the Committee stage.

I think sufficient time is given. With the Financial Bills as well, I fear there would be too much on the agenda for 30th March.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 28th March.