May I ask the Minister of Mines and Industries if the report of the Government Mining Engineer which he has just laid on the Table will be printed?

Yes. It is on the future of the gold industry.

I move—

I would like to ask my hon. friend if he is now in a position to lay on the Table the accounts for Railways and Harbours for the last financial year.

The position is, as the hon. member knows, that we have three months within which to publish these accounts after the close of the financial year. What I said was that the figures were available, but I did not say they were available for publication. I made enquiries after the hon. member asked the question, and I am told the department is about ready now to publish the figures and I have asked them to accelerate the publication as much as possible.

May I point out to my hon. friend, I understood from the question put to him by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) yesterday, he said these figures were available, and if that is so why has the Minister not had the figures printed and laid on the Table for the information of hon. members? Every member is entitled to see these figures as early as possible.

It is not a question of laying it on the Table, but of publishing it in the “Gazette.”

Is the “Gazette” not published once a week? If these figures are available, what prevents my hon. friend from having them published in the “Gazette”? Is my hon. friend desirous of keeping them back as long as possible so that hon. members will not have an opportunity of studying them?

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This little measure deals with two matters affecting the powers of provincial councils. The one is to restrict the powers, or rather the field of taxation by provincial councils on persons and incomes. The second is to extend the powers of the provincial councils in dealing with itinerant traders. Under the law as it stands at present the councils are entitled to impose a tax on persons with a limit of £5, and then also to impose a tax upon the incomes of persons derived from sources within the province limited to 20 per cent. of the Union income tax in respect of married taxpayers, and 30 per cent. in the case of unmarried taxpayers. The Transvaal has gone further. In their provincial ordinance they have coupled, with the tax on incomes, a tax on persons who have incomes in the province although they do not reside in the province. What we propose doing here is to take away the right of the councils to tax non-resident persons in respect of incomes derived from sources within the province, and to put them back in the position they formerly occupied; that is, of taxing their own residents irrespective of the province from which the income is derived. Under the existing law they can tax a non-resident on income derived from sources within the province, and under the Bill now proposed they will be entitled to tax their own residents in respect of incomes derived within the Union. Hon. members will see that in the first place the existing law makes administration difficult, and in the second place there would be an inducement in some places for taxpayers in one province to invest in other provinces where there might not be taxation on persons. That is one of the results of the law as it stands at present. We have had representations, especially from the Transvaal, and I think generally it is admitted that what we propose to do here in the present Bill, will be preferable to the existing state of affairs. Then the second object is to extend the power of the councils in connection with the control of licences. At present under the existing legislation, the licences are fixed by the Union Government, but the councils have the right to control the issue of those licences, but under the Bill we propose to go further, and that is to give them also the right to control the methods of trading after the licence has been issued. Either we, as a Union Parliament, have to deal with the matter—I believe it is a burning question, at least in some provinces—or we must extend these rights to the councils to deal with the matter themselves if they are iso disposed. Conditions, of course, differ in various provinces. Consequently we extend the powers of these councils to enable them to deal with the matter if they consider it is in the interests of the province itself that they should do so. Hon. members will see that I propose to reserve to the Orange Free State province their existing provincial ordinance for a year. It is possible that when we come into committee I shall ask the House to amend that section, because since then I have had representations from the Transvaal where they want something similar to be done for them. It may save the councils from passing ordinances necessary to bring their legislation in line with ours. I am making the position clear to the councils. For instance, in the case of the Transvaal there is some doubt as to the validity of the existing ordinance, because they coupled the poll tax with the ordinary tax. But I may consider the advisability of preserving to the councils their existing ordinances in so far as they are intra vires, and also subject to the condition that the tax on non-residents disappears. That will be a matter of drafting. If it is possible to meet the councils in that respect, I shall introduce the necessary amendment at the committee stage. But as the section is at present drafted we are meeting the case of the Orange Free State, but we are not in that section helping the Transvaal, which has also made representations.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 13th June.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New clause, as, amended, put and agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 7 put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

These duties are a great hardship on some of these societies. Some are registered, and some are not. Those who are registered have to conform to certain rules which are enforced by the Government, and they get no corresponding return of any kind. These societies have performed very useful work of a charitable kind, and they prevent people from becoming burdens on local authorities or on the Government. It has been further suggested that this exemption of duty should apply to the regalia imported by masonic societies, but the Minister said he would, under no circumstances, agree to that, so I have not included that in my amendment, but I see the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) proposes to amend that in that direction, and I have no objection if the Minister will accept that additional amendment. Sooner than raise any controversy, I omitted it from my amendment.

seconded.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

I cannot see what possible difference there is in principle between the two cases. I cannot understand it at all. They are both doing good work. I am entirely in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), but some of the friendly societies have far more accumulated funds than masonic bodies. The difference is that masonic bodies spend their moneys for the education of children of poor masons and for charitable purposes. They do not hoard their money. I have not been able to get exact information as to the amount of regalia imported into the country. I have enquired, and those who know think that the total amount brought into the Union is between £15,000 and £20,000 per year, so that it does not amount to a very large amount, but it is a large expense to the individual who enters masonry or accepts high office. There are two concerns which make regalia in South Africa, one in Cape Town and the other in Johannesburg, but the Minister taxes the raw material used for certain types of regalia which can be made in South Africa in the same way as complete aprons are taxed—20 per cent.—and it does not look like any encouragement of South African industry. I would draw the Minister’s attention to that. In fact, I am informed there has been correspondence with the Board of Trade and Industry about this. The duty has been steadily increasing. At one time it was 10 per cent. all round, and now it is 20 per cent., if it is imported without any jewels and metal attachments; with metal it is 30 per cent. The ordinary apron costs something between 30s and £2, and the duty would be 6s. 8d. or 10s. according to whether it has metal on it or not. Speaking of some grand lodge regalia, with which I am acquainted, the cost price in England has gone up from £4 4s., pre-war price, to £6 15s. to-day for a set of regalia. The work cannot be done here. The Government takes another £3 per set, a very heavy duty indeed. There is no profit made; it is supplied by the grand lodge at the price it costs them. The Government should do all in its power to encourage the growth of freemasonry in South Africa, because it is an institution which is doing more than any other I know of to bring the races together, and it provides a common platform for all races.

Why should you ask?

Because there is an old motto—

I do not see why if you allow exemption to friendly societies, you should not allow it to masonic societies. They are very deserving bodies too. I am not objecting to friendly societies, because I believe their work is good. But there are several masonic institutions which are saving the State an enormous amount of money by educating the children of deceased or distressed freemasons. The concession I suggest is only a matter of bare common justice to a body of men who are shouldering a burden which would fall on the State were it not for the principles on which freemasonry is founded. As to the reason for wearing masonic regalia, from time immemorial it has been found that a good way to impress truths on people is to make use of ceremonial and uniforms by which persons are invested with dignity and it is found that the wearing of regalia and ceremonial dress adds dignity and impressiveness to the occasion. I hope the Minister will consider giving a rebate on imported material used in the manufacture of regalia and on imported regalia.

seconded.

I am generally on the side of reducing taxation but in this instance I am opposed to the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). Friendly society regalia is worn by poor people who club together to secure sick and burial benefits, but the freemasons belong to a different and more prosperous section of society. If the Minister gives way on this point—

No, I am not giving way.

I am very glad to hear it. Why should not parsons, professors and barristers who import their gowns ask for the same concession?

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I regret that whilst the Minister was amending this legislation he did not go a bit further and remove some of the other anomalies which have existed for some little time. It will be remembered that when the licences were consolidated in 1925 the Minister brought in a Bill in order to give the provinces certain revenues. When he did that he brought about a system of double taxation which has operated very harshly indeed on the Transvaal. Up to that time the municipalities were allowed to impose certain taxation. By the Minister’s arrangement with the provinces, the provinces were also allowed to impose the same taxation. The result was that a large section of the community were not only taxed by the municipalities, as before, but they were also taxed by the provinces. In other words, we have two distinct bodies which are taxing individuals for the same trade. I am sure this was never intended when the Minister discussed the matter with the provincial council authorities in Durban. The Bill which was passed after that conference was hastily drawn up and already several amendments have been required to that Act, and it seems to me that whilst the Minister is reviewing this question it is a pity that he does not review the whole thing instead of simply dealing with the little matters comprised in this Bill. The Minister’s attention was drawn by me to anomalies in 1925. He then said—

It has worked out very unfairly but nothing has been done since to rectify the anomalies, and the unfortunate people who have this double taxation imposed upon them are compelled to play a game of battledore and shuttlecock. They go to the Government for redress and the Government refers them to the provinces. They go to the provinces, and the provinces refer them to the municipalities. As far as the disposal of the revenue is concerned, my sympathy is entirely with the municipalities, because whatever work is done in the way of supervision to justify the fees the municipalities have to do it. All the provinces do is to write out the receipts for the money received. One of the most glaring instances of double taxation is in regard to the hotel keeping business, dining rooms and billiard tables. When I state that under the present system the average hotelkeeper has to pay no less than £40 to £50 a year in double taxation, I think hon. members will agree that it is an iniquitous thing. What effect is this going to have on the tourist trade, which we are always talking about? We are all anxious to encourage the tourist trade, and anything that is done to militate against the dining rooms is not good policy, and I say that to impose an extra £50 a year on hotelkeepers is not going to be conducive to improving the dining rooms or the general catering of the hotels. At the best, hotel dining rooms are rarely run at a profit, leaving altogether out of the question such arbitrary taxation. Then there is the question of billiard tables. Billiard tables, in most cases, are only used for the entertainment of guests, but if the hotelkeeper under the present conditions were to surrender all the revenue from the billiard tables, he would have to submit a charge of about 30s. a month per table under this double taxation. What I would like to ask the Minister is, how long is this unfair class legislation going to continue? If it had been in regard to any other business there would have been such an uproar that it would have been amended by this time, but as it is mainly for hotelkeepers, whose name seems to me anathema in this House, nothing is done. It should be borne in mind, however, that hotelkeepers carry on a perfectly legal trade, which brings a very considerable revenue into the Treasury. There is no justification for this double taxation, and I do not think the Government is justified in allowing it to continue. This matter has been repeatedly brought to the notice of the Government, but as I said before they simply refer the sufferers to the provinces, and the provinces refer them again to the municipalities. As the Government has brought about this state of things, I maintain that the onus is upon them to set it right. They brought in special legislation in 1925 which caused this unfortunate state of affairs and I think it is the duty of the Minister and of the Government to do at least bare justice to the people who have suffered by the legislation. I trust that during the recess the Minister will carefully look into the whole matter of these licences, and that next session he will be able to come along and say that he is going to remove all the anomalies, including the ones I have mentioned.

I am glad that the Minister has eventually been converted with regard to small licences in rural areas. In 1925, the Minister stood very determinedly by his stipulations with regard to licences, and we then felt that they would press very heavily on the poor small dealer especially those who hawked fish, fruit, etc., round the small villages, and upon the women in the small villages who baked cake, bread and biscuits, and had to pay a licence of £1 to carry on domestic jobs. The Minister then said that the provision had to be made for the sake of uniformity, but I am glad that he now sees that the pressure upon the small people in the Western Province and especially in my constituency is too severe. My constituency has about ten different municipalities, local boards and divisional councils and the result is that the man who travels round, e.g., with fish or fruit, has to take out ten licences of £1 for the various wards to carry on business in my district. In that way the 1924 Act operated harshly in my district, especially on the poor small people. I am glad the Minister now consents to reduce the separate licences to 5s. by which in future anyone trading in Caledon will only pay £2 10s. instead of £10. I congratulate the Minister on amending the Licensing Act of 1925.

We have to do here with one of the cases which shows once more how difficult it is to introduce uniformity into the various parts of the country. I believe that the difficulties in connection with the licences are limited to a few districts in the Western Province, and at that time I already gave notice that after we had had some experience it would possibly be desirable to make an alteration in some cases. On account of the difficulties that arose about the small licences in the districts mentioned I am glad that we are now able to make an alteration.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) has raised the question of double taxation as the result of the passing of the Provincial Subsidies Act and this Licensing Act. I can tell the hon. member there is nothing to be amended. It is a deliberate question of policy, and I do not see how you can get out of it. There is no question of double taxation. All we do is to say that the provincial councils will have the right to grant to a municipality or local authority the right to issue an additional fee in the case of trades or occupations that require inspection. If the provincial councils in their wisdom, see fit to entrust to these local authorities the right to charge an additional fee for this, I think there is nothing wrong in that. That is a matter which is decided by the provincial councils. We do not get the revenue. In the second place they formerly had the right, or still have the right, to legislate in regard to municipalities. We have allowed them to retain the right they formerly had of giving councils the power to make this particular charge.

May I just explain? The Government gives the provincial councils power to impose that tax, and the provincial council extends the same power to the municipality, so they both impose the tax. The provincial council gets hold of the money, the municipality does exactly the same, and neither will disgorge though each claims the other is not entitled to it.

There is no objection to it. We have double taxation in the case of the Union Government and the provincial councils in regard to income tax. You cannot help it. It is not really a double tax. The municipality, for reasons of public health, must inspect various kinds of trade, and it is reasonable that they should be entitled to recoup themselves for any expenditure they are put to.

What does the provincial council get it for?

It is one of the things assigned to them, but they have the right in addition to allow municipalities to impose a fee for the work which they do for the local authority for health reasons.

What is the remedy?

There is no remedy. I think it is very good policy, and I have no intention of altering it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Last night, in a very thin House, I was putting a point with regard to the Minister’s action in regard to the Conciliation Board now sitting in Johannesburg. There is a dispute between the municipality of Johannesburg and the tramway workers, who all belong to the Tramwaymen’s Union, in regard to the question of spread-over. For some time past, the municipality, by reason of the increasing competition of bus companies, has found its tramways are very much a losing proposition. The taxpayers’ money has been lost heavily, and there is some danger, if this competition is not met, of the tramway system being scrapped. Therefore, the municipality made a proposal to the men that they should agree to work the same number of hours but spread over a longer period in the day. The men would not agree to that, and a conciliation court was set up under the Act. The parties could not agree upon the arbitrator, and it became necessary for the Minister to make an appointment. Whom did he appoint? I say the appointment he made was about the most extraordinary I have ever heard. The gentleman he appointed as sole arbitrator was a Mr. Downes, who is the organizing secretary of the Typographical Union. Imagine in a dispute between a municipal body on the one hand and a trade union on the other, the arbitrator appointed being the organizing secretary of the Typographical Union, a leading official of a trade union, and, I am also informed, a gentleman who, no doubt quite rightly according to his own views, is a declared exponent of the principle of the 40-hour week. However fairly that gentleman may try to arbitrate, and however fairminded he may be—and I make no criticism of him personally because I do not know him—I submit it is the height of absurdity to make an appointment of that sort. If the Minister had set out to wreck the Act, and make it anathema to employers of labour, he could not do better than make appointments of that sort, It is the fact that Mr. Downes occupying the position he does which makes it impossible for the appointment to command the confidence of both sides. In previous arbitrations, the department has appointed a judge or a magistrate, or someone else occupying an impartial position. Why should not the Minister have done that in this case? The Johannesburg municipality is losing £2,000 a month on its trams at the present time. It would be saved if this spread-over scheme was adopted. The arbitration court sat and after a fortnight Mr. Downes said he had to go up to Rhodesia, and he would be back in three weeks’ time. In the meantime the whole functioning of that court is held up, and because of the private affairs of the gentleman who is sole arbitrator, the municipality will go on losing £2,000 a month until such time as he comes back to settle this question. I say it is an absolutely wrong state of affairs. Í am very sorry the Minister has taken this action, and I venture to express the opinion that in future appointments under this Act the Minister will take care to appoint gentlemen whose impartiality is absolutely above suspicion.

I want to bring to the notice of the Minister a rather important labour settlement in my constituency. It is unfortunately a legacy left to the Minister by his predecessor. I am not blaming the Minister personally for any mismanagement, but, of course, the Government, as a whole, must take the responsibility. What is the history of the settlement? At the time when it was meditated to establish the so-called labour settlement at Elgin, when the farmers of the Elgin area heard where this proposed settlement was to be established, the farmers, and their representative in Parliament approached the Minister’s predecessor. They warned the Minister of the unsuitability of that settlement from the climatic point of view, and also from the economic point of view. They told the Minister that the rainfall on this plateau Nieuwberg was between 70 and 80 inches, and there was snow-up there as a rule in winter two to three feet deep; that it was situated about 8 or 9 miles up the mountain away from the railway line, They strongly impressed on the Minister the necessity, if they did want to commence the settlement, to do it in the valley where they have a plantation—the best in the whole Union, if not in the world. The Government persisted in establishing this settlement at Nieuwberg. They made provision for 300 people, and I heard the expenditure has run to £14,000 or £16,000.

£14,000.

I suppose that is exclusive of the lawsuit. The lower riparian owners went in a body to the Minister and told him that if they were to commence the settlement at the source of the Palmiet River the water for domestic and irrigation purposes would be polluted, and they would have to get an interdict. That all took place before a single penny was spent on that settlement. It is almost incredible; the Government paid no attention to me, the member of Parliament representing the district, who knows every inch of that area.

Not every inch.

I am acquainted with the whole forest history of the Elgin area. They paid no attention to practical farmers who lived in that area. The farmers told Colonel Creswell that they should get other ground, but for heaven’s sake do not put the poor people up there. They embarked on the scheme, and put up huts which are a disgrace to a Government which calls itself civilized. They are more fit for pigs and for low-class animals than for human beings. I wish, Mr. Chairman, that you would go up there as a practical man and take the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) with you, and then come and report to this House your bona fide opinion of the class of buildings which have been put up there. They were put up at great expense. Any person who has common sense, if he went up there and saw the plan of the settlement and how it was situated could come to no other conclusion but that pollution must necessarily follow; and no court of law would refuse an interdict. The farmers took action against the Government, and the case lasted for nearly twelve months. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what the cost of the lawsuit was. In the end, in the last phase of the case, the Government admitted liability, and agreed to the interdict being made final and to pay all the costs. The result is that after these poor settlers had struggled there are now only about ten people there. They will not survive this winter. They can never live up there, and they will also run away. In order to avoid pollution it is one of the principal rules that no cat, dog or any other live animal is allowed to be kept by them. I saw the rules that the chief labour agent, Mr. Freestone, I think, had drawn it.

Pigs?

No pigs; of course not. These people are pestered with horse flies in summer. You cannot live there in summer. You cannot keep a live animal there. You cannot keep a fowl. You cannot cultivate a garden. You cannot plough.

Is that the Caledon district?

It i,s on top of a mountain where your Government goes to farm. I want to know from the Minister how many people are stationed there at present, and what is the intention of the Government in regard to the future of that settlement? [Time limit.]

I should like to ask the Minister if he could give the committee some information with regard to the determinations under the Wage Act. The Wage Board issued a report on the sweet manufacturing industry, and that report suffered very severely at the hands of critics. I think we will all agree if we read the further report which has been issued by the Wage Board that there was a very sound reason for all that criticism. If one reads the subsequent report one will find that many of the suggestions were deleted; for instance, regarding packers, delivery men, storemen, with regard to piece work and rights of the inspectors regarding working short time. A very great many were amended, so that there is very clear evidence that the original suggestion was quite unwork able. I think it is to the credit of the Wage Board that they did climb down. One might have had a board so obstinate that they could not see reason. To start with, they made a colossal mistake, but eventually they saw reason, and the report was seriously amended. I should also like to know what is the position regarding the clothing industry investigation, glass bevelling and leather industries. I believe there was a leather industry report put on the Table to-day. What action is the Minister taking with regard to these reports and what are his determinations, because all these trades are very much upset, do not know where they are, and what the conditions are likely to be within the next few months. The sooner the Minister makes up his mind whether to accept these reports or to turn them down, the better it will be for all these industries. The country has a right to know as soon as possible the judgment upon them. What is going to be the Minister’s attitude in future regarding representation at Geneva? Provision was made that the Minister had the right, failing an agreement as to the representative of the employers or the employees, to determine himself which recommendations of the section of the employers’ or employees’ bodies he will accept. Is the Minister going to neglect that duty next year as he has done this year? It is a very bad thing for the country and for those who are taking a very live interest in the conference at Geneva, to go there half strong. This year we went practically only with the employers’ representative.

And the Government.

And there were no employees represented.

That is all.

I suggest that that is half. It is essential that there should be one employers’ and one employees’ representative. If one is not present there is no voting power. Simply because the Minister will not take his courage in both hands, we are not represented as we should be. Next year, or the year after, one body of the employees will say that they represent the employees and another body will dispute that right. I think the Minister will be acting in the best interests of the country if he will lay down once and for all that if those bodies cannot decide and mutually agree as to a representative, he will do so over their heads.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is not in his place. He inveighed against the settlement at Nuweberg and accused the department of putting up houses for the people there which were comparable with pigsties. We know that the hon. member’s great grievance is that the department has dared to introduce that class of people into his constituency, because he considers it dangerous to him if the settlement is so extended as to possibly alter his constituency.

That is far-fetched.

The hon. member for Caledon let the remark drop in private conversation with reference to our attempts to assist these people there with tree planting. I believe the hon. member went through it and inspected the settlement by accident, but I had the opportunity to go over the whole area quite a number lof times, and I also visited a similar settlement in French Hoek, La Motte, which was established by the late Government. I say that the settlement at Nuweberg is much better than that at La Motte. A better class of building has been put up—it is better in every respect.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

I am speaking about the class of building erected. I do not know whether the hon. member for Paarl has ever visited Nuweberg.

How can he compare if he has only visited one?

I challenge the hon. member to say publicly that the houses at Nuweberg are worse than those at La Motte. If the buildings at Nuweberg are worse than pigsties then I wonder what the view of the hon. member for Caledon is about La Motte and similar settlements of the late Government for afforestation. The houses are exemplary and the people that live there are entirely satisfied with them. The Government is making a good effort to help the poor people, and I cannot understand how the hon. member can come and make such low insinuations. I do not know whether the hon. member for Caledon considers his constituency so bad. I had the opportunity of growing up there. The hon. member says that those people have no opportunity of making a garden, but I consider they have the best chance there for growing fruit trees in their spare time so that they can make something in the winter months. The opportunities for gardening at Nuweberg are much better than at La Motte. The hon. member for Caledon says the ground is worth nothing, but if he has no ulterior object then I cannot understand his remark. The hon. member says that the people are too far apart on the place where the settlement is, and that Palmiets river rises there and the water of the river is fouled. It is unfortunately a fact. We want a place for a forestry settlement, and I ask the hon. member to point out a better place for the dwellings than what the Labour Board selected at Nuweberg. There is no better place available, and the department was compelled to place the settlement there in order to be in the neighbourhood of the afforestation work. It is certain that the neighbourhood of Elgin is very well suited for afforestation and I do not think there is a better place in the Union. It is certainly worth the trouble of giving the people the opportunity of getting on their legs, and therefore we must have a place to erect the dwellings. If the hon. member for Caledon can indicate a better place in Elgin for them the department will be thankful to him. If the hon. member criticizes an attempt to help people on afforestation work so severely then the criticizer cannot be stigmatised by any other word than “low.” I consider that this settlement is better than the one put up by the late Government, and the House will be foolish and take an unwise step in taking any notice of what was said by the hon. member for Caledon.

I have been approached by the Unemployed Committee of Cape Town to plead their cause. I suggested that they should go to their parliamentary representatives. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) was approached and these were /the words he used—

Who told you that?

That comes from one of the members of the Unemployment Committee.

It is a lie. It is an absolute lie.

I was not present when this was said, but why should these men use words like that—

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) denies that he made use of the words quoted, and it is a parliamentary rule to accept the word of an hon. member in such a case. I must confess, however, that the hon. member for Salt River did not use the best language in making his denial.

Is the ejaculation—“It is an absolute lie”—to be accepted as a denial when it is made by a member during the course of another hon. member’s speech?

The hon. member for Salt River did not refer to the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), but said that the statement he quoted was a lie.

I said that the statement was a lie, and I am prepared to stand by that.

I must accept the hon. member’s statement, but I would like him to explain why these words should have been used by the man.

The hon. member must accept the denial of the hon. member for Salt River.

I have accepted it. Recently mass meetings of the unemployed have been held in Cape Town, and as many as 1,200 have attended the meetings. A large body of these men almost surrounded the House and sent in a deputation to the Government seeking relief. I am told that conditions in Cape Town are worse than they have ever been. The reason is not far to seek—the Government’s policy has been to fix wages throughout South Africa. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) mentioned a case the other day where, through wages being increased above the economic rate, 19 coloured girls were discharged. Is it any wonder that unemployment is worse now than it ever was? We have a large department of Labour costing a considerable sum of money, and this state of things should not exist. The Unemployment Committee tell me that month after month respectable men with the best references go to the Department of Labour in search of work, and some of them are put to most unsuitable work. Hungry men are put to work with pick and shovel at Groot Schuur, but owing to their poor physical condition they are unable to earn more than 2s. 6d. or 3s. a day. Many of these men have wives and children. How can Government expect them to keep body and soul together on a wage like that? It is a scandal. The Unemployment Committee further states that on three separate occasions recently they approached the Minister who told them that he could do nothing to help them. The Minister has been at his job for three years now, and with a little organization a good many of the unemployed could be absorbed. The Minister represents a province where unskilled labour is in great demand. The production of maize, sugar and wattle is increasing very rapidly in Natal, but the farmers are hampered through lack of unskilled labour; in fact, they have to get labour from outside the province, and for each labourer they have to pay a premium to labour agents. Each gang of labourers supplied by these agents includes a number of professional deserters, but the premium paid on account of the men who desert cannot be recovered. If the Minister knew his job he would organize a bureau, and let it be known that the farmers could obtain labour from it.

That would not do.

I am surprised at the Minister saying that. Last June I took a coloured man and his wife and three children on my farm, gave them a house and land for the cultivation of vegetables, and paid the man £3 per month. He proved very satisfactory. If a private individual can do that how much more can the Government do? Let him do that instead of having these people going about to mass meetings in a half-starving condition. Let the Minister alter conditions at Groot Schuur instead of finding employment for men where they can only earn 2s. 6d. and 3s. a day. That is a reflection upon South Africa.

Some are earning 9s. 4d. a day.

But does the Minister think it is right that these people should earn 2s. 6d. a day, and they have wives and families to keep. I hope the hon. Minister will give full information on those points.

The remarks just made by the hon. member show the danger of listening to everything that people come and say to you in the lobby. That point is explained by a little episode which occurred on the day the second reading of the Flag Bill took place. A deputation came here and wanted me to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the question of unemployment, but I refused to be made a tool of by these people, and I said it was an insult to me to say that I was not as much concerned about the unemployed question as they were. If the hon. member wants to score off the Labour party he must at least be fair. If any man or woman comes to me and suggested that I am not trying to do my best to assist in solving the problem of unemployment I regard it is an insult, and it is not true.

On a point of order, I think I should repeat the words so that there shall be no confusion.

I do not think there is any necessity for it. I think the hon. member may now drop the subject.

For any member to try and make party advantage out of the unemployment question is a very mean thing to do.

You never do it.

I don’t care whatever party is in power, if there is unemployment, and I thought the problem was growing and was not being attended to properly, I should always fight the matter to the end. There is something wrong with the Government machine. We know the Minister has done his best according to the machinery he has, but it works slowly, and there has not been that co-operation by the local authorities there should have been. When the South African party was in power the local authorities were more anxious to co-operate with us than they are to-day. That is where the machine breaks down.

You are not delivering the goods, then.

We cannot deliver the goods if the local authorities will not assist us.

Do you think the South African party press are in the way?

No, the press is very fair on this question, which is too serious a matter to score party advantage over.

Which you have just been doing.

No, I am not, but the local authorities are not co-operating as they should do. If a man is out of work he is sent to the Central Labour Bureau, and people are under the impression that the bureau produces work. All it does is, that if work is available, it directs the attention of the man to where the work is procurable. It cannot manufacture jobs. Here was this big job at Groot Schuur on the hospital site. I found a large piece of ground had to be cleared of trees, and I found the Hospital Board had been marking time for months over the job. I went to the Provincial Council, and they referred it back to the Hospital Board, who in turn referred it to the Central Government. In this way we go from pillar to post, and everyone seems to shelve responsibility, whilst all the time the unemployed are walking the streets destitute and looking for work. It is my opinion also, that the machinery of the Labour Bureau does not function properly. We really want an outside official who can visit all the employers in the big towns, and point out to them that if they want to assist in solving the problem they must use the Labour Bureau to a far greater extent than they are doing to-day. I say that if one hundred employers wanted labour to-day not more than 10 per cent. would apply to the Government Labour Bureau. That is wrong. I believe there is a lot of prejudice against the Government Labour Bureau, and I think the bureau is blamed for the legislation placed on the statute book by the Government, such as the Wages Act and the Conciliation Act. They think the Labour Bureau is a part of the machinery of this legislation, and the general public has to be instructed in this matter, and if I might make a suggestion to the Minister I should appoint a man in Cape Town and pay him a good salary—

Another official.

I want to educate the employers of labour that the bureau is there for their benefit, and ought to be used. As long as you have the system of private enterprise where labour is looked upon as a commodity, so long will you be bound to have unemployment. In the most prosperous times you always have a certain amount of unemployment. If we were really civilized and ran things on scientific lines, we should reduce scientifically working hours, and by that means solve unemployment. To-day certain men are drawing big cheques monthly as a result of much overtime, and at the same time their brothers are walking the streets out of work. We want to do away with that anomaly.

I want a clear statement from the Minister with regard to the position of this determination of wages in the building trade. His reply, so far, has left me completely up in the air. We have it clearly enunciated by the Minister of Justice that the Act does not apply to the agricultural community. He has said, so firm is he in the opinion, that he will not allow a criminal prosecution under the Act to take place. That is a very plain statement. But the Minister comes along and makes a further determination applying to farming areas.

I made no further determination.

For instance, the area within fifteen miles of Kimberley.

No, I have not. I will explain that point.

Yes, I suppose the Minister will say it is made by the Industrial Council, but I want a clear statement. Are we civilly responsible under the Act? The deputy-leader of the Government says, in his opinion, we are not. Of course, I know the opinions of Labour members do not always coincide with the opinions of the remaining members of the Government.

How do you know that?

The Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) on the question of the State bank showed that it was not a rift that was in the lute, but a chasm which could not be bridged. Does the Minister admit that?

Certainly.

Will the Minister of Labour be good enough to give an absolutely plain statement if the wages which are laid down for the urban districts and country areas are not paid, does an action at civil law lie? When the Government responsible for the administration speak with two voices, and two sections lay down two principles, it puts us in a very unfair position. If it does apply to us civilly, the sooner he amends it the better. The country have a right to ask for it to be amended. When the question was raised in a previous debate two months ago the Minister said he could not do anything in the matter; that he has made a determination, and nothing could be altered until 1928. Now he comes along apologetically and says he has withdrawn this district and that district.

Were you here last night, when I made my explanation?

Yes.

I have withdrawn Cradock.

I am surprised that you stated that in view of the fact that you stated a month or so back that you could make no alteration in the areas proclaimed. Anyhow, perhaps the Minister will make the position clear.

Order! The hon. member will address the Chair.

Is the Minister subservient to the action of the Industrial Council? Are the farmers to be dictated to by the Industrial Council on which they are not represented, and is the Minister going to shrug his shoulders and say that the Industrial Council did it? I thought the Minister was a strong man. When I saw that at a meeting held in Johannesburg, he was described as “week-kneed” I felt indignant, but if the Minister is going to shelter himself behind the Industrial Council then I shall feel very much inclined to sympathize with the gentleman who made that remark. I am told that a radius of 15 miles round Kimberley is now an area within which the determinations will operate. Why is a farmer who lives inside the 15 miles radius going to be subjected to these building clauses, while a farmer who lives 15½ miles from Kimberley is to pay what wages he likes? When two men in a Cabinet speak with two different voices, it is rather hard to know which voice you are to accept as the true voice. I will not pursue this matter. I only want a clear statement from the Minister as to whether we are liable civilly under that Act. The Minister of Justice has stated that we shall not be liable criminally. Will the Minister of Labour tell us perfectly frankly, are we civilly liable under his wage determinations, or are we not?

I concur in every word spoken by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), and I hope that the Minister in his reply will give a clear explanation about the costs of the water case, the expenditure that was made, the number of people working there, and what the maintenance costs are. I go there twice every month, and I cannot see how people can exist there in cold mountainous ground which is worthless. With all respect for the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick), I want to say that I expected more from him as a former minister of religion than to make such a speech. He says that the hon. member for Caledon has an ulterior motive and he wants to insinuate that the hon. member is afraid of 200 or 300 people being placed there because it may mean his losing his seat. I can give the assurance that the Caledon seat is safe, because the S.A. party have a majority of over 800, and at the next election it will be 1,200, so that the hon. member for Pot-ehefstroom need not worry himself about the hon. member for Caledon.

Are you safe?

I am still safer. The hon. member for Potchefstroom has compared Nuweberg with La Motte, but there is as big a difference as between chalk and cheese I cannot understand how the hon. member can compare the two settlements. I will not say that he was low because then I should possibly get into trouble, but he should not have made the insinuation that the hon. member for Caledon was afraid of his seat on account of the people being put there.

I would like to represent to the Minister the very great inconvenience that it is to the commercial community to prepare all these statements that are required in his department. I think the commercial community are prepared to put themselves to a great deal of inconvenience in order to give any reasonable information, but some information that he asks for is, I submit, unreasonable. I will first of all give just a few instances of reasonable information which the commercial community are asked for, and which they prepare at very great cost. First of all, there are the manufacturing statistics for the industrial census returns. Then there is the monthly return of persons employed in productive work, then a return to the Juvenile Advisory Board covering all juniors who are engaged or dismissed, and then the statistics of wages paid for certain occupations, for instance, boots and shoes, retail drapery, furniture, grocery, hardware, clerical work, hairdressing work. Those are four returns. Then there is a return of the whole of the wages paid throughout the business. Another return is of all mechanical engineering and apprentices to mechanical engineering employed in the business. Another return is of the registration of natives, including the engagement and dismissal of natives. He has just added another called the return of the Psychology Bureau. I understand that this is not altogether the invention of the Department of Labour, but that it is some work they are doing in collaboration with the Department of Education, but I do submit that the document ought never to have been issued from the Department of Labour. The document is a questionnaire of six or seven pages. I would like to give the House some of the questions that employers have been asked to answer. There are numerous questions, but I will just give a few examples. Here is one—

Does the Minister of Labour really think for one moment that any business in the world keeps a record of that kind of thing for three years?

Who sent that one in? It is the first I have heard of it.

I believe that it was issued without the Minister’s consent. I understand that was so, but he is responsible. It is issued under the aegis of his department. Here is another one—

Here is another one—

I won’t quote the rest to the House because I recognize that every sensible man understands this is absolute piffle. What is the position? Our staffs are overburdened with Government statistics and then on the top of doing everything they can to help the Government to get some knowledge of labour conditions they send in a thing like this which, well, really, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says, no ordinary sensible person ought to do anything with except put it into the wastepaper basket or I would suggest to send it to Valkenburg for them to answer there.

Don’t you know it is a test of intelligence?

I should think it is a test of want of intelligence.

Is that the question put forward in connection with this psychological research?

Yes, the so-called psychological bureau. It is an absolute waste of money and not only that but it causes these increases in the Minister’s department; he has to keep officials who are going to tabulate this stuff and when you have done all your tabulating you have not got one iota further in finding how to get a job for a man. That is what the Minister has to concentrate on, getting jobs for men out of jobs. The only job this will get for a man is clerical labour to deal with this mass of unnecessary information. I do ask the Minister to particularly take notice that the mercantile community will spend any money he likes to get him really sound information that is going to help the labour position, but if he puts forward anymore of this stuff the reasonable, sensible stuff will also be thrown into the wastepaper basket.

That comes from the universities.

I believe the Minister does not know anything about it, but it is signed by somebody for the Secretary of Labour.

Yes, we circularize the questions drawn up by the professors of psychology at Stellenbosch and Cape Town universities.

Yes, but I suggest the Minister of Labour should not circulate rubbish. It ought not to be passed out to hundreds of merchants. Some poor official in a merchant’s office gets hold of this thing and struggles with it until his senior sees it, and tells him not to worry anymore about it but to throw it away.

At first blush these questions certainly seem to be, as the hon. member said, absurd. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says he put his in the waste-paper basket. In some respects I am sorry. We have been approached many times to do something in order to try and select the right type of boy and the right type of person for particular work. The hon. member knows that in other countries, America in particular, if anybody goes to apply for work in many cases they are put through a psychological test to see if they are suitable. In South Africa we have had no such system of that kind and there is no doubt about it that the standard of efficiency in this country is comparatively low in many cases for the simple reason that we try to put round pegs in square holes.

A better class man, more educated, is being taken now.

The professors of psychology at Stellenbosch and Cape Town universities approached us and said—

Naturally it appealed to me; it seemed to be a sensible and a sound thing. I said that certainly the Labour Department was interested in putting round pegs in round holes. We did not want to waste a lot of energy and effort in putting unsuitable people in positions, so we said that anything they could do in this direction we would be prepared to co-operate with. Then the Education Department came into it and they said they would pay the cost of getting this information and all the Labour Department had to do was to circularize all the different firms; we then circularized these firms with the questionnaire which had been drawn up by the professors in psychology solely for the purpose of seeing that our boys in South Africa are put into jobs for which they are best suited. It is in the experimental stage. I do not know how far it will be successful, but I think the hon. member must give credit for good intentions on the part of these professors who are giving their time to this particular work. I had not seen this questionnaire and at first blush it seemed to be absurd, but if it can be shown that they have the information—which I don’t suppose for a moment they have—it could be ascertained to what extent there was a lack of efficiency through mistakes and by a process of analysis and deduction they would try and find out to what extent a particular industry was carrying people not really suited for it.

Try it first in the Government service.

All departments are being circularized. I regret the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has not taken a different view of this matter instead of casting ridicule on the whole thing. I think as one who is interested in the welfare of our boys in South Africa, he should have said: “As far as we are concerned we will give what information we can, because we realize it is a worthy object.” Of course, if he is not interested and says he is not concerned with psychological analysis that is quite reasonable, but other people differ from him.

We are always experimenting ourselves.

Yes, but might I submit to the hon. member that he is not a professor of psychology and I do not suppose he has a member of his staff, large though it is, who has studied psychology.

No, I certainly have not.

The people handling this are professors of psychology. They are doing it from the point of view of seeing to what extent they can give practical application of their study of this science. After this explanation I hope the hon. member for Newlands will take a broad-minded view of it and even if he cannot give the information, at any rate, he can wish the scheme good luck and not vilify and throw stones at the honest efforts of those who are working in co-operation with the Education Department and the Labour Department for this particular purpose. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) asked me what I am going to do next year about Geneva. No one appreciates more than the Labour Department and I do the necessity for South Africa being fully represented there every year by the employees, the employers and the Government. That was our policy, and it was with the utmost reluctance I had to come to the decision I did— that I was not in a position to nominate a delegate from the employees, one most representative of the industries and of the working class organizations in South Africa. The position was so even that I was not going to appoint one and give offence to the others. I took every step to try to get an agreement, and I had hoped that an agreement would be reached to enable me to make a nomination that would be fully representative. I have put the full facts before the International Labour Office, and asked them to give me a lead on the question as what, would be the right thing to do under the particular circumstances I found myself in, because the policy we had adopted in South Africa in the past has been not in accordance with the decision laid down by the International Court of Justice, which adjudicated on this very point. A similar case happened with the Netherlands, and the International Court of Justice gave a decision which was in conflict with the practice which had been most generally adopted in South Africa. I did not want to do the wrong thing. As we could not get these trade unions to agree amongst themselves, I said, let it stand over for this year. I am safe in saying that South Africa will be represented next year. I want to know that the nomination is supported and backed by the large majority of the workers in the country. I do not expect 100 per cent., but where you have 50 or 45—just level—the position became almost impossible. The hon. member for Newlands also wanted to know with regard to the Wage Board determination in the sweet, clothing and leather industries.

Glass bevelling.

When the Wage Board first started functioning the employers generally really did not take it as seriously as they should, and did not give it the assistance they should. They were inclined to be hostile, and no attempt was made to co-operate with the Board in its task. The Wage Board put forward certain recommendations, and as soon as they were made public, the employers all over the country were up in arms at once, and said they would raise objections. The Wage Board collected all these objections, and only then did the employers become serious. The Wage Board said—

They were discussed, and the modifications were the practical outcome of the discussion. That was to a large extent the agreement between the industries concerned and the Wage Board. To-day there is a much better feeling and desire to co-operate with the Wage Board in the difficult task it has to do. We have this difficulty, as the hon. member knows, when a recommendation is made it has to be published for objections for a month. And when objections are received, and the final determination is made on the strength of these objections, our law advisers thought the thing was finished, but a case was recently taken to the Supreme Court of the Transvaal, and they decided that if a recommendation is altered in consequence of any objection which is made, the proposed new recommendation has to be published for a further month for further objection, and if amended, published for another month for further objection. That was never the intention when the Act was passed, and it makes the thing almost impossible. The position to-day is that we have to republish all these recommendations for further objection—if any come along—in consequence of this judgment. The sweet industry and the clothing industry were both discussed with the Wage Board; and also the question of setting up their own industrial council, and functioning under the Industrial Conciliation Act. They were given a certain period by the Wage Board who said—

They also said—

Mr. Lucas, the chairman of the Wage Board, tells me that since he has been to Cape Town the local industrialists are co-operating and doing their best to work with the Wage Board to see if an agreement cannot be reached in the clothing industry. The hon. member for Newlands also mentioned the leather industry, which is in a different category. It set up an industrial council and made an agreement, but owing to the definition of employee in the Industrial Conciliation Act, good employers found that the unscrupulous employers were evading the wage agreement by employing pass-carrying natives. The definition excludes these pass-carrying natives and certain Indians in Natal. The leather industry itself approached me, and the furniture industry did the same—they were in the same difficulty. They said—

I could do nothing under the Industrial Conciliation Act and so had to enlist the services of the Wage Board and to instruct the Board to investigate these two industries to make a recommendation which became the determination, so that the wages which are laid down for any particular class of work shall be applied to any person doing that work, whether pass-carrying natives or anybody else. There is no colour bar in the Wage Act, arid the wages determined apply to all irrespective of colour. The aim of the Wage Board was to protect the good employers who wished to play the game, but who were being defeated through people employing natives and not paying them proper wages. I am sorry the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) referred to the appointment of an arbitrator at Johannesburg, because it is a reflection on the person selected, who is a fair-minded man.

No reflection on him, but a reflection on you.

You can reflect on me, if you like. I appointed as arbitrator, a person who has established an exceedingly good reputation as a fair-minded and able official of the Typographical Union; he has the confidence of the master printers and the men. I am satisfied that he will do the right thing and give a square deal on the evidence. I don’t mind a reflection being cast on myself, but I dislike a reflection on the man who is performing a very difficult task and is entitled to all the support we can give him. I understand the Conciliation Board has suspended actual work for a couple of weeks, but the minutes show that the arbitrator suspended operations for two or three weeks with the consent of both sides. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) says he could not understand how the building agreement could be altered. Well, it has not been altered. The national council of the building industry met last month and decided to modify the agreement in certain respects when it comes up for renewal in February, but in the meantime the council will act as though the agreement has already been modified, and this will apply apart from other areas within a radius of fifteen miles of the Kimberley post office. The farmers will not be affected in any area, as building operations on farms are excluded.

What would happen if someone instituted legal proceedings?

The only people who institute proceedings are the local committees of the Industrial Council.

But supposing a private person starts proceedings?

The courts would have to decide to what extent an offence has been committed. I cannot alter something which is law, but under the circumstances the court would not act harshly. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) provision has been made at the Elgin settlement not for 300 men, but for 75. However much the hon. member may disagree with the site, it was selected after personal inspection and on the recommendation of officials of the forestry department and the agricultural department, the final decision resting with my predecessor, the present Minister of Defence.

Did you consult the local people?

I did not think that was necessary. The main complaint of the local people was not that the place was unsuitable, but to having a poor white settlement in their midst. They did not want that type of people there. The district has been a close preserve, and they did not desire poor whites to be adjacent to their farms—that was the main complaint.

Have you any evidence for stating that?

That is my own impression. What made matters worse was that when the contractor was erecting the building some of his natives polluted the streams, but we had not entered into occupation then. When we took over the buildings we took steps to see that there was no repetition of the pollution. Certain farmers—Molteho Brothers and others—tried to interdict us from having the settlement there, but the court refused to grant the interdict, although it interdicted us from doing anything likely to pollute the stream or harm the local residents. The court said to them—

The court gave an interdict on that, and the Labour Department undertook to do certain things and take certain precautions as a guarantee. Supposing that area had been sold to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), there was nothing to prevent him running cattle and farming there, but if he had polluted the water he would have been just as liable as we are. The mainspring of the Opposition, I think, was that they did not like the idea of poor whites being put in that area at all.

Didn’t you have to settle the case and pay their costs?

No, we only paid their costs up to the time the pollution was proved, after that we only paid our own.

How’ many men are there now’?

About 20. We held up because we did not know how the courts were going to decide.

Are you going on with the matter now?

Yes, we are going on, but there are certainly not 300, there are only 75. It is to be run as a forestry settlement, or whatever it is suitable for. It was a site chosen by the Forestry Department in collaboration with the Agricultural Department, and we did not go to the local farmers because we knew they would say that it was not a suitable place. There is only one other point, and I think my hon. friend, the member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), means to raise it again, and that is in connection with unemployment. The reason why unemployment in Cape Town happens to be worse than it was six or twelve months ago, is owing to a number of causes not under our control. Fluctuations in shipping for one. Usually we employ 1,000 to 1,200 at the docks for shipping purposes. Shipping has gone off, and for some months they have only been employing 500 to 600 men going up to 800, and that at once creates unemployment. Then I am told the brickfields have drawn in their activities owing to the wet weather. I am told by my department that as many as 100 men usually employed in the brickfields are not now employed. Further, we have no railway construction going on in the Cape Province within 150 miles round Cape Town. The department have not started new works which, in the ordinary way would have absorbed these men. When they have finished the work they were on, they come into the town. The Porterville line, which is down on the programme, is going to be rushed forward at an early date. £70,000 to £80,000 has been put down on the estimates of expenditure, and that will alleviate some of the distress amongst these men. Then last year the Provincial Council had 150 men on the Bains Kloof road, but they have taken them away now. I am always pressing the Provincial Council to absorb more unemployed. The Government cannot absorb them ail.

I am glad you have found that out. You ought to get the public to employ them.

The public employ to-day a larger percentage of civilized labour than they did when we took office.

Where were they earning their living before you took office?

They were on relief works. They were there on a subsidy basis, and it cost the Government £150,000 for subsidies. We have gradually absorbed large numbers into private employment and Government employment, but the position has been accentuated at the moment, owing to the reasons I have stated. If I can get the Divisional Council and the Provincial Council and the Railway Department to get a move on with work of construction, we could clear the whole lot in a week. We are doing all we can. Our policy of protecting industries so that they might expand is one way. They are expanding as the hon. member knows, and in Port Elizabeth they are falling over themselves to increase their industries.

They come off the land and go into the factories.

How canyon stop them doing that? We got this Groote Schuur hospital site, and mention has been made of men earning 2s. 6d. a day. That might be so, but some of the gangs are earning up to 9s. 4d. a day. Those who are able certainly should do it and if they don’t come out because they shirk the work, we cannot help it. You do not want to compel a man who is unable to do it, but if he is capable we have no sympathy with him. I am hoping that within a few days to have a larger number employed there. Any assistance we can get from hon. members to help us in this will be welcome.

The Minister has just informed us that the agreement under the Conciliation Act still applies to rural districts and areas, but that, so far as his department is concerned, it is not going to be enforced.

It never has been.

Take the district of Molteno. The Minister has informed us because he has been under the wrong impression and because of the attitude of the Minister of Justice that this Act will not apply to farmers. The position is this. The Department of Labour may not enforce the law. Take, for instance, that I am a farmer in the particular area where this agreement applies. The Minister says that his department will not enforce it there. I have a person working for me and I pay that person less than the wage provided for in the agreement. Has that person the right of suing me in any court to pay him the balance of the money? That is what I want to be clear on. If that is the case, why does the Minister not withdraw, as he has made certain amendments as to the areas where this agreement does apply, why does not he withdraw it entirely from the rural areas? As the position is to-day in one particular case you may be sued civilly. You may have a man working on a building that costs more than £400 at a wage which is below the wage specified in the agreement. The Minister says that it will not apply now even in areas where it is proclaimed to farmers. But surely you have got it in clear black and white that it does apply in those areas. It may be that the Minister of Justice will not institute a criminal prosecution, but any man working for me at a less wage than is laid down, has a right to sue me for the back pay.

You want the Minister to go back on the agreement?

He has gone back on it, and he has excluded certain areas. There are certain areas still remaining, and I ask him why not exclude all those areas where there are farms? It is a most queer position that the Government is quite satisfied to entertain a situation like that, where they proclaim a thing and say it does not apply, yet legally a person can be sued and probably a case can be won against such a person. To my mind there has been nothing else but mal-administration of this Act.

I just want to follow up my remarks about unemployment and to make one or two further suggestions to the Minister. The Minister knows that from time to time the workers are thrown out of employment under this system of private enterprize. For instance, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) at certain times has to dispense with employees. He retrenches. As far as he is concerned he has no further interest in these workpeople and they become unemployed. We know that a man or woman after a certain time, if he or she does not secure employment, is in danger of becoming what we call unemployable. I want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) or any other private employer what they propose to do with these men or women whom they do not require. I want to say that we should all work together to provide for these people who have become unemployed through various causes, and not make it a party question. You have large numbers of persons unemployed, genuine persons, men and women— in the city of Cape Town there are hundreds of women who are unemployed to-day and young men, too—and they go to the Labour Bureau. The Labour Bureau is there simply to give information regarding available work, but it does not manufacture work. I want the Labour Bureau to do something more than that. If these men and women go to the Labour Bureau, and they are told there is no work obtainable of any description, then I say it is the duty of the central Government to step in and see that these men and women are given means of existence until work is available. It has been said that we want to introduce the dole system. We have the dole system in the Cape Peninsula to-day. A person who is unemployed, and who gets right down, is sent to the Board of Aid for relief. When there is work available, say, for instance, at Groot Schuur, we find these men unable to do a day’s work. A large number of the men who have been started on the hospital site there have been unemployed for some time, and, through not getting proper food and shelter, they are, naturally, in a bad physical condition. In the ordinary way they would be quite fit. I want the Minister to recognize that, and see that the same system is adopted as they have in connection with piece-work on the railways, where a man is guaranted a day’s pay. These men, through no fault of their own, are below par, and I maintain that in the meantime they should be guaranteed a day’s pay. One man for whom I got a job out there came to see me several times. He went there with a gang and they worked, as far as I can understand, for sixteen days, and the pay for the whole of that time averaged about 2s. 6d. a day. That is disgraceful, and it is entirely due to the fact, not of these men being slackers, but of their being physically unfit. I want the Minister to see that these men, until they are fit, shall, in any case, be guaranteed a day’s pay. These men cannot do a day’s good work until they are put into a proper condition to do it. The Minister knows perfectly well that down here we have a large amount of unemployment from time to time. Mention has been made of the factor system. The factory system always means that at certain times we have what is called overproduction, and there are bound to be a number of men and women who are out of work. You will always have unemployment while you have this system of private enterprise, which regards labour as a commodity. We, as a State, have got to do something in regard to that. We have got to have some system of insurance against unemployment. We have this nauseating spectacle of decent men walking the streets by scores and hundreds, asking for work and not being able to get it. I do think that there should be some system whereby when any man or woman goes to the Labour Bureau and is unable to find work, that bureau should have funds available to give these men and women a sum of money to enable them, at least, to exist for the time being.

What about those who won’t work?

The hon. member believes in private enterprise. He wants 50 men to-day, and to-morrow he wants 200. Subsequently, he is prepared to put 300 men on the street. It is very unfair to suggest that men dismissed in this way are unwilling to work. It is quite easy for a man dismissed from a job to become unemployable and to get into a low moral state where he won’t work. I know that, and I want to avoid it. Under a proper system of society we should not have some people working day and night, and others walking the streets looking for work. Maintenance should be given until work is available in some form or other. The slogan of the world’s unemployed under the capitalist system is, and rightly so, “Work or maintenance”!

The Minister defended the first determinations of the Wage Board by saying that the employers who might have given the board some help rather refrained from doing so. I do not think the Minister is justified in suggesting that. I think it was entirely the fault of the Minister. Under the Wage Board Act the Minister has the right, under Clause 2, sub-section (4), to appoint on a Wage Board a representative of the employers and a representative of the employees, and he could have done so. I know the framers of this Wage Act wanted to prevent employer and employee meeting on the Wage Board and composing their differences. But he must not put it to the detriment of the employer when, under that very Act, he himself has the power to appoint a representative of the employers and a representative of the employees. I would urge that in boards of any technical character he should exercise the power he has under the Act and then the Wage Board would not be led into these determinations which are absolutely impossible, and which they know are impossible immediately they get technical men to point out their errors. The Minister should have had technical men on this board, and then we would have got determinations much more sound. I will just also refer to the remarks I made about this psychological bureau. In the first place, I join issue with him when he says the standard of efficiency of commercial employees is low. I do not think there is any evidence to bear that out, to bear out the statement that the standard of efficiency among commercial employees in South Africa is any different from what it is in the countries of Europe or America. Taking it all round, I should say it was equal to any other standard of efficiency in any other part of the world. He refers to the fact that America has this psychological bureau. Well, America is a different country from us. They leave off this year’s financial operations with £140,000,000 surplus. When you have £140,000,000 sterling surplus you can afford to go in for these crank ideas, but we are overtaxed to-day, and we do not want to increase the expenditure of Government. I think that if this psychological bureau had framed their questionnaire in a much simpler way they would have got the facts they wanted very much more easily, and facts that would have been of some use to them. For instance, if a man barges into your office with a red nose and knocks over a chair and has no reference for the last few years, you do not get a clerk in to register the fact that you interviewed him, and you turned him down because you thought he had taken too much to drink, but, according to the Psychological Bureau, you must make a careful register of all these things. I do not want to hinder the Minister in getting all the information he can, and I believe any other employer will be, glad to help him. But I want the Minister to issue instructions to his department that all these returns which cost the commercial community a lot of money must be cut down to the very smallest limit of their requirements. Do riot ask the commercial community to spend money on statistics which are not going to be vitally useful in carrying out the work of the department. He will find the commercial community will help, and they will help this psychological bureau if he still intends to spend money on it.

Before the Minister finally walks off with this £280,000 he is asking for, I want to say a few words on the subject of yesterday, Doornkop, and I am driven to do this because of the Minister’s remarks in his peroration. He expressly stated during his concluding remarks that the sole object for raising this matter was to discredit the Minister and the Government and in order to try and make political capital out of it and not with any real idea of helping the people who are there.

I exempted you from that.

I accept that, but I want to point out it is not fair after what has been said to leave the matter in this very unsatisfactory condition. I want to briefly" sum up the position as it appears to me. I agree that it is very difficult to conduct land settlement at all and especially to conduct such a scheme as he is conducting at Doornkop, and I know if disaffection sets in it is increasingly difficult and I do not want to say anything that may spread disaffection, but I want to assure him it existed before this debate commenced. I am told that on the 26th of last month these people at Doornkop already had a meeting and they asked that the Government should take over the whole concern. I was asked to go and address a meeting there but I felt anything I might say might be twisted round and in any case I did not want to interfere in the matter so I kept away from Doornkop so far as suggesting anything to the settlers concerned. The Minister—and this is the whole point of the remarks made from this side—has had no expert examination of the financial basis of this scheme. As far as I can make out and as far as the Minister himself states he has rested his whole scheme entirely upon people who had really no idea of the financial basis of it. What are the bald facts. They are these. I want the Minister to face them and the Government to face them and get out of the difficulty. A person has an estate upon which he spent considerable money. The estate at the end of the chapter as far as he was concerned was non-productive and he was bound to go into liquidation. The crops that were grown there were valueless because they were too far from the mill and there «was no transport. When that arose the Minister came on the scene and gave him what was necessary for him to carry on the labour. The Government were providing the labour free of charge and carrying on the work of this estate, and not only that, but also gave financial assistance in the shape of its backing, which enabled this company to raise money in Eingland to erect a mill. The Government has provided the finance and the muscular work of carrying on. The Minister does not know how long it is going to be before that labour receives anything more than the subsistence allowance. When, in the fulness of time, the whole settlement is able to pay back the £70,000 of the loan the British Government has given it the company has shared out two-thirds to the tenant farmers and one-third to the company; so the company, which was originally bankrupt, will have one-third of the holding, and the settlers subsisted for some years on the bounty of the Government. The Minister says this will be put on a right basis two or three years from to-day. I put it to a business man, would he expect the return of the whole of his capital within two years on an undertaking? It is absurd and a physical impossibility. I want to suggest to the Minister and the Government that they should take over the whole of the thing.

You said that yesterday.

The Minister never replied to that yesterday. If he had I would have said nothing about it. What the Minister did say was to say we were not concerned with these 100 people, but we were concerned with discrediting the Minister. What is concerned is not the Government’s credit in the matter, Mr, Rosenberg or the money spent by the Government, but it is the tenant farmers. Unless the Government can show there is any hope for these people, they should not continue. If the Government has this thing at heart they will purchase it and put it on a proper footing.

It would be a pity if this vote is passed without a few remarks on the Auditor-General’s comments on the Minister’s department. It is interesting to look through that report and find where some of that money, which is voted for the Department of Labour, goes to. We find that the delegate to the Geneva Conference drew what was equivalent to his Parliamentary allowance while there were sittings of the House, although he remained longer than his duties required. Then we have another extraordinary means of getting rid of public money, and that is in connection with Losperfontein settlement. This settlement is traversed by the Hartebeestpoort canal, with unlimited supply of water, yet the Minister was informed by those in charge of this settlement that a certain number of bore holes was required. A large sum of money was spent in boring for water, with the result that all that money was practically wasted, for with the exception of one bore hole, no water was found. Why is the water passing in unlimited quantities there not utilized; particularly as the Irrigation Department has a special allowance under this vote to supply water to other departments requiring it. Then we find certain road construction is required, more or less as relief work it appears and the public works department, as we all know, has an ample supply of plant for road making, but instead of borrowing that plant they get something like £4,000 to purchase plant for temporary work. The Auditor-General is quite right in drawing attention to expenditure of that kind. Having purchased this plant, what is the Minister going to do with it, having no further use for it? Then there is the establishment of a village at Wolhuterskop. We have unauthorized expenditure in the establishment of this village. The interesting point about this is that the work is given out to contract—the huts, I think, are of asbestos—and a clause is specially inserted in the contract that no coloured labour is to be employed. There we have the colour bar again, although we are all told that the Labour party is averse to the colour bar. It strikes this side of the committee that wherever they (the Labour party) can exclude the coloured man from a job that opportunity is taken. It is an interesting side issue. Then we have the case of the La Motte forestry settlement. Why has the Minister selected that particular settlement for the free issue of fertilizers—I say “free” because it was supplied to this settlement at nearly £2 per ton under its cost price. Is he going to supply it to the settlers at Doornkop: if not, why not? Is he going to carry it out as a matter of policy to supply this fertilizer below cost price? If not, why was this particular settlement selected for preferential treatment? Then we have the most extraordinary case of the Elgin settlement. An officer of the department was sent to select the site, and after an immense amount of money was spent, the whole thing was then abandoned because it was found that the site was entirely unsuitable. The Auditor-General reports that the climate was found to be unsuitable for the type of settler in question, and that the original site was ill-chosen. This apparently is one of the means by which the Minister gets rid of our money. One is not surprised to find that there is no money for the bona fide unemployed. Then, again, the Minister in a fit of benevolence sent 400 children for a picnic. I have no doubt they had a thoroughly enjoyable time, but the Minister charged the cost to the unemployed vote. That is why people who are walking the streets of Cape Town looking for work find no funds left to assist them. The department’s expenditure on printing has soared beyond all reasonable limits. Four special periodicals are produced by the Labour Department, while the Agricultural Department, which is the most important department in the country, contents itself with very much less printing so far as periodicals are concerned, surely this excessive printing by the Labour Department could be checked or controlled.

I move—

Mr. Henderson called for a division.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—57.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, E J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Dost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stale, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen H. D.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg. J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Mullineux, J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—40.

Anderson, H E.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Hockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick then put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—40.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Noes—57.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G,

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

McMenamin, J J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius. J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water. C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Niekerk. P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B,

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Mullineux, J.; Vermooten, 0. S.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed, to.

Business suspended at 5.58 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

I want to bring up again this delay in presenting the reports of the departments. I do not think that it is using too strong language or that it is going beyond the merits of the case, when I say that the delay we experience in getting reports is a disgrace. I will give a few cases. The Official Year Book that we have now here before us is for 1925. It just came out the other day with a great flourish of trumpets. Already we have got here in the parliamentary library the Official Year Book of Australia. That is for 1926, delivered here.

Australia claims to be the most up-to-date country in the world with regard to statistics.

It is about time that we imitated them then. Take another case. This volume of annual departmental reports was laid on the Table quite recently. It covers the period 1925-’26: that would be to the end of March, 1926. Then we have not yet received the Miners’ Phthisis Board’s report or the report with regard to the administration of South-West Africa. Let me give one example which we have had in evidence. The Post-master-General’s report was sent to the printer in August last. They started to print it in November and the printing was only finished in March. In 1923 a resolution was passed by the Public Accounts Committee, which is on record, calling attention to this delay in printing and requesting that these reports should be laid on the Table of this House at the commencement of the session. It was then said by the Minister of the day that they could not expect any improvement until the new printing works at Pretoria were completed. Those works were finished in 1926 and, as far as I can make out, there has been no improvement up to the present, at all events. We are hampered at all corners by this want of information. I hope the Minister of the Interior, in whose charge this is, will, as soon as he gets back to Pretoria, take the matter in hand and insist upon something being done. Personally, I think one of the causes of delay is that they have got to go to the Census Department and there they get hung up for a long time. Then I want to call the Minister’s attention to what appears to me, just as an ordinary individual, a matter in which I do not think he has been quite fair, and that is the advertisements in newspapers. The records show that there was spent last year over £10,000 in newspaper advertisements. The Auditor-General gives the amount spent in newspaper advertising as £10,740, compared with £9,000 in 1924-’25, an increase, to which I may call the attention of the Minister of Finance, of £1,700 on the year. The Auditor-General says—

I have the greatest respect for “Die Burger,” but I do not think it has the largest circulation in this neighbourhood. I think if my hon. friend had wanted to reach the biggest number of the public he would not have done so exactly through “Die Burger.”

The English papers got more than the Dutch papers.

This report does not show it. The figures of the Auditor-General, as my hon. friend knows, are absolutely reliable. I also want to call the Minister’s attention to another point to which I think he should give some consideration. Take the telephone directories. There are five published in the Union —one for the Cape Peninsula, one for the Midlands and the Eastern Province, one for the Free State and Basutoland, one for Natal, and one for the Transvaal. The two published in the Cape Province pay their way, in fact there is a profit on them, not big, about £240. But they are farmed out; they are given out to contract. Then, again, the directory in the Free State and Basutoland also makes a small profit, but the one in Natal does not make a sixpence. In the Transvaal they make a loss of £428. There it is done by the Government printer, and yet they make a loss. Not only that, but the publication is done by the publicity department of the railway department, and the railway department contrive to make £475 out of the advertisements, whereas my hon. friend has made a loss. My hon. friend should go into this. These are only small matters but they do show the want of a little supervision and of running the thing on business lines. What I do want to call his attention to very earnestly is this delay in publication. If we are to carry on the work of Government properly we do want full information, and I do hope my hon. friend will take this matter in hand, because I can assure him he will not have any peace until we do get the information.

I would like to support the criticism of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) generally, but I would also like to take one special complaint, and that is one with which we, of the legal profession, have specially to deal with, and that is the late publication every year of the annual volume of the statutes for that year. When a new Act comes out a good many of the legal profession have to come to the assistance of the public to give advice as to what is the meaning of the Act, and this is more especially so in the early stages of the administration of the Act. It is very difficult when these statutes come out so late, several months after Parliament has risen. I would like the Minister to see if a special effort cannot be made. It is very inconvenient not having the official copies of the statutes and having to rely on stray copies of the “Gazette.”

I have noticed that the appointment of a new Government Printer has recently been made. Evidently a very competent man has been secured for this appointment, and I congratulate the Minister on his selection. Would he tell us whether the man newly appointed is to begin at the minimum rate of pay, which I see is £1,050, rising only to £1,200, or whether he is to inherit the rate of pay of the late holder of the office, which was £1,415 per annum.

I would like to ask the Minister a question on one point, and that is Item 10 on page 96, insurance of plant and stores, £300. I have always understood they had arrangements whereby they have their own insurance fund. This is, apparently, the only department that insures. Can the Minister tell us?

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has voiced a complaint that has very often been heard in this House, especially this session, and practically every session, with regard to the late appearance of various reports. The position is not always quite understood by hon. members as to the relation of this particular sub-department to other departments of the service. This department has no control whatever over other departments in the preparation of their reports. It can give no instructions at all to departments. The only function of this sub-department is to do the printing for various departments, as that printing work is sent in. That is all. We have no power whatever to give instructions to any Minister or any department. The general reply I have to give, also to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), is that if there are any complaints with regard to the late publication of law books and so forth in connection with any particular department, he must complain to the Minister under the Minister’s vote.

Who must I complain to about the statutes?

Interior has got nothing to do with it. I think the Minister of Justice would be responsible for that. Anyway, each department is responsible for its own reports, and when that report is ready it is sent in to the printing works to be printed If there is delay in the pointing then, of course, it is a complaint that has to be voiced here. With regard to one particular report, that is the year book, I think there is reason for complaint. That complaint was brought forward, I think, right at the beginning of the session, and then I made enquiries, and the information I got was this— that the commencement of the work, that is, Volume VIII of the official year book, was delayed owing to the absence of the officer in charge who was seconded for duty as statistical officer with the Economic and Wage Commission. Far greater delay was caused by the long interval which elapsed between copy and proof. Some delay was also caused by the census officer receiving large batches of proofs on the same date instead of a steady flow. These are the reasons that are given. In any case, I hope this delay will not occur in any future year, and I will look into this matter and see that it is remedied as far as possible.

Cannot you make one officer responsible?

The responsible officer, in this case, was seconded for other work. As far as advertisements in newspapers are concerned, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is not quite satisfied with the distribution. I think if he judges impartially, he ought to be quite satisfied. He must not forget that the Dutch-speaking and the Dutch-reading public in South Africa is at least as large as the English-speaking part of the population, and that, for the Dutch-speaking population we have only a comparatively small number of newspapers circulating, and I think it is no just cause for complaint when these Dutch newspapers receive individually a large portion of the advertisements. Anyway, as far as “Die Burger” is concerned, he acknowledges it is one of the most outstanding and influential papers in the country, and certainly one of the best. In any case, as far as being an advertising medium is concerned, it is certainly one of the best; it circulates not only in the urban areas, but very largely in the rural areas, and not only in one province, but throughout the four provinces. Taken generally, I think the bulk of the money which we vote every year for advertisement goes to the English newspapers. As far as the Transvaal telephone directory is concerned, we recognize the position there is unsatisfactory, but I understand that there is a contract with regard to the publication and printing of the telephone directory, an arrangement with the Railway Department, and, according to the information I have here, the Railway Publicity Department appropriates the sum of £1,611. But this matter is being looked into by the department, and we hope to rectify this. There is no reason if the printing of the telephone directory in the other provinces is a paying concern, why it should not be the same in the Transvaal. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has referred to the appointment of the head of the printing works, and I am very glad that, as an exception to the general rule, the hon. member is very well satisfied with the appointment I have made in this case, and also the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). We are very thankful for this recognition, anyway. In any case, I think it is generally recognized that the person appointed to this particular post is not only very well qualified, but he was certainly the best qualified among all the applicants, and we had a very large number of applicants for the post. The hon. gentleman asked whether he was appointed at the minimum salary. The reply to that is, not quite. Seeing that this particular applicant was absolutely the best, I think, we could procure, we could secure his services only by making his commencing salary a little above the minimum, because he was manager or head of a similar establishment in Kimberley, and if he was appointed at the minimum commencing salary in Pretoria as head of our printing works, then it would have meant a loss to him. He received, actually, at Kimberley more than he would have received if he had been appointed at the minimum commencing salary at Pretoria, and for that reason we made his commencing salary in Pretoria practically equal to the salary which he received in Kimberley. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has raised the question of insurance. The only explanation I can give in regard to this point is that the insurance here is insurance of plant, and not of buildings. The hon. member has in hind, I think, the insurance of public buildings generally. The Government follows the general policy that it does not insure these buildings. The insurance of plant is quite another matter.

Stores?

That is the best explanation I can give in regard to this matter.

The complaint with regard to the delay in the publication of these reports is quite justified. With regard to the annual departmental reports, of the twelve reports five are for the calendar year 1925. When they are handed out to us they are 18 months old. The seven others are, most of them, nearly all, up to the end of March, 1926. We have to wait 15 months for them. In the introduction to the volume of reports, Mr. Holloway, Director of Census and Statistics, says—

This is dated the 2nd of February, and we get the reports on the 27th May, 1927. These reports ought to get into the hands of hon. members earlier than that. What other body than a Government would be satisfied to put into circulation reports 18 months old? The Government has a bottomless purse, and can insist that these reports are published earlier. These delays should be dealt with drastically. Excuses are offered annually, and I think the Government should be ashamed of making them. They allow about I believe two months for queries. Nobody else would allow this time. The Government ought to put all its printing through the hands of somebody who understands the business, and knows how it should be done. It would simplify the whole thing, and it would save much if shillings and pence were omitted from tabular matter. It only needs a line to say that shillings and pence are omitted. Why is it that again we see this year insurance of plant and stores, £300? The whole system of the Government is to carry its own insurance. If it will pay a company to carry insurance it will surely pay the Government to carry its own insurance. We ought to have one system right through the departments.

I would like to ask the Minister to communicate with the Minister of Finance and appoint a commission, not of members of Parliament, but of experts, to go into this State printing business. If he would reorganize the whole of the State printing office, he would save thousands and thousands of pounds. I went through that office before the new man took office, and no private business would be conducted like that. If the Minister got a man like the one we have in the Free State—the Minister of Finance knows who I mean—he would have the greatest difficulty in getting him, but if he got him or got another man of that type, he would find he could save thousands of pounds. We are congratulating a man who has taken office—let us see next year. We wish him good luck. Why does the Minister not open a branch office in Cape Town? There are thousands spent on printing here—either “Die Burger” or the “Cape Times” have a ring. I am not quite certain about it, but I would like him to look into it. It would be a good thing if the Minister moved in the way of putting an office down here. It would justify the expense, and pay, and we would get our printing done more cheaply. I have been looking at the prices of our parliamentary printing, and it seems very high indeed. The Minister might look into the Nasionale Pers, or the Cape Times, Ltd., and see that they do not communicate with each other—that is business. Lots of things are printed that people never look at. It is not this Government, but all Governments. There is too much artistic printing. I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay); a lot of the printing could be saved. I am told civil servants have the knack of sending their copy in to the printers and making the authors’ corrections afterwards. Nothing is more expensive than that. Let the copy be prepared properly before it is sent to the printers. What hope has the Government Printer of making a civil servant prepare his copy properly? As to the advertisements, who gives out all these advertisements? The Labour party press never sees anything of them. We admit we are not entitled to have as much as the South African party press who have bigger newspapers. I have nothing to do with the Labour party press personally. You will find big advertisements appearing in the Nationalist party and the South African party papers; and papers which are being read steadily by the Labour party and the circulation of which is going up, and the official organs of the trade union movement get nothing at all. We are not asking for this because we are members of the Pact. They ought to allow a few crumbs to drop from the rich man’s table.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) suggests that a commission of enquiry be appointed, consisting of experts who he informs are drawing £6,000 a year, who shall be empowered to enquire into the whole running and management of the printing and stationery department, but I think what the Minister really needs is an intelligent youth drawing say £10 a month whose special duty it will be to see that many of the stupid acts which occur to the inevitable loss of public money, may be avoided. For instance, if such an official were employed he would see to it that 8 million excise stamps were not ordered and printed before the Government had finally decided to impose the duty. Then he would see to it that they did not start printing the “Government Gazette” until all the copy had arrived—for we see that on several occasions this had to be done and the copies printed destroyed. Then he would like to know more about those 451 typewriters which were condemned and which were sold at apparently from 10s. to 20s. each. It appears that the firm which is called in to condemn the old typewriters is also the same one which supplies the new—and it is even hinted, I know not with what reason, that they receive a fee for doing so. It also seems clear that many of these typewriters required re-conditioning to bring them back into full use again, and that that is what was actually done by the purchasers. When one remembers that these typewriters cost the country something over £13,000 and were sold for about £450 it certainly is a matter which the Auditor-General was justified in calling the attention of Parliament to.

I should be glad of information regarding the distribution of advertisements in Natal that would set at rest the mind of the hon. member (Mr. Barlow) as to the proportion of favours received by the “Guardian,” the Labour journal, which seems to have suffered a great deal, and I understand it has gone into liquidation in consequence, and now appears as the “New Guardian.” Considering its poor circulation it seems to have its fair proportion of advertisements. The Annual Trade Returns—a very costly publication—is issued in both languages, but not a single copy of the Afrikaans version was sold. As a result I should estimate that something like £2,000 was wasted. We want to be reasonable about publication in both languages, and we don’t want to print volumes that are never sold. It would be much better to spend £2,000 on drought relief than on publications that are allowed to rot in the basement. I support the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) in regard to the late publication of reports which become useless by the time they reach our hands. They are a monument to the wastefulness of the Government, as practically the whole of the information they contain is out of date, and consequently they might just as well not be published.

In regard to the annual reports, there is one way in which to ensure earlier publication and that is if the printing works, which are as a rule very congested, gave out part of its work by contract to other firms, but if that were done what would be the cost to the country? It would mean that this vote which is already too high, would mount still higher. Therefore the most economical way is to let our own printing works do the work as far as possible.

Why should it take 11 months for the copy of a report to go from the department to the printer?

That must be quite an exceptional case. If we print as much as possible in our own works there must necessarily be congestion. I agree with hon. members who complain that the amount we spend on printing every year is abnormally high, and that the amount should be reduced. The matter has had the attention of the Cabinet, and afterwards the attention of the Minister of Finance and myself, and we have decided as early as possible during the recess to appoint a small committee of experts to go into the whole matter and advise us, and we hope the result will be that we will effect a very considerable reduction next year. A good deal of the printing I should say is altogether unnecessary, and we must find means to reduce the printing bill. The placing of advertisements is not under the control of the Minister of the Interior, each department doing its own advertising. Of course, the Minister of the Interior cannot judge as to which papers advertisements should be inserted in. It is not a matter over which I have any control. If any paper feels that it is being neglected as far as advertisements are concerned and brings the matter to my notice I will bring it to the notice of the various departments, and if the paper makes out a good case the matter will be put right.

The Minister, in his reply, evidently did not think my complaint regarding the typewriters worthy of even a passing notice.

I did not catch the point.

The point is, the Auditor-General reports that three or four hundred typewriters were sold for 20s. downwards, each having been part condemned by the firm which was to supply the new machines. If this is correct then some explanation on the part of the Minister is certainly due to this committee. As to printing by contract necessarily involving a loss I do not see why it should be cheaper to do the work departmentally rather than by contract. Our experience last year shows that the Cape and Free State telephone directories were farmed out and showed a profit to the country of £240, while the Transvaal and Natal directories which were printed departmentally showed a loss of £500 notwithstanding their far larger issue. That is the difference between work done by contract and work done by the department so I do not think the Minister’s argument is borne out by his own experience.

I hope the Minister will give some information in regard to the typewriters, for to have 310 typewriters go out of commission in three years shows something more than fair wear and tear. Then there was this irregularity that they were condemned by the firm which supplied the new machines. The Auditor-General points out that fees payable to the contractor for inspecting and repairing machines are paid in respect of machines not personally examined by the contractor’s mechanics. I hoped that the Minister would have given us some information in regard to Government advertisements in the Natal newspapers too.

With regard to the distribution of money voted for advertisements I could always supply the information, but surely it is impossible to do that here, and if the hon. member would be so kind as to put a question on the Order Paper asking for the information I would be very glad to give it. With regard to the question of typewriters, I do not think it falls under this vote at all. I do not remember having anything to do with it, and I cannot give any information to those hon. members who have raised this particular point.

The Auditor reports under this vote.

I will go into this matter.

£3,000 worth of typewriters were sold for something just over £100.

Will the Minister tell us if he can help us with regard to these delays in publications. It might be a good thing if the Minister printed on the reports the date he received them and the date of issue so that we could find out who is responsible for the delay. We come to the Minister as the central figure in this particular thing, and surely the Minister should be able to devise, with other members of the Cabinet, some system whereby reports are sent in time for publication. Let me take one minor matter, the printing of statutes. There is no question of preparation of copy or of translation and when the statutes are approved they are immediately ready for printing. I take that as symptomatic because there is no reasonable excuse for several months’ delay in printing these statutes. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that he will go into the question and if necessary appoint a small committee to avoid this delay in getting the reports out in time.

We will include that in the inquiry.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 23, “Public Health,” £409,479,

I should like to know under item G6 on page 98 something about the item £3,500 for special plague measures. I should also like to know something with regard to Robben Island. My hon. friend knows there has been some proposition recently to remove the lepers from Robben Island to some place on the mainland, but this has been shelved for the present. I hope it is not being given up.

I should like to make use of this opportunity to say a word of thanks, in connection with the threatening cases of the extension of plague and influenza, to the public health officials in our harbours. A little while ago we were all afraid that our country would again be overrun or infected by influenza from abroad, and at the same time there was a case of plague on board of one of the ships in the Cape Town harbour, but we were so protected at the time that it did not spread. I therefore think that a word of acknowledgment to the public health officials is not out of place. I doubt whether we always sufficiently appreciate their services. In connection with the question put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) I should like to know whether no further information has been received, or discoveries made, in connection with the case of Higgins who came off the Armadale Castle and died in the local hospital. I should like to know whether no trace of infection was discovered. In connection with the same Bill, a matter recently came to my notice which aroused my interest, viz., a new method of combatting plague. I think it was a Danish method, and I should like to know from the Minister whether experiments have been made with it here and whether it has been found more serviceable than the existing method for the eradication of rodents. Then I should like to ask the Minister something in connection with a commission which was appointed a little while ago to make a return of our hospitals.

What item is that?

Public health in general.

I am sorry that I cannot permit the hon. member to discuss it.

Then under the heading, “various” 2 (2), we find a new amount of £5,000 for public health propaganda and educational work. I am glad that this sum has been made available because there has long been a necessity for the work. I would like, however, to know from the Minister how the work is going to be done, more or less. In last year’s report the secretary of the department specially mentioned the great need of educational work and therefore I am glad that the suggestion is being practically followed up. With reference to leprosy, I should like to ask the Minister whether any steps are being taken to give effect to the suggestion of the Leprosy Board which was appointed in 1924 to obtain information of cases and make a survey. I ask the question because it is calculated that there are to-day about 5,000 lepers in the Union, and that the idea is becoming more and more held in the professional and scientific world that leprosy can be cured. Then I see in the same report that the average period that elapses between the outbreak of the disease and the time the sufferer comes under treatment is about 6½ years. I think a great service will be rendered in having the sufferers treated sooner. It lessens the chance of spreading, and gives a better chance of a cure. In connection with the same matter, I find from page 158 of the Report that leprosy is increasing in certain districts, e.g., in one district close to Cape Town, Tulbagh, Ladybrand, Middelburg (Transvaal), and a number of other districts. As the disease is decreasing generally, I should like to know how it is that in certain districts there is an increase, and further whether the increase is amongst white or coloured people. I want also to ask whether any steps have been taken to bring back to the Western Province the coloured persons in the Leper Asylum at Pretoria who come from the Western Province. It was a grievance much felt by the coloured people in Pretoria that they were so far removed from their original surroundings, and I think the Minister himself was approached in connection with the matter, and that he was asked I think to bring them back to Robben Island. As I see the average costs per individual has become less at Robben Island, which, of course, can only happen when the number of patients increases, I presume that the suggestion has been given effect to, but I should just like to know from the Minister whether it actually is so.

I want to ask the Minister whether any arrangements are being made to carry on the work of the Central Housing Board when the present grant has come to an end. I cannot find anything in the loan estimates for housing after the amount originally provided has been spent. It would appear unless I read the Estimates wrong, that it is not the intention to provide any further funds for housing after this fund has been exhausted. This is a matter which I should like the Minister to give his attention to. I refer the committee to one or two points in the report of the Central Housing Board. It has not been printed, but is on the Table of the House. The board pointed out that during 1926 a notable feature was the increase in the number of applications received for financial assistance in carrying out schemes to better the housing conditions of the poorer sections of the community. That shows the Housing Board is just helping those people who require it most and that makes it the more regrettable if the scheme is coming to an end. They point out there has been a steady increase of applications from local authorities for money for housing schemes, thus taking advantage of the loan facilities provided under the Act. It was instanced by the Board that funds were allotted to 88 local authorities in 1926, and 59 in 1924, and 30 in 1921, so that the scheme is growing in popularity. Local authorities are anxious to take advantage of it and the demand is growing in respect of houses for the poorer classes of the community., the very class for which houses are required. The total spent from, the Provincial Housing Fund amounts to £2,285,000 for Europeans and they have built 2,778 houses. For non-Europeans they have built 3,065 houses, 547 single rooms, 5 compounds and one hostel. I would like to point out from this report that the various municipal congresses of the Cape, Free State, and Transvaal passed resolutions urging that further funds be provided by the Government for housing.

Most of these people can borrow money as cheaply as we can.

Well, they don’t do.

Why not?

I will mention to the Minister a list of places that are applying for funds, and I do not think he will then say that these places can borrow money as cheaply as the Government can. It is stated in the report that applications for an additional allotment of funds under the Housing Act, for which funds are not available, have been received from amongst others the municipalities of Beaufort West, Cape Town, Cradock, De Aar, George, Malmesbury, etc., in the Cape Province; Glencoe, in Natal; a number of places in the Free State; Benoni, Brakpan, Carolina, Standerton, and other places in the Transvaal. A great number of these places certainly cannot borrow money as cheaply as the Government can, and these are applications from places for which no funds are available, and which cannot, therefore, be granted.

We passed a Local Loans Act last year. They have not even exhausted the money we made available.

The board point out that the Local Loans Fund is not satisfactory.

Because they have to pay 6 per cent.

The board state, in their report, that they are definitely of the opinion that the Local Loans Act is not going to help the local authorities as regards housing.

They want us to advance money at a loss. We charge them 6 per cent., and they do not want to pay 6 per cent. Our money costs us more than 5 per cent.

The idea of the board apparently is, and it is my idea too, that this housing problem should not merely be left to the local authorities but that the State should give definite assistance to it. It will pay the State over and over again. The housing conditions which exist in many of our towns are at the root of a great deal of the social unrest, the crime and disease, for which the State has to pay through the nose in the end.

That is in your big city, and they can borrow.

What the board suggest is that the Government should agree to make another million pounds available, not to be spent in one year, but to be spread over a number of years so as to continue this housing programme. Another point I want to ask the Minister about is in connection with leprosy. Other members have put the point to him. I wanted to ask what has been done in regard to Robben Island, whether the Government are continuing the policy of gradually depleting Robben Island, or whether they have abandoned that policy. I would also like to ask him what is being done in regard to the leper settlement in Pondoland, which had just recently been started when I was in office. I would like to know how it is progressing, whether it is being largely taken advantage of, and what is being done in connection with the enormous stretch of land which the Government got for that settlement. I also wish to ask the Minister what is being done in regard to the attempt to treat leprosy by means of various preparations of chaulmoogra oil, whether that treatment is being used with anymore success than it was some years ago, whether any particular preparation of that oil has been found effective in arresting the disease, or whether it is still being used with the same disappointing results that we had when the treatment was first started. Another point is in regard to the policy of liberating from these institutions patients who may be let go without serious risk of infection, whether that policy is being pursued, or whether we are going back more to the institutional treatment. I think the current of opinion at one time certainly was that it was far better to let as many of the patients free from institutions as could be taken proper care of by their friends or relatives, so as to remove the idea of prison life, which certainly, in the past, pervaded many of these leper institutions, and thereby make it less unattractive for patients, particularly native patients, who might be suffering. [Time limit.]

I would like to support what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said in regard to the housing question, and to point out that the medical officer of health of Cape Town, in his report, shows how intimately connected with public health this question is. The medical officer remarks that the housing of the working classes is an important factor in the conjoint social and public health problem, and that for many years only a fraction of the working class houses have been built that are required to meet the steady increase of the working class population. We are informed that no further money is available, but that all the money that is put on the estimates this year simply amounts to money that has already been earmarked. I hope the Government will take the question into consideration, because it is most urgent not merely from the point of view of the social welfare of the people, but also from the point of view of public health. The medical officer of health of Cape Town points out how extremely serious are the conditions of the congested areas of the city. In regard to the question of the lepers on Robben Island, I have in my hand a copy of a letter that was sent originally for publication, but those to whom it was sent thought that the statements were so alarming that it would be fairer not to publish them, but to let the matter be mentioned in Parliament for enquiry. I would like to refer to one or two paragraphs, and then I hope to hand the letter over to the Minister later on. These people on Robben Island claim that in 1923 certain promises were made to them by the head of the department, and they felt that something was going to be done, and modern methods were going to be introduced, but they have been sadly disappointed. They say in their letter, that weeks past, even years, but the changes were not effected, and that the position to-day is even worse than in 1923. The lepers, they say, are discouraged and miserable, and that all hope has vanished from them. They also state that they are being denied the very food which is necessary. In spite of fresh fruit and vegetables and dairy produce being diagnosed as necessary, the first two are not supplied, and milk and eggs have been reduced to a minimum. Such medical comforts as the patients have enjoyed for many years have, in order to effect a small saving, been discontinued. He calls attention to what is done in other countries, and says the inhuman and unsympathetic manner in which they are treated has caused a large number of persons suffering from leprosy refusing to come forward. I am not going to say that all these allegations are correct, but the letter certainly calls for inquiry, and I hope the Minister will make some inquiry. With regard to the relations between the Government and local authorities, I want to refer to that generally under D5, expenditure on general public health measures; F6, refunds and advances to local authorities, under section 66 of Act 36 of 1919; and G4, refunds and advances under sections 48 and 50. I would like to point out that he promised he was going to appoint an inspector of hospitals, and I would like to ask him whether that has been done. I would also like to ask him whether he is satisfied that with these refunds and advances made to local authorities, everything is being done to combat the spread of disease. I can only speak with regard to Cape Town, and I believe Cape Town is doing as well as any municipality in the Union, and yet, according to the report of the medical officer, a most alarming state of affairs prevails. I would like the Minister to tell us whether it is not possible to compel the authorities to do more under this Act or to make greater provision. I regretted very much that the Minister did not take over the report of the hospitals enquiry committee, but I think it is up to him to see that the provincial councils and the local authorities do their duty under the Public Health Act. I do not wish to imply that the state of affairs at Cape Town is worse than anywhere else; on the contrary, they are doing very good work, but if things are bad in Cape Town, what must they be in other municipalities where they are not doing as much. I want to take tuberculosis, venereal disease and enteritis among children. With regard to children, is the Minister aware that of 527 who died from this disease in 1925-6, no fewer than 500 were children under 5, and 322 were children under 1. This is a preventable disease, and the chief causes are dirt and improper diet, and there is a terrible mortality occurring from preventable causes. Let us take tuberculosis. Cape Town, unfortunately, in this respect, has the very notorious advertisement that it has the highest tuberculosis rate in the Union of 2.55, and the next is Port Elizabeth with 2.07. England and Wales, where they have not our sun with its curative properties is 1.04, and London 1.12, a terrible commentary on the state of public health in the Union. It shows to what a condition of affairs we are coming. You must realize we have no proper provision for tuberculosis. Let me take the figures with regard to venereal disease. If this is not so alarming as to make one shudder, I do not know what it is. One in 164 out of the European population, and one in 91 of the coloured population were registered during the past year as suffering from venereal disease.

That is Cape Town?

Yes, those are the figures. I have no reason to believe things are not as bad in other parts of the Union, but we have no general statistics. The figures for Cape Town are most alarming. [Time limit.]

With reference to the question put by my hon. friend, I trust the Minister is not going back on the definite pledge he gave to the people at Robben Island the year before last. I hope he is going to keep that pledge. He knows that if he made any change with regard to the coloured depots, there would be very serious trouble, and it is because he gave that promise that they have settled down quietly. I would like to refer to the figures on page 99. I find the cost per head at Robben Island has been decreased from 13s. 2½d. to 9s. 7¼d. At similar institutions there has been an increase, and now the Minister is trying to decrease his expenditure at Robben Island. I am not blaming him for that, but in doing this he is making the civil servants there suffer. He is depriving them of a privilege which they have enjoyed for many years past. He is making them pay a certain percentage over and above the contract price on foodstuffs and necessaries of life. First of all, there is 5 per cent. put on the contract price of smokes. Then that is increased to 10 per cent., and now 7½ per cent. is added to the cost price of everything else. These men who have served and served well for a long period, men who are isolated away from the mainland, and are not enjoying the privileges that men on the mainland enjoy, are deprived in away no other civil servants in similar institutions are deprived of part of their salaries. They hold it as an extra tax levied on them which is absolutely unjust, and they feel it very keenly. Formerly they say they even had free medical attendance and requirements, and they have been deprived of that also. They have approached the department and asked for an interview, which has been denied them. I do not know why the Minister denied them that.

When?

The letter from the Secretary of Public Health is dated the 5th of May, 1927. It states that in the case of Robben Island the Government has to maintain an ocean-going steamer and other expensive sea transport, costing approximately £3,700 per annum. The letter suggests that half the cost of such transport should be recovered from the staff. It is rather a serious position that when men are sent to Robben Island, and they get no better pay, the Minister suggests that they should be called upon to pay half the cost of this ocean-going steamer. The third paragraph of the letter says—

When a certain section of the civil servants— who have done magnificent work, are isolated, and have not the facilities that men on the mainland have, and the educational facilities have suffered very severely—children who have passed the seventh standard on the island cannot pass the sixth on the mainland, so that there is something apparently wrong with education on Robben Island—ask to interview the Minister they are told that no useful purpose will be served thereby. The Minister must have known about this petition, because it is addressed to him and this letter is in his name. The Minister should consider the position of these civil servants, and if possible, help them by taking away this unnecessary and futile charge now made against them. It brings the Government about £400 a year. That is the utmost it can bring the Government. For that they will have 87 civil servants up in arms against the Government and dissatisfied, and possibly not giving their best attention to what is required of them.

There are two points which I should like to call the Minister’s attention to. The first is the matter of the transport of the district surgeons in the large districts. There is a Bill under consideration this year which makes provision in the matter, and I want to ask the Minister where the amount for the transport of district surgeons to far distant parts of their district appears. I cannot find it.

The Bill has not yet been passed.

Cannot provision be made provisionally for the transport? I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to make such provision. The people think that it ought to have been done in a fever year, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide for it administratively if the amount is not put on the Estimates. Then I want to call the Minister’s attention to the Leper Asylum Bochem in Pietersburg. I regard the position there and especially the payments to the people there as a veritable scandal. If we look at the figures supplied by the Department of Public Health, and see how many people are treated there and compare the payments with that at other places we shall see what the position is. I got the figures a few years ago from the Minister, but the position is even worse to-day. According to the figures then supplied me 1,623 persons were treated in one year in the hospital for leprosy and venereal diseases, besides 8,321 persons for the same diseases treated out-of-doors. In addition a further 12,268 persons were treated for other diseases; therefore, more than 20,000 persons were treated in this one small institution. The superintendent there cannot personally examine all the cases, but yet he is not regarded as a full-time official and only receives £250 a year, If the Minister knew what the position there was then he would understand that the family Franzen are being badly treated. The Minister knows that the place started as a mission station and that very good work was done there. If Mr. Franzen were to leave there to-morrow then the Minister would not be able to get anyone to go and work there for the ridiculous amount of £250 a year. The lowest salary of any other superintendent is £600 a year. The superintendent at Emjanyana receives £850 a year, and at Amatikula £660 a year. I will not even mention the other superintendents because they are medical men. Mr. Franzen is not actually a doctor although he knows just as much about the disease. Why now should be paid the small amount of £250 a year? He does not receive any fever allowance although that is a fever area. He is given an entertainment allowance of £18 a year while the amount in all other cases is £50 a year. I may tell the Minister that all the farmers in the neighbourhood there go there for treatment because they regard the institution as their hospital. The superintendent must receive and entertain them all and £13 is so little that he loses on it. Very good work is done by these people and I do not think it is sufficiently appreciated. I do not expect an answer to this now, but I shall be glad if the Minister will enquire during the recess and compare the position there with that at the other institutions. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) compared Bochem with the other institution and said that there was an increase of l½d. per patient per day. It must, however, be remembered that patients are not only treated in the hospital but that thousands are also treated out-of-doors. Most of the work is done there, and I hope that the Minister will find time during the recess to enquire into the matter and to do justice to the people who are not being fairly treated to-day.

I would like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). The only way to obtain building loans is under the Local Loans Act, this money being lent out at 6 per cent. The previous loans granted to the Housing Board were issued at 5 per cent. I suggest that the Minister should ask the Minister of Finance to allow the money to be issued to the Housing Board at the figure which it costs the Government to raise it. I do not suggest that the money should be granted to the local authorities at a lower rate of interest than that paid by the Government. It costs the Government about 5.2 per cent. to raise loans to-day. I suggest that the highest figure that should be charged for loans issued by the Housing Board should be 5¼ per cent. I would like to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Yeoville that the housing loans should be issued by the Central Housing Board through the provincial councils. If you ask a local authority to raise money for houses you will find a certain element in every town that is not particularly interested in providing a superabundance of houses. There is no more economical way of housing people than by granting them loans for the erection of their own homes. The whole cost of repairs is reduced to a minimum as the owners look after their homes and care for them and do an enormous amount of work on them personally, thus keeping them in a good state of repair at a very cheap rate. On the 31st March, 1926, the amount of money outstanding on housing loans was roughly £1,900,000. Surely in a country like South Africa that is a very small amount to devote to such an important service. The Government should consider raising another £2,000,000 for housing loans, and if the allocation of that money were spread over a period of four years £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 would be invested in houses by the Union Government. As individual loans are being paid off on a twenty years’ basis, £5,000,000 would be permanently invested in housing loans, and would be continuously beneficial, for as one man pays off his loan it will be granted to another. This would enable housing schemes to be financed to the amount of £250,000 to £500,000 a year. This would not cost the country a single penny, as the Government has the guarantee, not only of the provincial councils and the town councils, but also of the individual borrower. An infinite amount of good would be done in this way. The amount of disease would be reduced enormously, and the possession of their own homes would lead to our having a contented people. I urge the Minister to take the matter up seriously with the Minister of Finance. You really want to provide £2,000,000 of new money over four years. The sum of £366,000 on this year’s loan estimates for housing loans is really only a re-vote of last year’s money. Consequently, the Minister is doing nothing for housing this year, and unless something more is done the whole thing will die out practically within the year. The sum of £5,000,000 will be sufficient to keep the housing scheme going for eternity.

I should like to support the plea of the hon. members for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). As shown by the hon. member for Newlands, there may not, or ought not to be any losses on loan funds in connection with the building of houses, but even if over a period of five or ten years the State should make a small loss it will still amount to nothing if it improves the conditions prevailing in the towns to-day. Some one, I think it was the Minister of Finance, asked why the State should do that and not the towns. I will show why it is not a municipal matter but a national one. Our economic policy to-day has the effect that white people are drawn to towns like Cape Town, Johannesburg or Port Elizabeth from the countryside whatever we may do, and that more of these people come into the towns than there is room for. The year before last one of the women inspectors of factories in Port Elizabeth pointed out how sons and daughters of farmers had to live together in one room because there was no other place available for them. A hostel for sons and daughters of farmers was then erected, a proof that this is a national and not one which we can lightly leave to the towns. I had the privilege of going round the slums of Cape Town with Archdeacon Lavis and I think it would be a good thing if all hon. members would take an afternoon off and visit the slums with Mr. Lavis or someone else. It was an awakening to me, and I shall not soon forget it. My guide was apparently no stranger there. Let me say that I saw conditions there where a man, his wife, and a child were living on a staircase. There was no other accommodation. And as the shortage of houses becomes greater the rents become higher. I asked several women why they did not complain but they are afraid. They are afraid that it will come out that they have complained to the rent board and that they will be put out into the street without knowing where to go. At our door here I went round the Old Somerset Hospital, and on the other side around Woodstock and Salt River, and the conditions made a deep impression upon me. I am not clever enough to describe them. And similar conditions prevail in Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg. One of the worst cancers that exists as well is the native who lives among Europeans and coloured people and the towns. Langa is an excellent place, but it is terribly dear. Then there are still a number of natives in N’dabeni and in the location at the docks, but for the rest they live all over the town, and this makes the position much more serious. They live five, ten or twenty in one room. They quarrel, beer-drinking takes place and we came across gambling and drinking of the worst kind on a Saturday afternoon. That no serious epidemics break out is due more to good luck than to the good work of the health inspectors, but if once an infectious disease breaks out among the servants and other people who daily come into touch with the population, then possibly the calamity of 1918 will be child’s play to it. As the hon. member for Newlands rightly said money spent on loans for building houses is not a bad investment. Every penny ought to come back, but even if eventually the State does lose something the money will be beneficially employed.

I rise to support the views so ably expressed by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I look upon him as one of the experts of the housing problem. I wish he would give to the House his experience and knowledge as to the procedure to be adopted in arranging for housing loans. Pinelands, the garden city, which he has done so much to bring into existence, has a grant far in excess of any other district proportionate to its population. It is the only place which has a surplus; the sum allotted to them was £140,000, out of which they have only given in loans £120,000. I believe Johannesburg was unable to get any loan, and from this report I find that Cape Town only had £235,000, and Cape Town has a population of 200,000 people, whilst Pinelands has only five hundred to a thousand. Goodwood was unable to get any loans at all, so the chairman of the Village Management Board informed me. I should like the House to be informed of the way these things are managed, because I believe a large number of divisional councils and municipalities are unaware of the procedure to be adopted. We find in Pinelands they have built 139 houses out from the £140,000 allotted, which averages £1,000 per house. In Cape Town it is roughly £500 per house, and in East London £400. In fact, the average for the municipalities throughout the Union is £418 a house. I believe it is the State’s duty to find the money for the building of houses for the people. If they did I believe the citizens of South Africa would be more contented than they are at the present time. We know there are building societies which assist people, but we also know that a large number have suffered from the activities of building societies. When money is loaned to municipalities and village management boards, they take a certain amount of interest and show a certain amount of sympathy with the individual who received the loan. Realizing that the State is the parent of the citizen, we think it is the duty of the State to provide homes for the people of South Africa. The vote for hospitals is increasing. We know quite well that in case of an epidemic, money is easily found. As the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has stated, if you raise a loan of £2,000,000 and you fund it, it will not only directly mean more houses for the people of South Africa generally, but the money would be continually in circulation, the Government would keep on receiving a portion back, the money thus be re-loaned out. I do certainly think that the Government of this country should see that those towns which are suffering owing to their slums are assisted to a greater extent than they have been. I certainly acknowledge that by creating garden cities on the outskirts, you do alleviate a great deal of the slumdom of the cities, but it is a shame that we have certain areas, certain districts, certain municipalities and certain village boards which are given a larger proportion of the money than others. I ask, in the interests of those persons who are suffering under the legitimate grievance of being passed over, that the Minister of the Interior or the hon. member for Newlands should state to this House the procedure to be adopted so that everyone has a fair opportunity to participate in the loans granted by the State for the building of houses for the people. We find that—

In fact, the garden city comes sixth on the list in the Union of the grants given, it has the smallest population of any place mentioned in this long list. I do not say that disparagingly, but I do hold that when places like Goodwood and Johannesburg make application, they should be considered, and that they should be treated on an equality with and be given the same opportunity to participate as other places in what money there is for the housing of the people.

I think most members of this House and a large number of people in the country know the magnificent work that the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has done in connection with Pinelands and the housing scheme generally, and I do not think one need take up much time in dealing with the carping, grudging remarks of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). People know the work the hon. member for Newlands has done and the gratitude of the country that he is entitled to for the work he has done at Pinelands, the financial responsibility he has undertaken, and the hard personal work he has put into it, and I think the least one might expect from one who professes to look after the interests particularly of the poorer classes of the country would be a rather more generous acknowledgement of the work which has been done, than the carping criticism which we have had from the hon. member for Liesbeek and which is characteristic of him. I would like to deal with one or two points in connection with this housing question, in supporting very strongly the remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Newlands. I particularly refer to the criticism directed to the fact that on the Loan Estimates as they now appear before the House, the fund is already virtually expended, because the only money down on the Loan Estimates is money which is required for loans that have already been allocated. I do submit to the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance that that is a very bad policy indeed. I regard the housing business, even if there is a loss involved, as a pure question of insurance. We know how dreadful the conditions were in 1918. We know what the conditions were that the Housing Commission reported upon, and the shortage of houses to which they called attention. We know that here we have inherited a damnosa hereditas from days of old, when town planning was not thought of. I would urge upon the Minister that he should take his courage in his hands and introduce a town planning Act for the Union. An Act in which local authorities might operate but which would be one passed by this House, on the responsibility of the Cabinet, for the whole Union. That is one of the things which I regard as a vital necessity in this country, town planning, so that we shall not hand down to our descendants the same kind of conditions which have become so dreadful to-day.

They passed one in the provincial council.

I am not dealing with it from the point of view of the provincial council. Let us have one for the whole of the Union. It is something which is very badly required. The Minister of Finance challenged the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) on his suggestion that the municipalities should be allowed to continue to draw from the housing funds and he said “Why should large cities require assistance of this kind when they can go to the market and raise their loans just as cheaply?” In the first place they cannot, that is except for perhaps one or two cities. In the second place, if he looks at Clauses 2 and 5 of the Housing Act, No. 35 of 1920, he will find that one of the great advantages for a city like Cape Town is that if they operate through the Government the money which they borrow for housing purposes does not count towards their borrowing powers. The Minister knows that municipalities are limited in their borrowing powers. If you really desire to meet the lack of housing in this country you should, as far as possible, avoid putting obstacles in their way. If they have to raise funds by way of loan, as the Minister of Finance suggests, then in the first place they have all the trouble and difficulty of getting the consent of the ratepayers. It is very advisable to let the local authorities decide to what extent they are able to raise money for housing and let it be done in such a way that it does not affect their borrowing powers at all. These are reasons which are just as applicable to the larger cities as they are to the smaller ones, and probably much more applicable, because the conditions in Cape Town are so dreadful in some parts that it is absolutely essential that they should go on year by year doing as much as they can to deal with the situation. On the other hand, it is the larger cities that have so many other claims on their expenditure and’ if housing comes into conflict with other objects for which loans have to be raised then housing would very likely suffer very materially indeed, but if you put housing on a separate plane you are able to deal with the position entirely on its merits, especially bearing in mind it is a reproductive expenditure on which in the end there will be a very small margin of loss, if any, and if there is a loss it is well worth risking as an insurance against other evils.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) spoke about the Leper Asylum at Robben Island, and when I look at the figures it appears that the cost is 13s. 2½d. per patient per day. I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not come for the patients to be removed from there to Pretoria, because I think Robben Island on account of the effect of the heat, the sand, and the sun is not a good place for lepers. In 1903 or 1904 a committee was appointed by the churches to enquire whether the lepers could not be removed from there. The conditions there are very miserable, while the expenditure is tremendously high. Is it not better for the lepers to be concentrated in one place? The institution at Pretoria erected during the Republican regime is a model one, and people have come from Java in the East Indies to see what is being done there, and returned to create the same conditions there as exist in Pretoria. The treatment in Pretoria is ideal. I worked for years among those people and know the position well, and I think the time has come for the Government to decide to send the people on Robben Island to the interior. I know that there were troubles in the past at Pretoria, but conditions to-day are such that the people are as happy as possible there notwithstanding their sufferings. I therefore hope the Minister will seriously consider sending the patients on Robben Island to Pretoria. I have personal experience of the institution and I can give the assurance that conditions there are much better than at Robben Island. It will be a very wise step on account of the health of the patients. In the second place I want to refer to the matter of the allowance to the Moeders Bond in Pretoria. We have already spoken to the Minister about it. The former Minister of Public Health, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) promised to make £1,000 available for the Mother Craft in Pretoria, but now Pretoria gets £100 while Cape Town gets £1,000. It was established by the ladies of the Nationalist and South African parties, the Helpmakaar Association and the Women’s Federation. 65 sisters have already been sent out as midwives to the countryside. We feel that the money is not being wasted but is being used in the interests of the future of our people. It is necessary for ns to have competent midwives in the country so that the services of the old women need no longer be used. There is a feeling among the ladies in Pretoria that they are not being properly treated. They very badly need a building and they ought to have the support of the Government. Why should Cape Town get £1,000 and Pretoria £100. The institution there has been in existence for seven years and important work is being done. Everyone who sympathises with the population in the interior will know how necessary the work is.

Pretoria is not the countryside.

The trained midwives are sent to the countryside and I think the expenditure on their training is expressly to save the mothers and the children of the people. I hope the Mother Craft in Pretoria will get £1,000 next year because everyone feels that it is necessary to assist the inland population. I know that the Minister is sympathetic and I am convinced that the Housewill feel that the matter deserves attention.

I am glad that the House realizes the connection between the housing question and public health. Dr. Higgins, the medical officer of health for the city of Capetown, points out in his annual report that owing to the disproportion between the annual increase in population, and the number of new houses, 3,000 new dwelling houses are required to make up the deficiency which has accumulated during the last ten years. There is high authority from America to show that in order to compete with tuberculosis there should be at least one bed to correspond with one death from the disease. Last year in Capetown there were 437 deaths from tuberculosis, and there are 204 beds in the city hospital, which has to satisfy the requirements of all infectious diseases, so that we require 300 more beds. We also require a tuberculosis clinic in a central position. Probably the state of affairs is just as bad, if not worse, in other parts of the Union. As to venereal diseases, 1,700 new cases were reported in Capetown, but as many affected? persons were attended to privately, and some not attended to at all, the actual number is much greater than the figure I have mentioned. The position is a disturbing one. What is most alarming about Capetown is that the death rate and disease rate amongst the non-European population is so great as compared with the European. It is true the death rate of both was the lowest on record. It fell from 24.76 per 1,000 in 1916’17 to 18.51 last year. If you compare the non-European mortality rate with the European rate, then it is alarming. The non-European rate was 2.6 times as great as the European. The birth rate too has been declining. It was 33.47 last year, compared with 38.49 in 1914’15. The doctor gives the general cause of the high non-European death rate as the bad social conditions of many of the non-European population. Let us take the figures for 1921-’26 as regards the richer and the poorer wards. The mean European death rate for the five years was 69 per cent. greater, the infant mortality rate 95 per cent. greater, and the tuberculosis rate 105 per cent. greater in the poorer wards in Capetown as compared with the other wards. It shows how intimate the connection is between the death rate and housing. The infantile mortality rate was 2.7 times as great among non-European and for tuberculosis 6.3 as great among non-European as compared with Europeans. An hon. member asked with regard to other parts of the Union. The figures quoted here are also alarming. Take East London. The infantile mortality rate for Europeans is 72.0, and for non-Europeans 370.0, or a combined death rate in infantile mortality of 262.0, the highest in the Union. Kimberley is 91.4 for European infants and 166.12 for non-Europeans, or 210.0 for all classes. Capetown compares favourably with these figures: 71.94 for Europeans, and 173.93 for non-Europeans, or 140.43 for all classes. With regard to tuberculosis we have the doubtful distinction of being the highest in the Union. For the Europeans the rate was 0.85 and for non-Europeans 4.60, or 2.55 for all classes. All these figures must convince the Minister that something is radically wrong with the public health of the Union. If we brought forward figures of this kind with regard to cattle, there would be alarm throughout the House, and here we have a state of affairs which should alarm every member of Parliament. What becomes of our expenditure if we are to have this rotten state of health? The Minister shelves responsibility for hospitals by saying—

Can he give the House any information as to whether the provincial councils have shouldered the responsibilities which the Government refuses to shoulder, and whether they have carried out the recommendations in the Hospital Committee Inquiry report which revealed such an alarming state of affairs when it was disclosed to hon. members of the House? If the provincial councils are not tackling the question on the lines recommended by the hospitals inquiry committee the sooner the Government shoulders the responsibility and takes over the hospitals of the Union the better it will be for the public health of our people, which, at the present time, is in a state that compares very unfavourably with every civilized country that publishes its statistics.

I will try to deal as briefly as possible with the various points that have been raised by hon. members. First of all, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), has asked me what the position is in regard to plague in the Union. Now, generally, I must say that the position is not very hopeful. As we all know, the infection spreads through rodents to man and as long as that disease is spreading in the Union, the potential danger is always there and is also increasing. That is actually the position to-day. The area in which rodents are infected is continually spreading. It has spread during the last year to an alarming extent in the north-west of the Cape Province. It has spread right through the Free State, through part of the Transvaal and it has been existing for quite a considerable time in the eastern parts of the Cape Province and it is now spreading right through the north-west. What we are trying to do is, as far as possible, where it is feasible, to have what are called plague fire-belts, strips of country where we try to eradicate the disease and exterminate rodents and thus to protect other areas. We are trying to prevent in that way the disease spreading to an area like Cape Town and the danger is that, if it spreads from the Calvinia district into the Piquetberg and Malmesbury districts, which are grain producing and in which the rodent population is very large, then we are afraid it will spread very rapidly in the direction of Cape Town. We want to avoid that as much as possible and so far we have succeeded through the creation of these fire-belts in confining it to the Calvinia district and the Van Rhynsdorp district, but how long that will last, how long we shall succeed in doing that we cannot say. We have tried to find out what the position is in other countries in regard to this matter. We have sent Dr. Porter, the chief medical officer of health of Johannesburg for a considerable time, a man of great experience in this respect, who has also been a member, or is still a member, of the Council of Public Health, to Java, California, and Columbia, among other places, to find out exactly what the position is there. He has sent a report and it is not hopeful. He says that they have given up in those other parts of the world practically all hope of eradicating the disease altogether and the only thing they can do is to build out the rodent, gradually to exterminate the rodent by making stores especially rat-proof. Now that is the position, and under the circumstances all we can do is to continue our investigations which have been carried on by our experts, Dr. Ingram and Dr. Pirie. That is still being done, although so far the results have been rather disappointing. For the rest, always to keep ourselves in readiness if there is an outbreak anywhere simply to pounce upon it and suppress it immediately, and, for the rest, to do educative work. As I said, generally speaking, the position is not hopeful. As far as Robben Island is concerned, there was an idea of closing down Robben Island, and the first idea was to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. Van Broekhuizen) and transfer the lepers to the Pretoria institution. That was found to be impossible. My predecessor in office gave the lepers at Robben Island the definite promise that they would not be removed to Pretoria against their will, and I stated in the House on a former occasion that I am going to honour that promise. I have done everything I could to persuade the lepers voluntarily to go to Pretoria, and for that reason I have even gone so far as to offer them facilities for sending two deputations, one from the Europeans and the other from the coloured section, to investigate matters there for themselves and to report to the others. The European section availed themselves of the opportunity, but they came back and they reported that they were dead against going to Pretoria, and they advised the others to take up the same attitude, and, as far as the coloured section is concerned, they would not even think of sending a deputation. They said that under no circumstances were they willing to go. Matters being as they are, there was no alternative but to carry on. The other suggestion that was made was to transfer the lepers from Robben Island to the mainland, and for that reason I investigated the whole position with regard to the possibility of taking over St. Raphael’s Home at Faure, a palce where lepers who have reached the arrested stage and who have been discharged from Robben Island are at present stationed, some of them at least. We went into the whole position from the point of view of the necessary capital expenditure and maintenance. After going thoroughly into the whole matter we came to the conclusion that the difference as far as expenditure is concerned would be so inconsiderable that it would not be worth while under the circumstances to make a change and close down Robben Island. It has been remarked that the expenditure per head on the island has decreased during the past year. The reason for that is that the coloured lepers who had been sent to Pretoria have been transferred to Robben Island, and because the leper’ population of Robben Island has been increased by about 40 or 50; that is the reason why the expenditure per head has come down.

†*As for the question of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Sals) whether anything further had come to light about the case of plague in the “Armadale Castle,” I just want to say that it did not spread any further, and that the incidence of this one case is shrouded in darkness. He further asked whether the remedy “ratine” for the eradication of rodents had already been tried. It was brought to my notice, and I presume experiments were made; but the method hitherto followed in South Africa has so far, according to our experience, been the best. The hon. member further asked what is further being done in connection with propaganda work and educational work. The chief is the circulation of all sorts of pamphlets which treat things in a simple way and enable the people to do more themselves for the improvement of the public health. He asked further what is being done in connection with lepers who are not yet in institutions. Special instructions have been given to the magistrates to find out if there are any such cases in the respective magisterial districts and to report them. The intention exists to appoint someone at headquarters specially for this work, but hitherto we have not been fortunate enough to find anyone suitable for the work and to depute him to do it. That person will then, of course, do the work in conjunction with the magistrates. With regard to the increase in leprosy in some districts I can give no explanation. I do not know whether we can say that there is an increase in those districts. Possibly the higher figures are due to the fact that the magistrates or the police are now doing their work more carefully than formerly, and that in that way more cases are traced.

†The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and other hon. members have asked me about the Central Housing Board, and what was going to be done in future for the provision of loan funds in connection with housing. Let me say, generally, that this whole question has been discussed in this House on a motion introduced by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin), and it is still on the order paper. But, in any case, I replied at length on that debate, and so it is unnecessary for me to cover the whole ground again; further, with regard to the particular point whether any money is going to be provided in future, that point should be raised when the loan estimates are being discussed in the House. I am not in a position at the moment to state whether the Minister of Finance and the Government generally will consent to the provision of an extra million for a housing loan to be spread over three years. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has referred to a letter he has received in connection with the treatment of lepers on Robben Island. We must be very cautious about such letters. There is always a measure of discontent in leper and other institutions. For a very considerable time an excessive amount of liquor was provided to these lepers. Recently the department stopped the supply—at least to some extent—and that has caused a good deal of discontent, although probably the great majority of the lepers think the right thing has been done. Medical extras are provided for the lepers, but it has been found that in many cases that privilege has been abused, and we have decided to prevent the abuse. This has also caused a great deal of discontent amongst a certain section. But, in any case, I can show the papers to the hon. gentleman; and when he has seen them, I am sure he will be satisfied. As regards an inspector of hospitals, I have not made an appointment yet. I had in mind the appointment of a doctor who was afterwards selected as head of the New Somerset Hospital. It is very difficult to obtain a suitable man, and I am still trying to get one, and if we make the appointment, I hope it will be to the satisfaction of all hon. members. The hon. member further asked whether these municipalities are doing their duty. I cannot say; generally, municipalities are doing their duty under the Public Health Act. Some certainly are doing it and some certainly are not. These municipalities work under the general supervision, as far as health matters are concerned, of the department, and when they do not do their duty we try to exercise the powers we have under the Act, but only of course in the last instance. As far as possible we do not threaten the municipalities but try to get their co-operation. As far as health matters are concerned in the Union we are dependent on the co-operation of other bodies with the department. I assure the hon. member the position is gradually improving and quite a number of municipalities avail themselves of the financial support which the Government gives, if they appoint full-time and qualified sanitary inspectors and medical officers of health.

What do you contribute?

One-third of the salary. In reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in connection with civil servants on Robben Island, I do not think these civil servants have just cause of complaint. They can buy at the store at Robben Island at contract price but an addition has been made for overhead charges. As far as that is concerned they are no worse off than civil servants in any other part of the country and the position is that with this 7½ per cent. addition the cost of living at Robben Island is lower than in any other part of the Union. In any case the privilege had been given before to these civil servants and now they are being brought into line with the rest of the service.

I am not satisfied with the reply. The Minister forgets that these men go to Robben Island at tremendous disadvantage to themselves. It is all very well to say the cost of living is cheaper than to anyone else, but why should the Government make a profit out of these contracts, which in some cases are charged 7½ per cent. to 10 per cent. higher?

I will go over the matter again.

Will the Minister see these men?

Yes, I will see them.

Vote put and agreed to.