I want to ask the Minister how far he is going with this Bill. Is this the proper way of doing legislation, to expect us to get through this Bill and expect it to go to the Senate when they have to deal with three extremely important measures and then they are expected to take this in hand as well? This is simply playing with legislation in my opinion. It is an absolute scandal; I say it quite advisedly—and I hope the country will take notice of it—to bring in an important Bill like this which really ought to go to a select committee and expect us to pass it this afternoon and then ask the Senate to put on the rubber stamp. How can they possibly do their duty? This thing ought to be stopped. We ought to be allowed to adjourn until the Senate has got through its work, and not try and shove this Bill through at this late hour. We said we would not interfere with the work and we have kept our promise.

There is really nothing before the committee to allow this discussion. The hon. member can move to report progress if he likes.

I can understand that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) objects to hurried legislation, but I want to point out to the hon. member that Clause 21 is urgently necessary. If the hon. member reads it he will see that it proposes to make provision for the giving of the facilities for medical attention to the inhabitants of far-off situated areas which are tried by malaria or other diseases or where particular circumstances require to be met. I can assure the hon. member that there is an urgent necessity for this clause.

I move—

but I would like to give my reasons. I move to report progress and I do it for the reason I have given, and I do it not because I wish to stop things but because I think as a proper legislative body we ought to do our work in a thorough manner and not in this slip-shod way. It is too rough on the Senate altogether. Take the first two clauses of the Bill—that I have no objection to. They ought to be passed to enable the Government to deal with the diamond diggings, but the others could stand over. The country will still live and survive another six months. We do object to this method of slip-shod shovelling through legislation at this rate.

Other important matters have been dealt with. The regulation on the Order Paper is a matter for Ministers. I represent a section of the population who have great interest in this clause, and I hope the hon. member will give us the opportunity of passing it. The clause provides that doctors shall be sent to central places in the far distant districts to which the people in the surrounding areas can go for medical treatment, or from whence the doctor can he called to visit patients in the neighbourhood. Let me give an illustration. The farm Uitspanning is 110 or 120 miles from Pretoria and it is an outpost in the bushveld in the development of the area. Fever and other diseases prevail there and the people now have to go miles and miles for medical treatment or must send for doctors a long way at heavy expense. The Minister will be able to make Uitspanning into a post where the doctor could go every 14 days or a month, and to which the people could go for treatment or from which the doctor can be called to Elandsdoorn, e.g., six miles away. Even if for this clause only I think the hon. member could be asked to meet us so that the Bill may be passed this session.

I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will modify his implacable attitude. He asks for more time for the Senate to deal with the Bill, but we can leave the Senate to look after itself. If the Senate thinks it has not sufficient time to deal we can leave it to them to say so. In any case the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will remember that some time ago I told him that I was anxious for this Bill to pass this year, because it contains very necessary provisions. The hon. member agreed with me and said that there were at any rate parts which he considered very necessary. This Bill is not new because it has been on the Table for two years. One part of it in connection with vaccination is contentious, but I agreed to that part being dropped and being brought up next year. What remains is not contentious and is very necessary. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) was so good as to agree to his motion standing over. I have gone through all the clauses carefully this morning, and to the uncontentious clauses there is not a single amendment on the Order Paper. If the Bill is passed and the Senate says it cannot pass it this year, then we shall bo in the position next year that the Senate can pass it immediately at the commencement of the session, so that it will soon be on the statute book. If we abandon it then it will possibly mean that a whole session may pass before the Bill becomes law. In the circumstances I think that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) ought to withdraw his opposition.

Oh, no, I know the Senate too well.

The Minister has referred to a conversation he had with me. He will remember that what he said to me was this Bill was very necessary because the public health conditions on the alluvial diggings were such as to require the passing of this measure. I said I had no objection. I knew the horrible conditions of public health on the diggings. Now the Minister wants to press on with the whole of the Bill. He will understand that he endangers even the passing of this necessary provision for the public health of the alluvial diggings if he sends the whole thing to the Senate. Is it not better to drop the rest of the Bill, and abide by the first two clauses of the Bill? The hon. member for Pretoria District (North) (Mr. Oost) has argued that in Section 21 provision is made for medical attendance in out-of-the-way places, but that is only possible when moneys are voted by Parliament for the purpose.

£2,000 has actually been voted.

If the money has been voted, why not take Clauses 1 and 2, and drop the rest of the Bill? The Minister says there is nothing contentious; I admit that, and I take the Minister’s word; but people do not know about that.

It has been on the Order Paper for months.

The Order Paper is full of things that have been on it for months. Let the rest of the Bill stand over so that we can scrutinize it.

I understand the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) moves that I report progress; but not to ask for leave to sit again.

Yes.

Clause 21 is very important to us on the countryside and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) now says that he is willing for it to be dealt with. There are, however, other clauses which we require just as much. As the Minister is going to delete the contentious clauses, I think the Bill ought to pass.

I hope the hon. member will withdraw his motion, because he and other hon. members know that the Bill is not contentious. We had the right hon. the leader of the Opposition telling us the other day that the Government has done nothing whatever for the country this session, and hon. members opposite are pleading now that you must not go on with the Bill. Is it the object of the Opposition to prevent the Government from doing anything? I hope the Minister will not accede to the request, but push on with the measure.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) does not seem to see the point at all. The Minister has told us he wants certain provisions of the Bill to deal with the conditions on the diamond diggings.

It is not the only thing.

He has the power in the first1 two or three clauses, to which we do not object. The hon. member for Brakpan says that the Bill is not contentious; I do not know whether he has read the Bill.

I take the word of your right hon. leader, who said that the Bill was non-contentious.

It is one of those steam-rollering measures again. I think the Minister ought to accede to the suggestion which has been made—to treat the Bill as containing the first three or four clauses, and drop the rest.

I hope that party considerations will not be allowed to enter into this matter. We regard this measure as very essential. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will realize, under the particular circumstances of the Cape Province, public health is not paid for as in the other provinces by the central government, but by local taxpayers. I wish to appeal more particularly to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and to other members to withdraw their objection. There are other essential clauses.

I would like to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman; if my memory is correct you have not on previous occasions accepted a motion such as that moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). There has been no progress, so can anyone move to report progress?

Try again!

The hon. member has moved to report progress, and he was the first speaker.

No, no; we have passed two clauses.

If the Chairman allows the motion then I appeal to the hon. member to withdraw his motion, or not to press it.

The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) is mistaken when he says that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was the first speaker. The hon. Minister was the first. Even if the hon. member was the first speaker, it makes no difference.

I hope the advice that has been given will be accepted by the Minister because he will see that he will not get anything through at all unless he accepts it. We cannot get through the next stages of the Bill unless by way of unopposed motion, and unless that is done the Minister will lose his alluvial diggings clause as well. I have not pressed my motion because I want an opportunity of doing so next session. Pass Clauses 1, 2, and 21, and if the Minister will negative all the other clauses, the Bill can pass through all its stages this afternoon. Leave the rest of the Bill for next session.

I see what the attitude of hon. members is—

We want to help you.

I will arrange so that we make provision for the alluvial diggings and for medical treatment in the far-off districts, and let me help the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) out of the difficulty, in which he would otherwise be with regard to Cape Town. The Cape Divisional Council urged upon me the necessity of providing during this session that the small town councils in the Cape Peninsula should be able to delegate their powers with regard to public health to the divisional council as a central body. The divisional council has already appointed a health officer for that purpose. This is a new clause which I propose. If the House consents then I will agree to proceed in that way.

Under the circumstances I will withdraw my motion.

With leave of committee, motion was withdrawn.

Clause 5, as amended, put and negatived.

Clauses 6 to 20 put and negatived.

On Clause 22,

I move—

I have been approached by the Cape Divisional Council asking us to make provisions, so that the small local authorities may transfer their duties under the Act to the Divisional Council.

Does that permit the original local authorities to resume these powers if they should subsequently desire to do so?

Oh yes. I dare say if they want to resume their duties they can do so.

It should be made clear that there is the power of resumption by any local authority which is transferring its duties to the Divisional Council. I do not gather that that power exists under the amendment. You may have a small local authority desiring, for the purpose of administration, to transfer its public health powers to the Divisional Council, but at some future time that small local authority may grow into a large one, and it may wish to resume its right to control its own public health. In that case power should be given to it to do so.

If there is any doubt about it, I am willing to clear the point up in the Senate.

I think there is very considerable doubt about ti. Will the Minister alter the amendment this way—

Section 157 of the principal Act reads—[Section read.] This amended Act becomes part of the original, and this would apply. The authority in this case is the Minister, and it can be altered again by the same authority, so the Minister may afterwards, when any of these smaller municipalities wish to resume the powers they have transferred, issue a proclamation enabling them to do so.

I don’t think that is sufficient. The Minister under this amendment has to make this by order in the “Gazette,” and not by proclamation.

No, it is quite right, it says distinctly: “Any proclamation, regulation, notice or order.”

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 25 put and negatived.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Amendments considered.

I take it we shall have power to move the deletion of Clause 4 in the report stage.

Under the circumstances that will be perfectly permissible.

Yes, I will agree to that.

On Clause 4,

I wish this clause to be deleted from the Bill. Is it necessary to move the deletion, or is it sufficient to vote against it?

I think the hon. member should move the deletion of the clause.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.