I move—

This Bill consists of only five clauses, and the object of this legislation is to amend the principal Act in order to remove certain undesirable practices which take place in practice and for which no provision is made in the principal Act, Act No. 54 of 1956. I refer to Clause 1 the provisions of which really supplement the provisions of Section 63 (8) of the principal Act. We are providing here that the approval of the Minister of Water Affairs must be obtained, on the recommendation of the Land Board, where properties are divided into smaller units but not necessarily transferred to more owners, because we find that that is the forerunner of uneconomic units which are later sold or which fall into the hands of people other than the original owners. Many of those people, because they do not know the provisions of the law, are under the impression that they have water rights when in fact they have no water rights. That is why we want to amend the section in such a way that when in the case of any sub-division of a piece of land which is scheduled with water rights, a person acquires more than one property—and this includes State settlements—then just as in the case of land settlements and land which is less than 20 morgen in extent and which is scheduled, the water rights may be retained by the original owner or by both owners on the recommendation of the Land Board. Clause 2 is designed to give more powers to irrigation boards. When the members or clients of an Irrigation Board fall into arrear with their water tax, then the Irrigation Board, strictly speaking, has no right under the principal Act to charge interest on the arrear amount. Although this is done in practice, we feel that if a test case is instituted it will be held that the board has no power to do so, and it is therefore considered necessary to give this power specifically to irrigation boards. Clauses 3 and 4 extend the powers of irrigation boards so that in the first place they will also be entitled to obtain a State loan for the purchase of land where they consider it necessary in the discharge of their obligations, and even for the purchase of water works if they find that it is necessary to do so in order to be able to carry out their functions more effectively.

Clause 4 provides that an Irrigation Board which purchases land or water works in this way is empowered to apply for a statutory State subsidy not exceeding 33⅓ per cent.

Clause 5 provides that the steps which may be taken in terms of the principal Act in connection with the theft of water, for example, may also be taken in connection with those water schemes which are controlled under special laws. We find that it is necessary to do this because of a judgment which was recently given by the court in a case where water was stolen at one of those settlements. The court held that this was a State settlement which fell under a special Act, and that that Act did not provide for the prosecution of a person who steals somebody else’s water. Hon. members will understand that this may lead to a chaotic state of affairs. Everybody knows that that was the ruling of the court —that they are at liberty to steal each other’s water and that no steps can be taken against them. We feel that the steps which can be taken in terms of the principal Water Act should be applied to schemes which are controlled under separate Acts. These then are the aims of this amending measure, and I hope it will meet with approval of both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. We feel that these amendments are necessary. The Bill has our wholehearted support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

When business was suspended last night, I was replying to a few minor questions. The hon. member for Langlaagte referred to the case of a postman who receives a salary of R34 a month. I went into the matter and I wonder whether there is not a misunderstanding somewhere. The commencing salary of postmen is R720 per annum, i.e. R60 a month. He also drew my attention to two female clerks working in the same office. He says the maximum salary of the one is R1,608 and that of the other R2,280. There are two grades of female postal clerks. The one is the special grade female clerk with a maximum salary of R1,608, and the other is the senior female postal clerk with a maximum salary of R2,280. Even though they work in the same office, they do different work; the one is senior to the other. The special grade female clerk may later be promoted to the position of senior female postal clerk. As hon. members will know, all posts in the Post Office have been evaluated scientifically, i.e. the salaries are determined according to the importance and the responsibility of the post.

I now want to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) in regard to the Broadcasting Corporation. The hon. member’s great point was that I am supposed to have said in the past that this House has no power over the Broadcasting Corporation. What I have always consistently said is that there is a law in terms of which the Broadcasting Corporation was established, and which provides what powers this Parliament has and what the powers and duties of the Board of Governors are and what the powers of the Minister are. We have to act in terms of that Act. We have no powers outside of that Act. I want to remind the hon. member once again of the composition of the Broadcasting Corporation. In the report of the Reith Commission—and in fact the Reith Commission itself drafted this Act —the following is said—

Then they continue—

If one looks at the B.B.C. Handbook for this year, one finds the following on page 110—

There are differences here and there, but in so far as the main principle is concerned there is no difference between the Broadcasting Corporation and the B.B.C. The administration of the B.B.C. is just as independent as that of the S.A.B.C. Then the hon. member triumphantly said that questions are put in the British House of Commons about the B.B.C., whereas questions are not allowed here. I want to set the hon. member right. The hon. member has never been prohibited from asking questions about the S.A.B.C.; it has only been refused when the hon. member has questions about the internal affairs of the S.A.B.C., and there is a tremendous difference between the two.

Let me just remind the House for a moment of the set-up of the B.B.C. The B.B.C. receives its revenue from two sources; in the first place, from the licence fees in terms of its Charter. That Charter is an Act of the British Parliament, and the rights conferred by it are automatically enjoyed by the B.B.C., and nobody is allowed to put any questions in the British Parliament as far as that is concerned. But the B.B.C. also has another source of revenue, viz. grants-in-aid for its foreign service. That is money which the Government yearly votes for the B.B.C. Of course it is the Minister and the Government who are responsible for that; it has nothing to do with the internal affairs of the B.B.C. In this regard the members of the British Parliament may freely put questions. The same position applies in South Africa. I will never refuse to answer a question in regard to the Minister’s powers and rights. When, however, it is a question dealing with a matter over which the Minister has no authority, I do not have the right to ask the S.A.B.C. for that information, nor can I reply to that question.

Sir, just allow me to read what the Pilkington Commission said in 1960—

Again in 1928, referring to the first report of the B.B.C. he said that the governors were absolutely masters in their own house. He neither interfered nor sought to interfere with their ordinary freedom in the ordinary matters of detail and of day-to-day working. In 1931 the Postmaster-General, Mr. Attlee, said in a debate on the civil Estimates: “The House knows that I am not responsible for programmes” and added that they were not for him to defend. Two years later in March 1933 the House of Commons resolved: That it would be contrary to public interests to subject the Corporation to any control already provided for in the Charter and Licence of the Corporation.

The Pilkington Commission dealt with the questions which may be asked in the British House of Commons. They say this—

May I put a question? Where the Pilkington Report refers to “both Corporations”, what is the other one? The B.B.C. is the one.

The I.T.A. (the Independent Television Authority). Instead of the hon. member having discovered how wrong I am, I have now proved how absolutely correct this side of the House is in the attitude it has adopted over the years. The hon. member has no right to ask any questions in regard to the internal affairs of the S.A.B.C. He is at liberty to ask questions about the duties entrusted to me or to the Government.

The hon. member has a further right. It may be very unwise, but he is quite entitled to attack the S.A.B.C. year after year, however unfounded his attacks may be, just as he may attack Sasol or Iscor or Escom. He can attack the S.A.B.C. with the same irresponsibility with which he may attack those bodies.

Mr. Chairman, you will remember that the hon. member for Orange Grove made a great fuss last year because the annual report of the S.A.B.C. in his opinion did not precisely comply with the terms of the Act. I pointed out to him that it was accepted like that all the years the United Party was in power. Secondly, I pointed out to him that even though small details were omitted, those were useless and senseless details. But the hon. member continued to maintain that he had now made a great discovery. I then promised to take legal advice. The first legal opinion was that the report complied with all the requirements. The second legal opinion was that something should be added to put the report right technically. Then I took a third legal opinion. For this purpose I submitted both the former legal opinions, and the third person suggested that there should be certain further additions. In fact, the S.A.B.C. has drafted the latest anual report on the lines suggested by this legal opinion. The annual report was submitted to the law adviser concerned for his approval and he said that it now complied in all respects with the provisions of the Act. I therefore expected that the hon. member for Orange Grove would get up this year to boast about his victory because the S.A.B.C. had now had to reveal such devastating facts. What was his reaction? He says it is futile; there is nothing in it. But that is precisely what I told him. I told him that those things about which he made such a fuss last year were not worth mentioning. May I remind you, Sir, of the type of detail that was concerned: The Act provides that the names of persons whose political speeches are broadcast should be mentioned in the annual report. The S.A.B.C. has now inserted a special paragraph in the report to confirm, irrespective of what is already contained in the report, that no single political speech was broadcast. Surely that is childish. Adults should not make a fuss about such petty matters. But that was one of the points on which the hon. member insisted so strenuously last year. These details which he wanted are futile trivialities. That shows you, Sir, that the hon. member would be quite happy to turn the world upside down to find a grain of sand to throw into the machinery of the S.A.B.C.

The hon. member for Orange Grove may have many gifts, but I do not think he has the gift of knowing how the rest of South Africa feels. He launched a terrific attack on the programme, “The News at Nine”. He had the support of some columnist in the Burger who agreed with him. It may have been a personal opinion. I wonder whether the hon. member read the reply by Mr. Fuchs in the Burger? I wonder whether the hon. member read the opinions of numerous other correspondents? But the only test which counts with hon. members opposite is what is done in other countries. What is done in South Africa is also in their opinion too little and too bad. It will interest hon. members to know that this form of presenting the news unfortunately is not an original idea evolved by the S.A.B.C. One finds it in all the Western countries of the world to-day. It is regarded in the world as the ultimate peak of modern journalism. Now that they know that it is not a South African idea they will perhaps change their views.

Is it also distorted in other countries?

Order! Is the hon. member insinuating that it is distorted here?

Yes, that the S.A.B.C. distorts.

It is not as distorted as your speeches.

I want to deal with a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Umbilo. The hon. member pleaded for certain concessionary radio licence fees. We are of course sympathetic towards this matter and we investigated it very closely. But, as in the case of any concession, one cannot do it before one knows what the consequences will be. Because other groups of persons may also be affected, an investigation has to be made to ascertain what the consequences will be and how far we can go. I hope, however, that we will be able to publish the result of the investigation shortly, possibly within the next fortnight.

The hon. member also asked me when I thought that the F.M. system will be completed. As hon. members know, this is a great system which will cover the whole of the country. It depends on the deliveries of the apparatus. Unless there is a delay on the part of the manufacturers, it is estimated that the whole system will possibly be in operation by the end of 1967.

Arising from the announcement that F.M. will be completed in that year, will the Government then be in a position to consider the introduction of television?

The hon. member is now touching on a basic principle. If he does not mind, I will deal with the position of television later on in the debate.

It is always very interesting in debates on broadcasting to see how readily the Minister and hon. members opposite quote Sir John Reith, now Lord Reith. He gave us our broadcasting system, we are always told. I would have the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) remember, when he condemns the B.B.C., that the inspiration for our system was drawn from the B.B.C. Whenever we find any criticism of our system we hear a great deal about Lord Reith. Lord Reith visited this country quite recently. There was a delightful photograph of Lord Reith and the Minister together.

Now, Mr. Chairman, Lord Reith did give us the original report to establish our broadcasting system but when doing so he did not realize that he was dealing with a country which was not the same kind of country as the one he knew in Britain. In Britain he was dealing with a country with a homogeneous population; with the exception of one small section in Wales who speak another language, the people were homogeneous, speaking one language. When he came to South Africa he found people speaking eight or nine languages and his problem here was something altogether different. When he gave us a system based upon the British system Lord Reith was erring in not regarding what the future would give us. We have had 27 years of broadcasting since the 1936 Act. In Britain they have had the Pilkington Commission from which the hon. the Minister quoted to-day. When I asked him which was the second corporation he told me it was the I.T.A. That is the corporation which provides Britain with an independent television service. In other words, in Britain they have private enterprise in addition to the B.B.C. What we need in South Africa is private enterprise to give us the kind of broadcasting that people will like. I think that is necessary. I do not say the Minister must introduce it immediately. I think his first step should be this: He should have a commission to inquire into the working of our Broadcasting Act from 1936 until to-day. He will naturally nominate most of the members of the commission, but I think it should be representative, especially of the people who contribute to our commercial service. The Minister says of the S.A.B.C. that they are an independent body. According to the Act there is a list of things they have to report upon. Under Section 24 (h) they must report on any other matter which the Minister may require the board to deal with. He can say to the board, if necessary, “Parliament would like information on certain points and I should like you to give the information to us He has that power. And I to-day am going to ask the Minister one or two questions about the report. This is not a report to Parliament, this is a report to the hon. Minister and under the Act he is required to take action. I am going to confine myself to a section on which there can be no dispute whatsoever, the finances of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, and when I confine myself to finance, where is there a better authority than the auditor’s report, the annual report of the auditors? And this is what the annual report of the auditors says: It gives the figures, for example, of listeners’ fees, R4,800,000 (I am giving the figures correct to the nearest two figures), but the actual commission is R495,000. Now one does not need to be a mathematician to realize that that is more than 10 per cent. So the hon. Minister’s Department is charging at least 10 per cent for collecting the money. When I pay my R5.50 for my licence, the Minister’s Department, the Post Office, takes 55c for collection. I think that is exorbitant, it is too much, it can be collected at a much lower fee. That is my first point. My second point is this: I am referring to the auditor’s report on page 52. I refer to Section (b) (1), and there we get the cold, unemotional language of an auditor. As hon. members know, an independent auditor has to be particularly careful in the choice of his words, because if he is not particularly careful, the board have the right to say “We should like another auditor, a more amenable auditor”. The auditor gives an independent report and he says this—

So you see, Mr. Chairman, that a very large sum of money, approximately R500,000, is not funded. Let us come to the next one, because there are three funds—

And the General Fund—that is the fund into which the licence fees are paid—established under Section 19 of the Broadcasting Act stood at R391,000, but was only funded to the extent of R200,000. That is to say, R191,000 was not being used. Let us take a look at the next stage. The Accounts say that the money that is funded has been invested. How? Then they refer to gross revenue from the commercial service after deducting commission. I should like the hon. Minister to tell us something about the commissions that are paid in respect of the commercial service.

Now we come to the funding, as they call it, of this money. How is it funded? It is invested in this way according to the balance sheet: “The balance at bankers and funds on deposit in building societies and other institutions.” That is not funding. The hon. Chairman knows that. That is a sort of current account investment. I want the hon. Minister to tell us what is happening financially in the S.A.B.C.

He does not know.

I do not expect him to know as an individual. That would not be fair. But I assume—and I want him to consider this question—that on receipt of this report, he referred it either to his own financial experts in his Department, or to the hon. Minister of Finance, for advice, or to the Auditor-General for example. And if he does refer it to financial experts for advice, why not accept our suggestion that the S.A.B.C. should have all its finances audited by our Auditor-General? I have no objection to this firm. The firm that is auditing at present is one of international repute, and our Auditor-General on occasion employs this firm. We have firms in South Africa just as good, but our Auditor-General employs these firms because he has too much work on hand. But they send their reports through the Auditor-General in other cases. That is what I am pleading for in the case of the S.A.B.C. Here public money is being invested and we have the right to have some kind of control. We are constantly being told that it is a corporation. If it were an ordinary public company, the company would be responsible to its shareholders. The shareholders receive an annual report, they may appear at the annual general meeting and ask questions, and it is the duty of the board of directors to satisfy them when they ask questions. We want some sort of control over the South African Broadcasting Corporation. It is not sufficient for the hon. Minister to say: It is my function to appoint the members of the board, and after that I wash my hands of it. According to the Act, Section 24, that I have quoted, his function goes very much further than that. I ask the hon. Minister in conclusion to note the main point I have made and to give the matter his earnest consideration, namely, to have a commission appointed now, after 27 years, to investigate broadcasting in South Africa. [Time limit.]

Perhaps I should reply to the technical questions asked by the hon. member. The main point of the hon. member concerned the various funds of the Broadcasting Corporation: The Reserve Fund; the Development Fund; the Improvements Fund and the General Fund, as well as the Sinking Fund. The hon. member says moneys paid into these various funds every year should be invested in such a way that the S.A.B.C. should be able to obtain it at any time. The hon. member must note what happens at present. The S.A.B.C. has received a loan from the Government. The financial year of the S.A.B.C. expires on 31 December, but then it already knows that during next year it is going to receive a certain amount (R4,000,000) from the Government. So the S.A.B.C. has the requisite moneys to invest in the various funds, but if the money is invested there, it will probably receive only 31½ per cent interest on its money, while it will have to draw the whole or a part of the R4,000,000 on which it has to pay 5 per cent or 5½ per cent. From an ordinary business point of view surely it is much better to adopt the present procedure. The funds amount to a total of approximately R800,000, but the S.A.B.C. may obtain R4,000,000 from the Government. The S.A.B.C. can therefore obtain that money from the Government at any time. But it is much sounder business to use its own funds for its development, for the other purposes provided for in the Act, and then to say: “Actually my money is funded with the Government.” From a financial point of view therefore the S.A.B.C. is correct. The auditors merely mention it because they have to point out that the money is not invested in the funds separately.

The second point made by the hon. member is that the Auditor-General ought to check the S.A.B.C. accounts. There must be some reason why the hon. member insists on that. In the first place I have to point out that the finances of the B.B.C. are controlled in the same way as here with us. There is no question of the British Auditor-General auditing the B.B.C. funds. There would be no sense in it. The B.B.C. has some of the most eminent auditors in England. It is a coincidence that the S.A.B.C. not only has two of the most eminent firms of auditors in South Africa, but that one of the firms happens to be the same as that which checks the accounts of the B.B.C. In other words, there is this mighty organization, the B.B.C., whose financial position has never yet been impugned and whose accounts are audited by two outstanding firms. And here you have the S.A.B.C., checked by two eminent firms of auditors. Why drag the Auditor-General into it too? But let me proceed. The S.A.B.C. handles public moneys to the same extent as Iscor, K.O.P., Escom and Sasol. Has the hon. member ever demanded that the Auditor-General should also check their financial affairs?

Yes, often.

Then it was equally foolish, and the House has always regarded it as foolish. I shall now tell you there is another motive behind that. The motive is not that the Auditor-General should check the accounts, but that a Select Committee should be able to examine the management of the S.A.B.C. so that all the business secrets may be threshed out. That is what is behind that.

What secrets do the S.A.B.C. have?

The hon. member says that he has asked the same question in regard to Iscor and Escom and all those undertakings, all of them business undertakings. Why does he ask that? Surely he knows that in those cases also there are business secrets and that those institutions could be prejudiced if those secrets were to be divulged. It could be tremendously prejudicial to them. Then they could not compete. The hon. member now comes along and demands the same thing in respect of the S.A.B.C. He says there is no competition in this business. There is tremendous competition. In the first place the S.A.B.C. is largely dependent upon advertisements, in the same way that newspapers for instance are dependent on advertisements. There is keen competition between the S.A.B.C. and other business undertakings as well as other broadcasting corporations such as that in Lourenço Marques, for instance. Why then does the hon. member now demand something that can prejudice the S.A.B.C. tremendously? Is that not an indication of what I pointed out at the commencement of the Session, namely that it has always been the object of those hon. members to break the S.A.B.C.? I have quoted from the report of the commission they appointed, and from correspondence they had with members of the Departments, and it amounted to this, that they did not intend granting the S.A.B.C. a commercial service, but they intended putting up various commercial broadcasting stations here in South Africa whereby the S.A.B.C. could have been squeezed to death. Furthermore, according to the report of the inquiry in 1947 instituted by the Opposition, and the recommendations they intended to carry out, the S.A.B.C. would have come under Government supervision, as the hon. member is proposing now also, but all the other broadcasting stations would not have fallen under Government supervision. In other words, the hon. members for Orange Grove and Kensington and those members who make this demand to-day, are coming forward with a demand that has always been part of the policy the hon. members have always had in mind, namely to break down the S.A.B.C., if they can, so that it would no longer be an influential body, and they would then give their friends all over South Africa concessions to establish commercial broadcasting stations. The hon. member cannot get away from that fact, that what he is asking now is only part of what they have always aspired to. And they have a very big reason for doing so now, because the S.A.B.C. has developed into an instrument disseminating the truth in South Africa. And the truth hurts.

The hon. Minister in his speech mentioned that he was not prepared to have the South African Broadcasting Corporation go before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, because the Select Committee would inquire into the secrets of the S.A.B.C. What are these mysterious secrets, what are these dark secrets that he is trying to hide? Perhaps he can tell us a little more about that.

I was referring to trade and business secrets.

What are these interesting trade and business secrets? There was a statement made by the chairman of the S.A.B.C. Board of Governors saying that large amounts of the S.A.B.C. money was invested in South African enterprises. I asked the hon. Minister what those enterprises were, but he refused to tell me. Are those the business secrets? Why is the House not allowed to know where the money is invested by the S.A.B.C.? Mr. Chairman, the recommendation that the S.A.B.C. should go before the Select Committee on Public Accounts via the Auditor-General is a recommendation made by a commission of this House appointed in 1948, and I can see no reason why the hon. the Minister should be scared of that request on our part.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member appealed to the example of the B.B.C. A remarkable court of appeal, coming from the other side of the House! But let us accept that his appeal to the way in which the B.B.C. is run is a genuine one and that we should follow the example of the B.B.C. He has stated that according to the B.B.C. handbook it appears that there is in principle no difference between the B.B.C. and the S.A.B.C. as regards their independence. Let us accept that. Then I want to challenge the hon. Minister on the following three points: First of all, is he prepared to reply to questions in this House, similar to questions as those which are put in the House of Commons in regard to the B.B.C.? After all he says that they have the same measure of independence. I shall test that during the following weeks and we shall see how much faith we can put in that particular assurance of the hon. Minister. I ask him secondly, if the S.A.B.C. is to be treated the same as the B.B.C., is he prepared to give the same particulars in the annual financial statements placed before this House in regard to the S.A.B.C., as are given in the annual report on the accounts of the B.B.C.? I have a report of the B.B.C. before me, an independent body which the hon. Minister holds up as an example to all of us. In the S.A.B.C. report there is an item: “Programmes, R2,800,000.” In the B.B.C. report they go into much greater detail. They give the expenditure on artists, speakers, performing rights, the permanent orchestra, salaries and wages, sundry expenses. We are not told what the salaries and wages are in the different departments of the S.A.B.C. The B.B.C. gives particulars in regard to engineering expenses, S.M.B. and inter-communication lines, lighting and heating, maintenance, transport, salaries and wages, pensions and sundry expenses. I challenge the hon. Minister to say that he is prepared to give the same particulars as appear in the B.B.C. report.

Are you going to tell us where there is something wrong with our expenditure?

The next challenge to the hon. Minister is this: Is he prepared to lay down in the licence which he grants to the S.A.B.C. the same conditions as are laid down in the licence which is granted to the B.B.C. by the Postmaster-General in Great Britain? In that licence it is laid down in regard to the news services: firstly that all political broadcasts of a controversial nature are prohibited. Is the hon. Minister prepared to lay that down in the licence that he grants to the S.A.B.C.? The B.B.C. licence has a prohibition on broadcasting its own opinions on current affairs. I challenge the Minister to say that he is prepared to do that. And I am even prepared to accept a negative reply from the hon. Minister if he will accept my following challenge and that is to do what every respectable and responsible newspaper in this country is doing to-day, and that is voluntarily to subject its news services to the Code of Conduct of the Press Board. Is he prepared to do that? [Laughter.] I see hon. members are laughing because they remember what happened to the Transvaler when I took the Transvaler before the Press Board. Mr. Chairman, it would take too much time to reply to all the wild statements that had been made on the other side, but I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) that the S.A.B.C. should not be subjected to the Select Committee on Public Accounts because it is a public corporation. Does the hon. member for Prinshof not realize that the Maize Board which goes before the Public Accounts Committee is a public corporation and that the Wheat Board’s accounts come before the Select Committee on Public Accounts?

That is simply not true.

Does that hon. member not know that the accounts of the Land Bank, which is a corporation, come before the Select Committee on Public Accounts? I may have something more to say later on the finances of the S.A.B.C., but what I do wish to raise now is this question: Why is there such uncertainty and why do we get these contradictory statements in regard to television and its introduction in South Africa?

Last year the hon. Minister stated in Parliament that as far as he could see South Africa would never have television at all. Dr. Meyer, the Chairman of the Board of Governors made a different statement before the Afrikaanse Sakekamer. He said that South Africa was keeping abreast of all developments in the field of radio, including television. Mr. C. D. Fuchs, the Director of Programmes, stated at a Press Conference in Cape Town: “The S.A.B.C. is keeping up to date with television, both technically and in respect of programmes, so that if we are given the green light by the Government, we can go ahead with as little delay as possible.” In other words he envisages that the green light will be given. Is he correct, or is the hon. Minister correct when he says that television will never be introduced?

Sir, we are extremely backward to-day. Throughout the world there are no less than 120,000,000 television receivers, but none are allowed in this country, even not to people who wish to import them for their own use. No less than 81 countries in the world have television. South Africa does not have it! Countries behind the Iron Curtain have it, Bulgaria for instance has television. Gibraltar has it, Malta, Monaco; in Asia Hong Kong has television, Iraq has it, Thailand has it, in Africa Algeria has it, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Sierra-Leone, and even to the north of us, Rhodesia has it. In South America every little republic has it. Why, the Transkei will probably have television before we have it in South Africa. Meanwhile there are outstanding developments throughout the world in regard to television broadcasting. We have seen the great advance made with the telestar, going around the world and television programmes being bounced off it from one continent to another. Britain itself is going to put a telestar into orbit to have television communication between the different countries of the Commonwealth. I do not say that we should put a telestar into orbit, but we here in South Africa are so utterly backward that we have not even taken the first important steps in regard to television. I demand from the hon. Minister that he should tell us what his real objections against television are. Is it because it might take advertising revenue from certain newspapers in South Africa? Is that his objection? Or is his objection that he will not be able to find sufficient programmes in both languages to satisfy the people in South Africa? Or is he afraid of competition in general for the circulation and the news services of other newspapers? Why is he so against television? Why does he tell us that this is only a little black box with a glass screen? Sir, it can be and is in many countries one of the greatest educational mediums.

Where?

Let the hon. Minister of Information tell us how many television films his own Department of Information has made for distribution and showing overseas. Is it 30 or 300? I believe it is very much more than 30 and the number may well be over 100. Overseas people can see television films about South Africa, but we in our own country are not permitted to do so. [Time limit.]

I just want to reply to two allegations made by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). In the first place he attacks the Minister because the S.A.B.C. does not fall under the Press Reference Board, and he suggests that the S.A.B.C. is at liberty to do what it likes and that nobody can call it to order. But I want to say for the information of the hon. member for Orange Grove that in fact the S.A.B.C. does fall under the Publications Control Board, and that is a very serious matter. These newspapers which have voluntarily subjected themselves to the Press Reference Board, go scot free when they are charged; nothing happens to them; they can only be reprimanded. But if the S.A.B.C. should commit a contravention, if it were to broadcast something offensive or anything of that kind, it would commit a criminal offence and it could be prosecuted. In other words, it is subject to a much more stringent censorship than any of those newspapers.

I should also like to reply briefly to the hon. member’s argument in connection with television. I do not suggest that I can say everything here that one can say about it, because this is a subject on which one could talk for days. I want to say to the hon. member at once, however, that I believe that the time may still come when we shall have television in this country. It is an evil that one can hardly ward off. But I want to say that the longer we can ward it off, the better it will be for us. I have various reasons for saying that. In the first place, the later we introduce television, if it must come at some future date, the cheaper it will be for South Africa, and I say that because new discoveries are being made every day in the sphere of television. It is becoming cheaper. It would therefore be foolish on our part to spend millions of rand at this stage to introduce television when we can get it more cheaply at a later stage.

But to my mind there is a much more important argument, and that is that in a young country such as South Africa we need capital for very important developments in other spheres, and I say that television would perhaps be the last item on a priority list, because, after all, what is television? It is simply there for pleasure. There are so many other, more essential capital investments that we still have to make in South Africa. There are hundreds of items which should enjoy priority over television.

Another problem in connection with television is that South Africa is a country of vast distances. We cannot compare South Africa with Britain. We have almost 50,000 square miles to cover and it would cost this country with its small population a fortune to introduce television. Moreover, because of our language problems it would be a particularly expensive venture, because apart from the two official languages, there are no less than at least seven Bantu languages, apart from the dialects of the Indians, etc. It would cost us a huge sum to meet everybody’s requirements. To my mind television is nothing but poison to the youth. We must not forget that in Europe the climate is such that young people have to stay indoors, and it may be an advantage to those countries to have television in order to keep the youth occupied. In America, where the climate is better, a different argument applies. There the young people are running so wild on the streets that they have to be enticed back into the home by television. In South Africa, however, where we have such a lovely climate, why should our youth be kept indoors? They can take part in some healthy sport. Sir, the hon. member for Orange Grove made a point to which I must reply. He talked about the educational value of television. Let me say this to him. If television programmes were limited to educational programmes, then there would be no harm in it, but it would never end there. If television programmes consisted of educational programmes only, nobody would look at television. People look at television because it is based on sensation. However, I do not want to waste my time on the hon. member for Orange Grove. The Minister will reply to him further.

I want to discuss another matter with the Minister and that is the possibility of an FM service in South West Africa. We all realize that South West is a very big country, and I would be the last person to imagine that the FM system could be introduced over the whole of South West Africa, but I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot sound out the Board of Governors as to the possibility of erecting an FM tower in Windhoek at least, a tower which could then cover Windhoek and the central area of South West Africa and which could be linked up by landline with another tower, say in Cape Town, for example. The FM system operates from tower to tower and that is why it is an expensive system because one has to have so many towers. But if it could be linked up with Windhoek by means of a landline it would not be necessary to have intermediate towers. I want to ask the Minister to examine this possibility. South West Africa annually collects something like R50,000 for radio licences; it has contributed approximately R220,000 to the Board of Governors, and I do feel that the Board of Governors should examine that possibility. If such a tower were erected in Windhoek it would be able to cover about half the White population, because the population of Windhoek is at least one-fifth of the total White population, and there are also large numbers of people in the Okahandja area and in the Midlands.

I want to raise this one small matter in connection with the Department of Posts. I want to refer in particular to the rates on commercial mail, which is sent in open envelopes at a particularly low rate. I have a few examples here that I want to mention. The vast majority of postal matter in South Africa consists of commercial mail such as catalogues, receipts, accounts, pamphlets, etc. But the rate of those items is very low. I have a few documents here which I have received in just one day’s post. There are five documents here and the total amount paid on them was 9c. If they had been sent at ordinary postal rates, it would have cost 19½c. This sort of post keeps our postal people occupied day and night and the Department derives practically no revenue from it because the tariff is minimal. In addition to that, the handling of this type of post has in fact become a great nuisance, not only to the Department of Posts but also to those of us who receive it. When one looks at the type of postal matter which is sent out in this way, one finds that it is absolutely nonsense. That is the only way in which one can describe it, and what makes the sorting even more difficult for the Department of Posts is the fact that this postal matter is sent out in various sizes and shapes. There is the very large size of 12 x 9 inches, and the one has various shapes and sizes in between down to the smallest. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to increase the tariff on this sort of postal matter which has become such a plague. I do not think there is any member in this House who has taken the trouble to read every one of these five documents which we have just received through the post. I think most members simply threw them into the waste-paper basket. I should like the Minister to give his attention to this matter, if possible.

All I want to say in reply to the hon. member’s plea against television is that he is entirely wrong. It seems to me he thinks this is 1863. I have to inform him that this is 1963. I really think it is time the hon. the Minister informed the country and the House what the future policy of the Government is in connection with television. In the whole civilized world to-day television is already as common as the radio, the telephone and jet aeroplanes. There is hardly a country in Africa, which is the so-called dark continent, which is without it. It is only in South Africa where we have a Government and a Minister who think that the citizens of South Africa are too immature for television. I think it is absolutely unique in the history of the world to have a Government who deliberately and wilfully hampers the technological progress of its country because of some or other unknown prejudice which the Minister harbours and which he does not want to make public. The reasons advanced so far by the hon. the Minister why we should not have television are unfounded. He complained some time ago that children would see harmful pictures over television. But like the radio, television will be a State institution in this country: it will be State controlled; the State will have the right to ward off harmful things. So that argument falls away. You really feel ashamed, Sir, when you have to advance the reasons of the Minister to strangers why we cannot have television. The Minister’s attitude reminds one of the time when people were literally afraid of the motor-car. I remember the time when people were afraid to have the modern telephone in their homes. If television will be harmful to some people, as everything is harmful, then surely the motorcar is also harmful to some people. Thousands of people die on the roads, but I still have to see the Minister selling his American motorcar because of that and go home in the evenings by horse and cart. The simple fact is this that television has become part of the daily lives of modern people throughout the world and factories overseas are already evolving television telephones where you will be able to see the person to whom you are talking. There will be television telephones in the rest of the world shortly but we do not even have ordinary television as yet. It is true that it takes some time for people to get used to the novelty of television before they become selective as far as the programmes are concerned, but the same applied in the case of the radio. I remember when I was a child we sat glued to the radio, particularly on Saturdays, but with the passage of time, the public got used to it and people became selective as far as the programmes were concerned. It is noticeable to-day when you go overseas that the public has already passed through that stage where they watch television day and night; they are beginning to get selective. I believe that the sooner the people of South Africa pass through that stage, get television and adapt themselves to it, the better it will be for all concerned. No matter how you argue about television—I think it is somewhat ridiculous that we have to argue about it at all, because like the newspaper and the bioscope, which also have their own peculiar disadvantages, it has already become part of the lives of ordinary people—the fact remains that it is of colossal education value to adults as well as to children. The educational value of television exceeds all the disadvantages it may have. Let me give one example. It has been proved in countries where they have television and where the farmers are given guidance over television, that the standard of agriculture has risen considerably. I go so far as to say that if there is one country which ought to have television it is South Africa and I shall tell you why I say that, Sir. I believe that priority one in South Africa is a massive campaign to educate the adults, particularly those amongst the backward sections of our population. We must do everything in our power to provide the backward sections of our population with the necessary education so that civilized standards can be maintained in South Africa no matter what may happen at the political front in future. I know some Afrikaans-speaking people feel that the introduction of television may possibly be harmful to the Afrikaans language and the argument which is advanced in support of that is that we shall be too dependent on cheap programmes from overseas. I, however, do not share in that fear at all. The radio was started in South Africa as a purely English institution, and that was not so many years ago. Instead of it having harmed Afrikaans it was a challenge to Afrikaans and it stimulated Afrikaans. Afrikaans accepted the challenge and to-day English and Afrikaans are on an equal footing as far as the radio is concerned. The film industry started as a purely English industry, overwhelmingly American, and to-day it is still mostly in English, but in spite of the fact that millions and millions of people have visited bioscopes over the years and have seen English films, the Afrikaans language has blossomed and grown like a flower. It has not affected the progress of Afrikaans in the least; on the contrary, Afrikaans is also beginning to accept this challenge and noticeable progress has been made. The same will happen in the case of television. As far as that is concerned we need have no fears because that too will stimulate the progress of Afrikaans. As far as I am concerned there is every reason to believe that television is not only desirable and necessary but I go so far as to say that not a single good reason has been advanced by the Government side why South Africa should not have television. I am sorry, but I accuse the Minister and the Government of knowingly retarding the technological progress of South Africa. I accuse them of standing in the way of large-scale adult education. I accuse them of depriving the aged and the lonely, of whom we have tens of thousands in South Africa, of a pleasure which can bring joy into their lives. Above all, I am sorry to have to say that, as a result of the attitude of the Minister, our country has become the laughing stock of the rest of the world and what hurts me as an Afrikaans-speaking person is that the Afrikaner in particular, because of our attitude towards television, is regarded as the modern King Canute. I have repeatedly experienced it overseas that the fact that we do not have television is regarded as proof, incorrectly so, but nevertheless as proof, of the backwardness of the Afrikaner because ours is practically the only country in the world which has not got it. That is why I as an Afrikaner am entitled to say that because of his attitude the Minister is adversely influencing the picture which the world outside has of the Afrikaner. About a year ago we had the spectacle in this country that a person like Sir Roy Welensky was forbidden even to refer in a radio broadcast to the advantages of television. That is how childish we are. Year after year we have the spectacle of overseas exhibitors who take the trouble of exhibiting at the Rand Easter Show being forbidden to show what they have achieved. [Time limit.]

It has now become almost a hardy annual of hon. members opposite to come forward with a proposal for the introduction of television every year. I recall that the hon. member for Turffontein raised it in a private motion in 1961. Last year it was raised again by various Opposition members, inter alia, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), and this year again quite a number of members again entered this field. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, accused the hon. the Minister of having some mysterious prejudice in connection with television, and that he will not permit the introduction of television for that reason. But what is more, he said that this refusal of his to have television is regarded overseas as proof of the backwardness of the Afrikaner. I should like to ask the hon. member whether Israel is also regarded as being backward overseas. As far as I know, there is no television in Israel.

But they are not opposed to it.

Israel cannot afford it, because it is a luxury and that is why it has not been introduced. There are three practical questions we ask ourselves on the introduction of television. In the first place, we should ask ourselves whether it will really be beneficial culturally and educationally. It may be beneficial, but in many countries it has been proved not to be educationally beneficial. A second question is the one that was dealt with by the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe). Can the country afford it, not only the introduction of it, which will already cost an enormous sum, but also the maintenance of it? And thirdly, do we have the manpower to introduce it? I should like to say, regarding the educational aspect, that as an educationist I have read widely on it, and I have also visited the installations of the B.B.C. in London. Commissions of inquiry have been appointed all over the world, and in England too, to investigate this matter. The Conservative Party in England became so concerned about the negative effects of television—because they realized that it is bringing about a process of moral decline—that they appointed a commission of inquiry which submitted a voluminous report in which they said this, inter alia—

Television is a major cause of teenage crime.

The commission mentioned instances of how a crime had been televised and how that crime was committed by children the next day. A child is a mimic. We know this in education, and they do not always imitate the positive things; mostly it is the negative things. Furthermore, education organizations in England became so concerned about the decline of young people, that the Government was requested to appoint a special commission, and that commission’s report had hardly been submitted, when a second commission was appointed, with the terms of reference, inter alia—

An independent panel will be appointed to look into the effect that television has on the public, leading to a decline in the moral standard and an increase in crime among young people.

Is that not a direct attack on television programmes and their direct effects? But I do not wish to burden the House for long. I just want to quote what has been said by an educationist who visited this country recently. I am reading from the Burger of 10 April 1963. This educationist was Mr. A. C. Hardwood, and he said this [Translation]—

The hon. member who spoke before me described how children were nailed down to the radio until they became more critical. But it happens now that children are unable to pass beyond that stage, because television virtually has an hypnotic effect upon persons, and that is why they continue to sit there and they do not do their school work. Much more could be said about the demoralizing effects of television. However, I wish to emphasize another point, and that is that when it is introduced we shall find communists and liberalists sneaking in—something that cannot always be avoided—and they could then demoralize and spoil the spirit of our people in a subtle manner by means of their iniquitous propaganda. I shall not refer to the great cost, for that has been done very ably by the hon. member for Middelland. I just want to mention the manpower aspect.

I have asked whether we have the manpower for it. Before we can consider the introduction of television, we have to consider our manpower position. In August 1962 Dr. P. E. Rossouw, Managing Director of Sasol, referred to the introduction of television in an address, and according to him the question of manpower is a consideration of primary importance in South Africa. He said that approximately 9 per cent of the economically active people of South Africa may be classified as employers or as administrative employees, managers and professional or semiprofessional and technical employees. As against that the figure in the United States is 23 per cent, that is to say, 2½ times as many. We then have a shortage of scientists. We are experiencing this every day. The high schools experience a shortage of science teachers. If television were to be introduced now, it will provide channels to which people will be attracted and we cannot afford it. I wish to conclude with this thought. We dare not sell our national soul and that at the high cost of the introduction and the maintenance of television.

The points made by hon. members on the other side have been dealt with adequately. I may come back to them, but first of all I want to bring one matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister and that is in connection with our Africa transmitter. This Africa transmitter was inaugurated on 3 February 1957, by putting into service two 20 kW. transmitter erected at Paradys. The programmes of this Africa transmitter consist in the main of relays of the programmes of the Afrikaans service on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays, and of the programmes of the English service on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays. This transmitter has one very great defect. Its first defect is its weakness, particularly when we compare it with the 300 kW. transmitter of Cairo, the 240 kW. transmitter of Peking, the 120 kW. transmitter of the B.B.C., the 100 kW. transmitter of Ghana, and the 500 kW. transmitter of Moscow. To be able to reach Africa only we would need at least two transmitters of 200 kW. And then there is also another defect and that is that apart from these weak transmitters, our broadcasts do not comply with the most important requirement of all and that is to discharge the responsibility which rests on our shoulders as the only White country in Africa to carry the message of Western civilization to the countries to the north of our borders. There is no continuity in our broadcasting programmes either, because we broadcast alternately in English and Afrikaans, and in addition to that only a portion of the Whites understand these broadcasts because the English-speaking people and the non-Whites do not understand Afrikaans with the result that there is a large section of the non-Whites and of the English-speaking people in Africa whom we do not reach. Furthermore, our programmes are not sufficiently adapted to the characteristics of the various population groups in the countries to the north of our borders. There is virtually no special news service for those listeners to the north of the Limpopo. These transmitters are designed in the main really to reach Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Uganda, Tanganyika, Kenya, Mocambique and the Congo. Our broadcasting services should also cover countries other than those I have mentioned here, and I would therefore ask the hon. Minister and the board to consider the Question of replanning the services entirely. We should replace the present two 20 kW. transmitters either by two 200 kW. transmitters which will be able to reach Africa or by two 500 kW. transmitters which will be able to reach most Western countries. I personally would prefer to see that we acquire two 500 kW. transmitters so that we can broadcast to these Africa countries as well as to the whole of Western Europe, because we have no radio stations and newspapers which are favourably disposed towards us and which can carry the voice of South Africa to those countries. There is, of course, the important cost factor to be considered in this connection. These two 200 kW. transmitters would cost about R3.600,000 for the installation, for the sites and the buildings, plus the annual maintenance cost which would amount to about R764,000. As against that we find that two 500 kW. transmitters would cost approximately R4,000,000 and R928,000 per annum in respect of maintenance. It is clear from these figures that the capital cost connected with the 500 kW. transmitter, which is 2½ times as strong as the 200 kW. transmitter, is only 11 per cent higher. This expenditure to which I have referred does not include the salaries of the staff and the cost of programmes which it is estimated will amount to approximately R100,000 per annum, according to the figures given to me. This financial burden should be borne by our Central Government; it should not be the responsibility of the S.A.B.C. In England, for example, we find that in 1960 the B.B.C. voted R13,000,000 for its overseas service. Similarly we find that countries like Ireland, New Zealand, Austria, Germany, Italy and Japan have taken this financial burden upon their shoulders. If we have this strong Africa transmitter we will find that we shall be able to refute this distorted propaganda which is being made by the English-language Press in South Africa and overseas and by other radio stations and by individuals, particularly members of our Opposition, as we have again heard here in the past few days. We shall be able to state South Africa’s case positively throughout Africa and Europe. The 3,000,000 Whites of South Africa would then be responsible for carrying the message of Western civilization to these countries, and we would be able to tackle this if we had a strong transmitter. Since the United Party have shown here this afternoon that they clearly differ from this Government, that they only think of £.s.d. or of rand and cents, while this Government thinks of higher values, of the spiritual possessions of our nation, it will perhaps satisfy the United Party to learn that it will also be possible by means of this transmitter to carry advertisements to Africa and that even countries overseas will be able to make use of this transmitter to make propaganda in their own country. I have in mind general information, for example. I am thinking, for example, how much it might be worth to the Minister of Information to be able to send out certain information into the world. The language in which these programmes can be broadcast, at this stage, should be English, French, Swahili, German and Arabic. If we start with those five languages we shall be able to reach various countries around the Mediterranean and in Western Europe. Millions of people would be able to listen to these broadcasts and with such a strong transmitter we would be able to open the eyes of the world. Western Europe, with England and France and Germany in the forefront, would then learn what the true facts are, and we would be able to achieve a great deal if we could erect such a transmitter in South Africa.

I should like to come back to a few points raised by hon. members on the other side. They put forward a plea here this afternoon that the Controller and Auditor-General should go into the finances of the S.A.B.C. In the first instance, however, that would require new legislation because in Act 22 of 1936 it is laid down specifically that auditors from outside have to be appointed and not the Auditor-General. Mr. Chairman, we have learned to know the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) as a surly fellow, not only here but in all spheres in which he moves. In 1947 when he could not become the chief secretary of the National Party in the Cape Province and when he could not become head of the Information Service, he resigned as a member of the National Party…

He was kicked out.

He then joined the United Party.

An embittered United Party supporter.

And he is so embittered and he has grown so sour that even his own members refuse to listen to him nowadays. But he made an insinuation here against the two firms of auditors who went into the books of the S.A.B.C.; he practically made an attack upon them. As far as I am concerned, these are probably all individuals who are favourably disposed towards their party’s policy and I cannot fight for them on political grounds therefore, but I think it is in extremely poor taste and low on his part to make this insinuation…

Order! Did the hon. member use the word “low”?

If that word is not in order, let me put it this way then: I would have to sink very low to reach his level, but I am prepared to withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “low”.

I withdraw it. I say it is extremely reprehensible. [Time limit.]

Just before the hon. the Minister replies I want to ask what he intends doing in connection with a proper radio service for South West Africa. During the past few years there have been repeated requests on the part of private undertakings who are prepared to provide South West with radio facilities, a local radio service with a limited radius and naturally under the licence control of the authorities. The Administration has so far consistently turned it down on the ground that the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation had the monopoly in South West as far as radio services were concerned and I think that places an obligation on the Government either to allow private initiative to introduce radio facilities or to erect a broadcasting station in Windhoek itself. I should very much like to hear from the Minister what his policy is in this connection. I only hope he will not tell us that there are broadcasts from here to South West. He knows himself that a radio service is much more important than that. You have, for example, three White language and cultural groups there and it is only when you have a broadcasting station in your own capital city that your local talent has an opportunity of taking part in your radio activities. I think an obligation rests on the shoulders of the Government to do one of two things and that is either to allow private initiative to provide the area with what it is entitled to have or the Government itself must erect a broadcasting station at Windhoek. I shall be pleased to learn what the Minister’s attitude is.

What business is it of yours what we do in South West?

You are doing nothing for South West; you are only here to vote.

Order, order!

I do not want to detain the Committee long. I should just like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with the building of a post office at De Aar, to which high priority was given and with which I personally have concerned myself for a number of years. This post office was practically right at the top of the list, but I also know that there was certain problems in connection with the land on which the post office had to be built. There was a difference of opinion between the Department of Public Works and the Municipality in connection with the land, which the Municipality first had to take over from Public Works, but according to the town clerk and the mayor that has now been done. That assurance was given to me during the past week-end. The population of De Aar, as the hon. the Minister knows, has practically quadrupled in the last few years. The present building is of such a nature that it can no longer meet the requirements of the local population. People are simply crowding each other out in the post office. I just want to ask the Minister, if there are no other problems in the way, to see to it that this post office at De Aar is built as soon as possible.

I do not want to make a speech; I just want to put a question to the Minister. I already raised the question of the main post office at Boksburg the other day under the Public Works Vote. I just want to know whether the Minister can give me any information in connection with this matter.

May I firstly reply to the question put by the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter). We have long since realized how necessary it is for De Aar to have a new post office but as the hon. member has just said there has been a great deal of trouble connected with that. We could not start designing the post office until there was certainty about the site because the building must, of course, be adapted to the site. Draft plans, in their final stages have, however, now been submitted to the Department, and we hope that it will be possible to submit them to the Postmaster-General for his final approval within the next few days. If that happens that post office will be at the top of the list of the Post Office’s programme for big building works for the financial year 1964-5. I might just add that if there have been any delays I know the hon. member will not hold me responsible for them because the hon. member knows that the buildings are erected by the Department of Public Works.

The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) has referred to certain abuses in connection with commercial articles that are posted. Actually this is not a profitable service, as the hon. member rightly said, but the problem is that many of those articles are indeed necessary. We have been unable so far to find an easier way of making a distinction but we are giving our attention to this matter. If a solution can be found we shall put it into practice as soon as possible.

The hon. member also put a question to me in connection with the radio service of South West Africa and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has now also raised it. The South West Africa problem is a difficult one because South West Africa is a large, dry country and in a large dry country the ordinary medium wave is a bad conductor. At the same time it is susceptible to all sorts of interferences.

That is why FM is so necessary.

That is why it is impossible for us to make use of the first solution which was resorted to in South Africa in the past, namely, the medium wavelength; that can be discarded for the most part. FM service is a localized service. It is an excellent service but it is a service with a range of 100 miles at the most. [Interjections.] We have even prepared the maps for the whole of South West Africa and the costs of introducing FM in South West Africa will be more than the cost in respect of the rest of the Republic. That shows you how very expensive it is, Sir, because you have to have your stations not 100 miles but 40 to 50 miles away from one another. It is, of course, possible to have F.M. at a few places. What we are considering at the moment is whether it will not be possible to introduce a system at, say, Windhoek only. That question also poses problems. In the first place the service will be a local service for Windhoek only and then you are still left with the problem of the rest of South West Africa. It will, of course, be extremely expensive but your great problem lies in the continuous transmission of programmes from Johannesburg. For that you will require a concentration cable, not an ordinary land line, because you have to be exceedingly accurate with your sounds in F.M. In other words, ordinary cables are subject to every atmospheric and land interference. It will have to be a concentration cable and it will be very expensive to lay such a cable over the long distance between Johannesburg and Windhoek. That brings us to the third solution, namely, the short wave. The difficulty with the shortwave is this, however, that it is reflected from the ionosphere; it is not sent direct along a land wave. In other words, you cannot have a station too close to the area which you want to serve with the shortwave and that is why it is not possible to erect such a station at Windhoek, for example, to serve South West Africa. You will have to erect it outside the borders of South West Africa so that you can then spread it over South West Africa. With our modern knowledge of the construction of air lines you can determine fairly accurately where it will be reflected. At the present moment we have on order two transmitters of 20 kW. which have been specially ordered for South West Africa and I hope they will be introduced within the foreseeable future and that they will provide South West Africa with the necessary service.

Will that give a better service?

That will be especially for South West Africa and the antennae will be directed in such a way that the service will be specially concentrated on South West Africa. It may perhaps not be absolutely satisfactory but it will be much more satisfactory than the existing service.

We now come to this much discussed problem of television. The way this problem is approached in this House is always very significant. It signifies the difference between the approach of this side of the House and that side of the House. As far as the other side of the House is concerned anything is always good enough for them if another country has it or if Ghana has it or if some or other little Black State has it. Was that not one of the arguments to which we had to listen the whole of to-day? It was pointed out that all the little Black States have it.

America too.

This is always the argument: Other countries do it and that is why we must also do it. That is also their argument in connection with apartheid. Other countries do not have apartheid, why must we have it? The argument is always that we should do what other countries do whether it will be to the advantage of South Africa or not and whether you will thereby cause South Africa’s downfall or not. It is noticeable that their approach to television is the same. I have not heard one sound argument that it will be in the interests of South Africa except for the wild statements made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It does not matter to them whether it will be in the interests of South Africa or not. It is just vaguely alleged that it will be of educational value; that it will benefit the aged who have to stay at home, etc. As against that this side of the House is always concerned about the welfare and the future of our country and our population. That is the difference in our approach.

I am sure hon. members opposite will shortly no longer pay any attention because they are not interested in the advantages or disadvantages of television; they only want one thing and that is the introduction of television and towards the end of my speech I shall try to explain why they adopt that attitude because everything that side of the House does has some veiled motive and if you understand the motive you understand a great deal. Let me at the outset point out a few facts to you, Sir, in connection with television. In the first place 95 per cent of the television programmes consists of films. Everything that you see is not, therefore, live transmissions. As a matter of fact in England and America only about 5 per cent does not consist of films. There are many reasons for that; there are technical and administrative reasons for it. You do not know, for example, when the players are going to do something which is of no interest whatsoever and which must then be cut out. If you film it you need only transmit the interesting parts and leave out the boring parts. Consequently more and more is being filmed and you do not see the scene directly, not even in the case of rugby matches and other sport.

Have you yourself ever looked at television?

Yes. Let me explain the position in regard to sport a little further. One would have thought that it would be easier to transmit live scenes but let us take the case of rugby. The rugby organizers realize that if you were to show a rugby match people will not go to look at the match itself; they are not going to pay admission fees. That is why practically all organizers of sport demand that when a match is filmed for television purposes it will not be transmitted immediately; it can only be transmitted later on when the match is over. Thus even sport is in the main no longer alive; it simply gets filmed. That brings us closer to reality, namely, that for the greater part television is simply a bioscope in your own home. Let me just correct the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member says that television is of great educational value. Let me refer him to the views expressed in the report of Dr. Himmelweit. Hon. members will remember that one commission after the other was appointed in England to inquire into television because the people and the Government of England were becoming so perturbed about the disadvantages of television. Dr. Himmelweit said the following—

Television is being lauded sky high by hon. members opposite but it is nothing very wonderful. There is this big difference as far as television is concerned that whereas the ordinary bioscope is outside your home, television brings the bioscope inside your home, and it is there where your first problem arises. The effect it has on your children is that instead of their going to a bioscope, where the picture has your prior approval, you have the bioscope in your home every moment of the day and you do not know what they are going to show and your children will sit in front of the television set when they come from school. The Himmelweit Commission says this—

You, have this undesirable state of affairs, therefore, that the moment you introduce television you invite every child to stare at the television set after school hours instead of studying or thinking about the problems of the day in his own mind. [Laughter.]

That is true.

As I said at the beginning, I do not expect hon. members on the other side to take any intelligent interest. The reasons why they raise the question of television in this House have to be sought elsewhere. Television has this effect, according to the report of this commission of inquiry, that the child who looks at television throughout the day gradually becomes retarded. He has a superficial knowledge of all sorts of bad things which he sees without the knowledge of life; he steadily gets behind and he also becomes maladjusted to life. He is unable to face up to the problems of life as they present themselves. You also find that the child who looks at television is often to a large extent no longer the leader in his area; he feels inferior and at best is only a follower. It is very important to us in South Africa that the White nation’ should be the leaders and remain the leaders. The young generation particularly should be trained as leaders.

Order! The hon. the Minister is discussing a very serious matter in connection with which hon. members have asked for information. If hon. members continue to make interjections it is unnecessary for the Minister to continue. The hon. the Minister may continue.

It is absolutely essential that the White man must be the leader in South Africa and that our children should be trained for that. If that does not happen the White man’s position will soon be prejudiced. It is a fact that the television pictures which are shown in England and America—I want to concentrate on England and America in particular—are interspersed with violence, murder, deceit and sex. If you have a child and you know a friend of his has bad habits you will not allow your child to associate with that friend. If you know a film is not good you will not allow your child to go to see it because you know that by merely seeing that one film which is not good for him at a time of this life when he is most susceptible to influences that child can be very adversely affected. When television is introduced into a home and the children are continually seeing acts of violence, crime, sex crimes and immorality it must of necessity have an adverse affect on those children. I do not want hon. members to take my word for this and that is why I want to quote a few authorities. These are people who in recent years have made a careful study of this problem. The one commission said the following—

We dare not allow such a state of affairs in South Africa. We dare not allow the minds of our own children to become sullied, nor dare we allow the mind of the Bantu to become similarly sullied. If you were to allow that amongst the Bantu you would find large-scale crime amongst them, crimes which are committed according to modern Chicago methods. When you ask detectives how it is possible that the Bantu commit those types of crime they will tell you that most cases are attributable to the fact that they see those crimes being committed in films. We already have the position in South Africa that this wave of crime amongst the Bantu is attributable to the fact that they see films which affect them adversely, films which are the training schools for crime. All the Bantu will not have television sets but they will crowd around the few sets which there are and they will witness the commission of crimes; they will learn how to elude the police.

If we want to introduce television in South Africa certain requirements have to be complied with. Firstly, our approach must be different from that of hon. members opposite. We must approach it from this principle that television must be to the advantage of South Africa and not to her disadvantage. It is easy and cheap to introduce television if you do not care what pictures are shown. It will be cheap to erect a small transmitter in Johannesburg intended for Johannesburg only. The Television Society of South Africa tell us that it is cheap to hire those gangster and Western films from America. But if we ever introduce television into South Africa we must not follow that method.

In the second place we must accept it as a fact that if we do introduce the system in South Africa the costs attached to it will not be any cheaper than in England. The population is concentrated in England whereas it is spread out in this country. They have one language in England and here we have many languages. We have English and Afrikaans at least to start with and then we have seven Bantu languages as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Middelland. You cannot expect to introduce television and to neglect the Native by not showing pictures in their own language. Let us take it that television in South Africa will cost at least as much as it costs in England. In England the cost to the B.B.C. alone is R40,000,000 per annum. You must be prepared, therefore, to spend R40,000,000 annually to maintain the system. It will be very difficult to persuade this Government to introduce television in South Africa at a cost of R40,000,000. I do not think you will easily persuade any government in this country to do that. And if the State cannot afford it who will be able to afford it? The alternative is, as is the case in America and England, to rely on advertisements. Let me just draw hon. member’s attention to the following fact: Nobody denies that television has a tremendous hypnotic affect on people. Those moving figures in the dark room in the intimate atmosphere of your home have a tremendous influence. Let me read to hon. members who are so frivolous what the Pilkington Commission said—

We see therefore that both adults and children are strongly subject to the influence of television.

In the commercial world it has this effect: If you advertise your products on television they have a tremendous attraction for people. They buy the products which are advertised more than those that are not. The effect of television as far as the advertiser is concerned is that if he advertises his products he takes clientele away from his neighbour who sells the same products but who does not advertise thus ruining him. Therefore if you do not allow that man to advertise as well you are going to cause the ruination of a large section of the population. You cannot devote an unlimited part of your programme to advertisements. It has been proved scientifically that you cannot devote more than six minutes in every hour to advertisements. Actually people do not like the disturbing effect of advertisements. If you devote more than six minutes per hour to advertisements, you lose so many customers that you actually harm yourself. For this reason it is accepted as a fact to-day that you must not advertise for more than six minutes per hour. Let me make the following calculation, Mr. Chairman. We all go to the bioscope and a show usually last 21/2 hours. During those 21/2 hours you can at least advertise six minutes during the first hour, six minutes during the second hour and three minutes during the last half an hour. That gives you 15 minutes. The shortest effective advertisement on television is, however, 15 seconds. In other words in every minute you can only cope with four advertisements. In other words, during an entire show of 21/2 hours you can only have 4 x 5 advertisements; that means 60 advertisements in a whole evening. If you have 60 advertisements per evening and you take a week to have six days you can allow 360 advertisements if they all advertise only once per week for not more than 15 seconds. Do you think, however, Mr. Chairman, that if you only allowed 360 people to advertise in South Africa that that would give satisfaction? You are going to cause ruination because all those other people who run competitive business will lose clientele on a tremendous scale. You will consequently be compelled to increase your sessions. You will have to have two session in which case you will have to allow 700 advertisers. But you do not only have 700 people in South Africa who will want to advertise once per week for 15 seconds. If you have three sessions the number will be only something over a thousand. Let us stop at three sessions. You cannot get away from the fact if you introduce television in a country like South Africa, unless you wish to ruin a large section of the population, you will have to have at least two or three sessions. If you make a study of television in other countries you will find this peculiarity that in all countries where they advertise on television the hours of television have had to be extended. The position has become so serious in England that they have had to introduce various systems. That was also the reason why they introduced the I.T.A. Even in England they have to allow much more time for advertisements so as to prevent other business-undertakings from suffering.

Let me return to South Africa. You cannot introduce a television system in South Africa that will have to be dependent on advertisements unless you have at least three sessions per day. That means 7½ hours. You will have to start at, say 3.30 p.m. and go right through till 11 p.m. You can of course break it up and have one session in the morning and two in the evening. In that case you will only be able to give a thousand firms one chance of 15 seconds per week to advertise. That is to say 7x3, i.o.w. 21 sessions. You will have to have programmes for 21 sessions each equivalent to the duration of a cinema show. Where are you going to get those programmes? In South Africa the cinemas only get one film per week and they find it difficult to get decent pictures. Because we ourselves do not have the films here, and because live television constitutes a very small part of the programme, we shall have to import programmes from overseas and you will have to import them mainly from English-speaking countries like England and America. You will perhaps be able to import a few programmes from other countries. That means that we will be dependent on other countries to maintain our system.

You have this phenomenon, Sir, that where advertisements are introduced into a system you lower the standard of the films. The reason is obvious. The reason is that every person who advertises over television pays a tremendous amount of money. It costs R4,600 per hour in England. Hon. members can calculate for themselves how much it costs per 15 seconds. In view of the fact that the advertiser has to pay that big sum of money he is quick to say that he will not advertise unless he is assured of a large audience. In order to attract a large number of viewers you have to show films and programmes of a low standard. Let me give hon. members the example of Firestone in America. Firestone is one of the biggest rubber companies in the world. That company started in America with programmes of a very high standard. Those were programmes that were really worth while watching. They were, however, suddenly notified that their programmes were of too high a standard and that they should bring them down to the standard of the other programmes. They refused and then the N.B.C. (National Broadcasting Corporation) simply took them off the air. Let me read how it was reported—

Do you see what the effect was, Sir? To-day their programmes are of the same standard as the others.

You will now ask me what the standard of those programmes is? Let me read to you what the Chairman of the Federal Communications Committee said. This is the highest authority in America that has a say in television matters. He said—

That is the only type of programme of which we shall be able to get a sufficient supply. That is the type of film which the Pilkington commission said only bred crime. Hon. members opposite are always asking why the S.A.B.C. are making inquiries about television. They do so because we always want to be fully informed as to what is happening in the world. The experts of the S.A.B.C. have combed the world and come to the conclusion that we shall not be able to import more than 5 per cent of our requirements from overseas. In other words there are by far not sufficient programmes of the standard we want. During recent years another problem has arisen namely this: Since the last world war we have had this spectacle that the Communists and the Leftists who often shield behind the name of “liberal” have taken possession of various means of influencing people such as the Press, the radio, television and even literature. You find that pattern of propaganda throughout television films. There are few programmes in which you do not find that propaganda. The tendency in those programmes is to present the White man as the bad man, the guilty one, the one who exploits the Black man, that it is the White man who is causing all the misery in the world. Then you always find the further pattern that the Black man is the innocent one, the one who has been wronged, the oppressed and ultimately also the hero. You find that throughout those television programmes. In other words, if we in South Africa were to import programmes from overseas we can be sure of it that the majority of them will to a greater or lesser extent follow that pattern. It will lead to the moral collapse of the White man in this country, as is happening in European countries and in England. You will find the position that the Black man is lauded sky high and encouraged to revolt against the White man. It will have a dual affect in South Africa: It will undermine the position of the White man in South Africa and make the Black man an even greater enemy of the White man.

Let me just read the description of one film to you, Sir. This is a film which is being shown in England. They say this is a film of which some scenes were shot secretly in South Africa. This is the description—

Here is another description—

That is one example of the films that are being shown. I mention this particularly because it is being shown in connection with South Africa. That is the standard throughout of the films you get, some to a greater and some to a lesser degree. If it has the tremendous effect which it did have in England, if it has the tremendous effect which it did have in Belgium and Holland, I ask you, Sir, what effect it will have in South Africa. Is it not sad that the Belgians, influenced by this propaganda, morally collapsed to such an extent that they handed the Congo over at a totally undesirable time to the Bantu who were not ready for it? Was it not pitiful to see how the Dutch nation collapsed and got chased out of their empire? Was it not pitiful to see how England, who has built up an Empire for 500 years, relinquished it without firing a shot? When you ask me what the main reason is, Sir, I shall say the moral collapse of the English nation. Even in England people will tell you that they have developed a “guilt complex” instead of a “pride complex” Instead of the English nation being proud of what they have achieved in the world the English-speaking section in South Africa is also developing a “guilt complex”, such a “guilt complex”, Mr. Chairman, that it is really beyond one’s comprehension. That is also the way in which they are trying to undermine the position of the White man in South Africa, because they know once they have undermined the position of the White man in South Africa the rest of Africa will fall into their hands. I now want to return to the motive of hon. members opposite. Throughout we have seen the smile on the face of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, the same grimace which has always hidden the intention which they have at the back of their minds. They want to employ every possible means to cause the downfall of the White man. We have seen that throughout their actions. We saw that in the way they opposed our apartheid policy, our legislation even the General Law Amendment legislation, we saw that in the way they acted in connection with the Transkeian legislation. That is the motive behind it all, and I think it will be a sad day for South Africa when South Africa succumbs to the propaganda and the ulterior motives of the other side of the House.

What objection has the hon. the Minister got to closed beam television for scientific purposes?

There has never been any objection to that provided that was only desired for scientific purposes. But you must always bear in mind what lurks behind it. The minute we discover that there is an ulterior motive, such as a desire to advertise such apparatus, we naturally say we cannot allow such an advertisement.

I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister: If there is no possibility of our ever getting television in South Africa, why did Mr. Douglas Fuchs say that the South African Broadcasting Corporation was keeping abreast of all modern developments, and why is Mr. Norman Filmer still in Australia at this moment, I believe, to investigate television there, amongst other things? My next question is this: The hon. the Minister says that television would cost South Africa R40,000,000 per annum. Why is Rhodesia with such a small population able to introduce television? My third question is this: The hon. the Minister complained here about the terrible quality of the films which are shown on television. Why would it not be possible for the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation to ensure that no undesirable films are shown? There are 3,500 television stations in the world. Even if the programmes of only 5 per cent of them are good, it means that the Broadcasting Corporation would be able to select programmes from 175 television stations.

It is not impossible to introduce television. It is an easy matter if one is willing to show films of poor quality to the public. And that is what is happening in the world.

What is Filmer doing in Australia?

We are not stupid enough to say that we want nothing to do with television. What we on this side of the House are doing is to consider and weigh up the matter carefully; we are constantly investigating the position. As I have said, we want the Broadcasting Corporation to keep itself acquainted continually with everything that is going on. We never know what new developments there may be in the world. Some method may possibly be discovered whereby one can overcome the disadvantage of television. But at the present moment there is still no way in which we can get rid of those evils. The hon. member wants to know why the Broadcasting Corporation cannot screen the programmes. I have tried to explain to the hon. member why this cannot be done. It would mean that the quality would have to be lowered to the level desired by the masses.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Revenue Vote No. 35.—“Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote C.—“Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services”, R23,038,000, put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 36.—“Health”, R21,368,000,

I want to deal with the question of nursing, a very important subject. This Minister is not only responsible for the nurses that come under the State Health Department, but he is also responsible for coordinating the salaries and hours of the nurses of the provincial administrations, the nurses who come under the provincial administrations through the Consultative Committee.

At the beginning of this year, we were very disturbed to see, in January, that according to the Press some 15,000 trained and registered nurses were struck off the Register because they had not paid their annual subscription. I tabled a question and the hon. Minister admitted that some 14,000-odd registered nurses had been struck off because they had not reregistered. The excuse was made that a great number of these people had been struck off because some had married, some had left the nursing profession, etc., but we know from a public inquiry and investigation that a great number had overlooked registration and that they had been arbitrarily removed, as happened a few years ago when quite a stir was created throughout the country when on that occasion a larger number than that had been removed from the list of registered nurses. A warning was given through the Press that any hospital employing nurses whose registration had not been effected, was liable to prosecution under the Medical Act, and that steps should be taken forthwith to suspend such nurses until they were registered. Now that takes a little time, Mr. Chairman, and in my own province one hospital was in the position that the majority of nurses on the staff had overlooked this factor, and I want to deal with the practical side of this question of annual registration. I raised it a few years ago, because in the United Kingdom, in America and most of the countries of Europe, once you have passed and are registered as a nursing sister or as a general nurse or as a nurse doing midwifery, you can register for life; you have the option of paying for life membership, or an annual fee, a small fee, as you have in this country. Now our nurses are faced with a double obligation. There is a 50 cent annual subscription fee to the Nursing Council, and if that is not paid, they are struck off the Register. They also have to pay a R5 annual subscription fee to the South African Nursing Association and if they do not pay that, they also are not allowed to act as registered nurses. Now it happens frequently that a nurse, especially if she is moved at the end of the year, or goes on holiday, pays the one subscription and forgets to pay the other. This Easter a doctor and his wife, friends of ours, came along to see us, and she said that she was one of those who had been struck off. We discussed this question knowing that the wife of the doctor who was present had been a registered nurse all her life and, had represented the Nursing Association on various bodies. She said that she had been registered right up to this year, although she had not practised since she married. However, she always kept her registration in order. She said: “I register regularly because if anything happens to my husband, I might have to earn a living again, and in case of an epidemic, of any particular disease I can always go to the hospital and help the authorities if there is a shortage of nurses. So I paid my subscriptions. This year I was touring. I was not even staying at hotels. I was touring through the Cape and when I got back I found a notice to say that I had been struck off the Register. My husband was furious and refused to let me reregister.” That from a medical man who said that he was not going to allow his wife to reregister. I wonder how many people who perhaps temporarily give up nursing to take a rest, or something of the kind, are faced with the same position and in how many cases their services are lost to the nursing profession for good. You know, Mr. Chairman, the nursing profession is one of the hardest as far as hours are concerned and because of what is required of them, and they get very little in return as remuneration. You go through life and you find trained nurses and registered midwives in every walk of life doing other jobs, sometimes to have a temporary break from the hard work of nursing and to have a little relaxation and to be free at week-ends. If you are on the trained staff in a hospital, you get very few week-ends off in the year, and you get a certain amount of night duty regularly. A lot of people feel they want a break from that, and they do something else, and perhaps the remuneration is slightly better and the hours are easier, and if they are going to be taken off because they overlook some small matter, without them being given a fair warning, then I think we are going to lose a considerable number of our trained staff. We are actually sending people overseas, highly trained personnel, to recruit staff for our provincial hospitals, and I think we ought to do everything to keep the nurses we have. Everybody is worried about the position of trained nurses in this country. I would like to deal with the training of nurses, the difficulties experienced there and the long hours, because, as I have said in the past, we ask from our student nurses who are in training to do hours and take exams, sometimes after being on night duty and we demand more from them in hours of work than any industry asks of an apprentice, and we pay them very little in comparison with what apprentices in any trade or industry get. I have served on hospital boards and know what the position is. I will deal with that at some length if I have the time later on. But if you take the remuneration of trained nurses in relation to almost any other profession, and you think of the time that a trained nurse, a staff nurse, or a sister in a hospital gives up in her weekly work, it is amazing that we get as many nurses to stick to their profession as we do. Why they do it, I do not know. But because these people are dedicated to such a noble profession, I think we rather take advantage of it and then pay them as little as possible. I think it is all wrong. Take our State hospitals, take our provincial hospitals, take our private hospitals in this country, and you find that for longer hours we pay much less than any mine hospital in the copper belt in Northern Rhodesia. [Time limit.]

The hon. member will not take it amiss of me if I do not follow him in what he has said. In the short time at my disposal I just wish to express appreciation in regard to an institution which is doing very much for South Africa, and has done so in the past, and I believe will do so in future. I am thinking of the South African Institute for Medical Research, an institution that upholds the name of South Africa with honour throughout the world, and I should like to pay tribute to an institution that does so very much for human health. This institute incidentally also celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, and therefore it is a pleasure to say a few words about it. I should like to point out that the institute is controlled by seven members, two of whom are nominated by the Witwatersrand Bantu Labour Association, really on behalf of the mines, furthermore two are nominated by the Department of Health, two more by the Scientific and Industrial Research Council, and one by the Witwatersrand University. The object of this institute is to conduct research in respect of the prevention and treatment of human diseases.

The history of this institute is a most interesting and fine story. They started in a small way under the competent leadership of the four directors they have had up to now, namely at the outset Dr. Watkins Pitchford, later Sir Spencer Lister, then Dr. Cluver and now Dr. Gear, and from small beginnings it has grown into a powerful and valuable institution. At the moment there are no fewer than 1,000 Whites and 420 Bantu on the establishment. Perhaps it is interesting to mention that one of these Bantu employees has been in the employ of this institute for nearly 48 years. With its central building in Johannesburg, on Hospital Hill, the work has expanded to such an extent that they now have no fewer than 28 branch laboratories throughout the country, and their activities have branched out in three different directions, namely, research, laboratory services and the manufacture of vaccine and serum for treatment. As regards research, this institute plays an absolutely leading role in the work, and it is thought of very highly. We think for instance of the outstanding work done in regard to pneumonia, meningitis and myelitis, particularly at the time when these diseases affected the Bantu in the mines on such a tremendous scale. Particularly good work has also been done in regard to pneumoconiosis, and even at the present day they are working in close collaboration with the pneumoconiosis research unit. I should like to point out that bilharzia is one of the most persistent diseases in the country, and that the personnel of this institute discovered which snails are the hosts of this disease. Valuable knowledge has been placed at our disposal, and I am sure that it will not be long before we shall have a proper means of combating this disease and rid South Africa of it. We can say the same about malaria. As all of us know, large areas were becoming inhabitable, but because this institute could determine which mosquitoes were the scapegoats, and could devise methods for exterminating the mosquito, it is a fact that at present malaria virtually no longer exists in South Africa, and the areas which were formerly uninhabitable are now fertile regions of habitable land in our country. Further there is the story of bubonic plague, a dreaded disease in our country, which has been brought under control completely, again as a result of the work done by these people, not only for South Africa, but for the whole Continent of Africa. Their research has played an important role in combating bubonic plague, so that that dreaded disease has now been brought under control, a disease which as recently as ten years ago claimed many victims. When we consider polio, we are proud and grateful that these people in this respect also have conducted the requisite research and that they were able to determine which viruses are of interest in South Africa; that they were able to manufacture the necessary vaccine, and that with the assistance of the Department of Health they were able to render great assistance in the planning of a great campaign; and we know they achieved so much success that during the past year not a single case of paralytic polio was reported in South Africa. So we could go on mentioning one disease after another, and show the great value of this institute to us. I mention their laboratory services, which have expanded to such an extent that they now have 28 branch laboratories. Their services are placed at the disposal of the various hospitals and doctors at a very small fee. During the last war too, they rendered very great services by pushing mobile units into the field, and we cannot but speak with great praise of the work done, which shed light on bacteriological diseases, blood diseases, etc. The other branch of their activities, the manufacture of vaccines and serum has expanded to such an extent that whereas they started off with four horses they now have at Rietfontein no less than 240 horses to manufacture the necessary serum. All these services are being rendered to South Africa as well as to the Continent of Africa. Great quantities of the serum used for diseases such as diphtheria, typhus and tetanus, as well as against snakebite, are released to the people of South Africa at low cost. We are grateful to these people and should like to pay tribute to them for the services they are rendering to mankind. During the past 50 years 1,500 publications were published by this institute. I am convinced that nothing will hamper this institute or stop them going on with their good work for mankind, except only lack of funds. That is why I should like to urge, now that this is the fiftieth anniversary of this institute, that the State should treat them more sympathetically, and that the mines should be more sympathetic financially, and that industry too will realize its obligation to this institute, and that private people will also make their contributions so that this fine work, which lends lustre to the name of South Africa in the world, may continue.

I would like to remind the previous speaker that in the fight against disease we in this House are generally united. On this Vote I have always endeavoured to stress the need for increased Government and public support for S.A.N.T.A., which has proved to be the spearhead in the general campaign throughout the country to combat the ravages of tuberculosis. The members of S.A.N.T.A. have brought the fight against tuberculosis into our homes and they daily make progress in organizing the co-operation of our various racial groups. I would like to read an extract from the special issue of S.A.N.T.A. News, where it states—

Its seriousness comes home to us when we realize that every day 116 new cases of tuberculosis are notified, and of all the notifiable diseases in this country the tuberculosis cases constitute 86 per cent. It is our most serious affliction. Everyone should realize that no person is safe from the ravages of tuberculosis until all are safe. The Government should realize that S.A.N.T.A. delivers the goods, and with public support does its work at half the cost at which Government institutions are able to do it. S.A.N.T.A. has provided and maintains 34 centres and 7,000 beds, which represent one-third of the tuberculosis beds in this country. S.A.N.T.A. has achieved this at a capital cost of R300 per bed, which is one-tenth the usual cost of hospital beds. To impress it upon the public, I would like to read another extract from S.A.N.T.A. News, where it says this—

Sir, I too, would like to stress that these S.A.N.T.A. branches also provide for aftercare and the general care of people who have been afflicted with tuberculosis. They are the watchdogs who see to it that there is regular examination of the people discharged as cured. I do think that the Government would render a great service if it could make the X-ray apparatus more generally available, and perhaps even at a reduced cost. That would help both the Government and S.A.N.T.A. to be more efficient. I hope the Minister will pay special attention to this. We realize that S.A.N.T.A. is making a great appeal for R6,000,000 to enable it to carry out its campaign over the next ten years, and we appreciate how the South African Railways staff have contributed something like R23,000 to this fund, and recently there has been another generous donation of R25,000 from De Beers. We hope that these generous donations will result in an appeal by the Government to the general public. One also realizes that the principal cause of tuberculosis is malnutrition. The late Dr. Bremer, when he was Minister of Health, said that with proper feeding he could eradicate tuberculosis in this country, and it does seem something to be ashamed of that we have food surpluses in this country, but, through maldistribution, many people do not get the food they require. As regards the Natives, we realize that malnutrition lays the foundation for tuberculosis. It is not only the lack of food, but many of the Natives are afflicted with internal parasites. We as farmers know how serious this is through the high percentage of animals afflicted with measles in some areas, and the measles infection comes through human beings. I think a general campaign should be waged against internal parasites. It is bad enough to have an underfed population, but much of the food they eat is neutralized by parasites, and I think this problem should be tackled and a greater endeavour should be made in this regard. I should also like the Minister to give us a little more information on the position of leprosy in this country. I notice that the Votes for the four leper hospitals have been increased. Then my sympathy goes out to the nurses and staff of the mental hospitals. I think their work is the most difficult undertaking in any of our health services. I have no doubt that it affects the man’s private life also. I should like to see the people working in mental hospitals at least receiving the recognition they deserve by being given higher pensions than the usual Public Service staff, because there is no doubt that there is no greater strain on the human mind than having to control mental patients. I hope that the Minister’s sympathy will always be there to show the country’s appreciation for this valuable service rendered by those who chose this mission in life.

Then perhaps the Minister could also tell us something about Nelspoort. Is Nelspoort receiving the patronage it received in the past? It is an institution which is recognized throughout the world. I imagine that the position of tuberculosis does not make the demands on Nelspoort that it used to, but perhaps the Minister could tell us something about the work that institute is carrying out. [Time limit.]

I should like to say a few words on the application of insecticides in agriculture and the dangers it entails for the public. First of all I should like to say something about the control of the sale of these insecticides, which have become a worldwide danger. The question arises whether we shall be able to avoid it later on if we are not on our guard now. The sale of poisonous substances is subject to the Fertilizers, Fodder and Remedies Act (No. 36 of 1947), which is administered by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. But it is also subject to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act (Act No. 13 of 1928). To protect the public, all poisons sold have to be registered, and must be supplied with a label on which inter alia the following particulars are shown: the name of the substance, the object for which it is used; the registration number, the components of the poisonous substance, and the name of an antidote. Apparently it is not so yet, but I wonder whether it has not become necessary for the skull and crossbones to be placed in a very conspicuous manner on every container of poisonous substances, so that a person will hesitate to put out his hand to take and use it. Poisons are sold by chemists but magistrates may also by permit authorize agricultural co-operatives as well as general dealers to sell certain poisons. We see the Department of Health is doing its best to take the necessary steps to safeguard the public from the dangers ensuing from the handling of insecticides, but in spite of those precautions, there are still many accidents attributable to pure recklessness in the first place, and secondly to the negligent handling of it, particularly by Bantu and juveniles, and thirdly to the fact that the farmer uses a small quantity from the container and then stores the rest and forgets where he put it, and then the label on the container also fades. Poisons are often poured into all kinds of containers on farms to be stored, without any indication on the container as to the contents, with the result that nobody knows what is contained in the tin, and so frequently such poison is stored away within reach of children and people who are not qualified to work with it. The basic cause of poisoning apparently is the fact that it is continually being applied by all kinds of people who are not poison conscious and without there being sufficient antidotes available with the necessary directions for use with it. We must also not lose sight of the fact that the application of poisonous substances to fruit and vegetables holds a very great menace to us. An obstacle in the way is that the tests conducted by the laboratories of course last a long time, and we know that fresh fruit and vegetables cannot be stored for too long but have to be sold, with the result that the tests made mostly are sample tests, and of course we also have a lack of laboratories and experts, and for that reason we do not know whether the fruit and vegetables marketed are always quite safe. Fortunately the Department of Health has its own food analysing laboratories, but here also there is a shortage of trained technical personnel and only a limited number of samples can be analysed, and those are limited to only the most essential foods, such as milk, meat and ice-cream. Now I may be asked whether ice-cream is an important foodstuff. No, it is not an important foodstuff, but it is being sold to our children on every street corner and on every sporting occasion. So it seems to be very necessary that the laboratory facilities should be extended.

There is a book called “Silent Spring” written by Carson, and in the light of that it is really necessary that we should warn people against the danger of the handling of poisonous substances on farms. At the present time the world places poisons in the hands of ignorant people, and to a large extent the world has also allowed the use of poisons without a thorough investigation into the effects they may have on health, because the soil, the water the animals, the fishes and the birds are affected. In the U.S.A. alone 500 new poisonous substances are being added to the existing list annually, and that entails that there has to be adaptation by the human body to these poisons that are used, and what is more, there also have to be antidotes available for these 500 new poisons before they reach the market. Only yesterday the world was still constantly dreading the consequences of pox, cholera and plague, which are now under control. We become concerned about diseases that may develop epidemically and cut down thousands of people, but those who are not affected are left intact, and perhaps there is too little concern about the inconspicuous diseases that undermine the health of the masses and which really seal man’s lot years before any symptoms begin to develop. Albert Schweitzer has said man does not recognize the devils he has himself created. The idea that many insecticides are fairly harmless to man may be traced to the case of D.D.T. It is not a contact poison, and it does not readily penetrate the skin, yet five out of 1,000,000 parts of D.D.T. inhaled by man is sufficient to affect the lungs and the liver and the kidneys. Perhaps another reason, according to Carson, why we do not regard D.D.T. as dangerous, is that in wartime thousands upon thousands of soldiers were dusted with D.D.T. for lice without being visibly affected, and therefore one is only too ready to assume that D.D.T. is not dangerous. The world problem to-day is not to find the billions and develop the technique to visit the moon or Mars or Venus. The task of the world to-day is not to perfect the technique of destroying mankind with a nuclear or germ war. The world problem is to continue the war against harmful insects and weeds, but to eliminate the danger it constitutes to mankind. A way out of this dilemma is being sought assiduously, e.g., biologically by sterilization in order to prevent the propagation of those harmful insects. Here millions must be found, and the technique perfected by world-wide research and co-operation on the international level, for ensuring the safety of the human race. Do you know that in the U.S.A. stock losses as a result of a single fly pest, which also constitutes a danger to human beings, amounts to no less than $40,000,000 in a single year, and in Africa there are millions of morgen of grazing where we cannot keep a single head of cattle as a result of the presence of the tsetse fly? The application of poisonous substances to destroy noxious insects and weeds may ultimately have a more catastrophic effect upon mankind than the pests against which it is aimed. The soil retains the poison, and’ it enters the fibres of the plant which serves as food for man and beast, and we find those poisons in the eggs laid by the hen and the milk from the cow. It is an insidious menace to public health to which attention has to be devoted. Water in all its forms is being polluted—streams, dams, wells and subterranean water. Fish die, and what does mankind use more than water? Consequently that polluted water constitutes a great danger to the health of man. The air is being polluted, and there is no doubt about the consequences of that. In addition to all this, science is being-cheated, because the pests we wish to fight build up resistance, and more potent poisons have to be administered in order to achieve the object, and then they become an even greater menace to man. Ticks, mosquitoes, the domestic fly, the louse and the cockroach and all the destroyers of agricultural crops have already built up such a resistance. [Time limit.]

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) for his very adequate presentation of a matter which can be regarded as extremely urgent. We on this side have felt for a long time that the position in regard to insecticides needs a complete overhaul, both in regard to its distribution, control and research and the residual action, and also in regard to these fatal accidents arising out of insecticidal poisoning. In the limited time at my disposal it is not possible for me to pursue this aspect, but I do appeal to the Minister to give attention to this urgent matter.

I should like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Minister certain aspects concerning certain types of advertisements of medicines for human use and to ask him whether the time has not arrived for closer consideration to be given to this matter and perhaps closer investigation. As far as animal and insect life is concerned, the Minister knows that full protection is given to remedies which are manufactured for both external and internal use in animals. The preparations themselves are subject to approval, the advertisements are subject to approval, and nothing can be advertised for animal use in the way of medicine if the claims cannot be substantiated. But as far as human beings are concerned, the position is most unsatisfactory. I appreciate that the Newspaper Press Union has a code which is a very fair code, designed to protect the public in many respects, but it can only operate in so far as the members of that Union are concerned, and, there are many avenues of advertisement which do not fall within the scope of the N.P.U. All sorts of extraordinary claims can be made on the labels and the packages of medicines, and by the use of handbills or inserts in the packages. I believe that the limitations which do exist are not comprehensive enough. There are certain forms of advertisement which may comply with the letter of the Press Union Code, but which appear deliberately to create a wrong impression in the mind of the public, as far as their virtues are concerned. I should like to refer to certain slimming preparations in general, and to one special preparation in particular on which I have gathered a certain amount of information, and I quote it because I feel it is a very good example to place before the Minister on the whole question of the advertising of patent medicines. There is a preparation which I would like to refer to as XYZ, which has been on the market and has been extensively advertised. My attention was first directed to it because it says in the advertisement: “Your chemist recommends XYZ tablets because he knows they contains no harmful ingredients”. How is the chemist to satisfy himself that the ingredients in fact are not harmful and that he could recommend such a preparation to his clients? Close examination of the passage gave no information of the formulation of the tablets, and the pamphlet inside, although it was quite explicit in other directions, gave no indication of the formula either. It was rather amusing to read the booklet in this package. It gave a good interpretation of obesity which would appeal to a lay mind. It likened it to the feeding of a stove which was fed with too rich a fuel, and said that the body which had too rich a diet was liable to deposit extra layers of fat, and it went on in quite an interesting way, and then it said—

That seems a very bold statement, but it goes on to say—

I was most intrigued to find out what was in this preparation, so as the result of an inquiry through the manufacturers I received a letter which said that the particular preparation contained a certain drug which is known as: Ext. Fuci Vesiculosi. I merely want to say that it is known in lay terms as Bladder-wrack, and it is rather difficult in modern scientific books on pharmacognosy or pharmacology to find any reference to Bladder-wrack. I had to go back quite a long way. There is one modern book which refers to it very briefly and that is the Extra Pharmacopoeia by Martindale, and of Bladder-wrack Martindale said that it was used—and I think the operative word is “was”—in goitre and obesity on account of its iodine content. Then I had to go back to the British Pharmacopoeia Codex of 1949 in which reference was made to it and then further back to 1934, there was just this brief sentence on Bladder-wrack; it said: “It had been used to reduce certain types of obesity”. Well, I thought I would be fair about this and I went to another well-known book of Pharmocognosy which was brought out in 1938, 25 years ago, and this is what it said—

Sir, I am not competent to comment on the therapeutic properties of Bladder-wrack, but I felt that the very vintage of the reference books which mentioned Bladder-wrack indicates that the ingredient no longer enjoys the confidence and the popularity of medical science. Sir, another thing about this particular remedy which intrigued me was the fact that it said, I believe on the carton and also on the pamphlet: “Formula by doctor So-and-so, such-and-such a street”, and it quoted the name of a famous European city. I felt it would be rather interesting to find out what type of learned doctor this particular individual was and I addressed an inquiry to the local Consulate of the particular country concerned and I have a letter here indicating that this doctor’s name and address do not appear in the telephone directory of the particular city. I then asked the Consulate on 3 April whether they would be good enough to institute inquiries to see whether this learned doctor was in fact a doctor of medicine and whether his name appeared on the register in the country of his origin. Up to the present I have had no reply, so it is not possible at this stage to say whether the learned doctor is a doctor of medicine and whether he has made available his skill and his art of healing in particular reference to this preparation. But I believe that there are many cases where the title “doctor” is being used by people who could well be charletans who are prostituting the medical profession, and I think it is high time that something was done in connection with this matter. There are many preparations which I believe to be not in the interests and welfare of the public. In fact some of them are offensive. I refer to certain bust-developing preparations, to a slimming lotion which is applied externally and which is supposed to dissolve the fat. Sir, I have spoken to learned medical friends of mine and they are unable to substantiate these claims with the medical knowledge at their disposal. One feels sceptical about these things. Sir, there is another one which I believe is contrary to the spirit of the Code of the National Newspaper Press Union. This is a preparation “for men only!” It says—

For that you have to pay R3 for a six weeks’ course. If we go into the cosmetic field we find too that there are many preparations which enjoy a very short-lived popularity with the public, preparations which are usually very highly priced, which enjoy a sustained Press advertising campaign and once the campaign has fallen by the way and the public has had an opportunity of trying these quite fantastic preparations, the article disappears from the market. I do not believe that it is in the interest of the public that such advertisements should be allowed to continue. I feel that in future all advertisements which have any claim to treat human disease or conditions should be subject to some substantiation before they can be published. [Time limit.]

Further to what the previous speaker revealed here in a very able manner, I should like to mention another form of quackery which is assuming great dimensions, and causing much concern. I am referring to the phenomenon of unqualified consulting psychologists, a matter on which the South African National Council for Mental Health has repeatedly expressed itself very strongly. I refer to a resolution passed by that Council in 1961 already, as follows—

This conflict has been in progress for many years. In 1946 already, at the 34th congress of the South African Medical Council resolutions in this regard were adopted. That was in 1946 already, but since that time more and more pressure has been brought to bear by the National Council for Mental Health in an attempt to combat this quackery. Mr. Chairman, quackery in respect of the body by people who pretend to be rendering medical services but who are not able to do so, is bad enough when it concerns the human body, but it becomes so much more dangerous when it concerns the mind of man. That is why this Council is so concerned about this state of affairs. All that has been achieved, is that in 1955 voluntary registration of qualified psychologists was permitted by legislation. At the present time we find there is a small percentage of psychologists who really wish to become qualified. To-day there are no more than 110 such qualified psychologists on that register. If we ask what that is attributable to, why the people will not have themselves registered, I say it is for the very reason that they have an unequal struggle against this quack element coming here from overseas on a large scale and who swoop down like vultures upon the public which is not properly informed. They are trying to exploit the public in every possible way without actually rendering the service they are claiming to give. Those quacks utilize every shameless means to fill their pockets. They advertise in the Press, they disseminate handbills, and in every possible way they try to force themselves to the front and to foist their services upon the public. Look at the methods they are using and at the distortion of facts and the reckless claims they make. They advertise how many people they have already cured of every possible fictitious mental disease. Think of the anxiety they are causing the uninformed public, by telling them that if they do not immediately make use of these remedies, or if they notice this or that symptom they are standing on the edge of a tremendous precipice as regards their mental health. Further they belittle and besmirch genuinely qualified psychologists in every possible way in order to bring discredit on them. Take the lay hypnotist for instance. Lay hypnotists immigrated to this country and increased in numbers since they were prohibited in England by the British Medical Hypnosis Act of 1954; they came here to attack this defenceless public and to offer their services here. I wonder whether it is sufficiently realized how much harm such a lay hypnotist can do to people. Some of the greatest psychologists, men like Freud, having started off with hypnosis, set hypnosis aside because they realized what a dangerous thing it could be. When a doctor performs an operation and forgets a pair of scissors or some other instrument in the bowels of the patient, it may have fatal consequences, but those people who go along and mess around with unclean hands in the minds of healthy people may implant some complex in them that may become the cause of a tremendous complex that may unsettle and destroy the mental life of those people. One must consider the matter very seriously before one permits any hypnotist to work on one. But these lay hypnotists come here now and they are permitted to practise freely among the public and to influence the people. They come along with those dangerous practices of their’s that may cause colossal harm. Not only the lay hypnotists but the scientologists who came here from America after they had fallen out of favour there. And then we do not even mention the large number of lay marriage councillors and so-called sex experts who go around with impunity and are giving guidance in a most irresponsible manner which can simply only cause harm, and menace the mental life of the community. That is why this Council for Mental Health says: “There is as yet no legislation compelling psychologists to register; there is only voluntary registration; there is no legislation which prohibits these quacks from continuing with these malpractices that cause so much destruction.” The South African National Council for Mental Health feels that a thorough factual report should be drafted by a commission of inquiry appointed by the Minister to investigate this matter, a report that should lead to legislation to bring about the compulsory statutory registration of psychologists. That will result in unqualified persons being debarred from exploiting the public, as is happening now, but it will further also be the stimulant to let the people who wish to qualify feel that it is worth while qualifying, because they will then no longer have to contend with this unequal competition with the quack element, and what is more, the prestige of their profession is not affected as a result of the irresponsible conduct of people who pose as psychologists.

I was very pleased to note that in response to the request which I made to the hon. the Minister of Health a year ago, statistics are now available, separating the number of deaths from lung cancer from the number of deaths caused by cancer in other parts of the body. Up to that time I had only been able to get statistics showing the total number of deaths due to cancer and therefore it was impossible to get a clear picture. I note from those statistics that the position with regard to lung cancer in South Africa is probably the worst in the world because from 199 deaths in 1950, the number increased by 1960 to 577, according to the Minister’s reply to a question put to him in this House. The number of deaths has almost trebled in ten years. In Britain, where they themselves regard the incidence of lung cancer as one of the highest in the world, their statistics show that in the past ten years the number of deaths have more or less doubled, whereas in South Africa over the same period the figure has almost trebled. I think that this is something which we must take into account very seriously. I note, to South Africa’s shame, from the replies given by the Minister this year to two questions put to him by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) that no action is being taken by him in this matter. I maintain that never before in the history of South Africa have we ever had a position like this where the death rate has increased so enormously and the Minister is doing nothing about it. I maintain that this is something which is definitely not to the credit of South Africa or to the credit of this Government. I am wondering whether the Minister has been influenced, in deciding that he is going to take no action by the statements made in this House by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) during a debate on the Agricultural Vote in which he urged the Minister of Health to take no notice of the efforts being made to discourage the smoking habit. He made that statement after eulogizing the tobacco industry as being one of the most profitable industries in the country, and I am just wondering whether influences of that kind are not perhaps at work. The statistics to which I have referred were published in the South African Medical Journal on 23 June 1962 in an article written by the senior lecturer in the Department of Medicine, Cape Town University. In that article he summarized the report of the Royal College of Physicians which was published last year. Let me say that the Royal College of Physicians is a body which is 500 years old and is usually recognized as one of the most conservative, if not the most conservative, and authoritative bodies in the world when it comes to medicine. Only on three occasions in 500 years has this body come out with an unqualified pronouncement on any medical controversy and made definite recommendations to the British Government. One was when that body emphatically recommended compulsory vaccination against smallpox; another earlier occasion was when they condemned the sale of cheap gin in Great Britain which they maintained threatened to drown Great Britain in gin and from which followed the so-called Gin Laws. The third occasion in 500 years was in 1962 when they reported on this matter of lung cancer in relation to tobacco, and this is what that conservative body stated unequivocally in their report—

Table 1 of the Report which is reproduced in the same issue shows the rising incidence in England and Wales of lung cancer deaths in men aged 45 to 60 years. To this I would add that Dr. Hammond, the American Cancer Society’s chief research statistician has stated that though the damage done by tobacco smoking is revealed in lung cancer, this is one of the least compared with all the rest of the damage which it causes. That is the position that we have in South Africa to-day, and in view of the widespread authoritative statements, it came as a great shock to me to learn that the Minister was taking no action in this matter. I feel that the first responsibility of a Minister of Health is to look after the health of the people of this country. Health should come before wealth. I am reminded in this respect of a little doggrel which drew me up with quite a jerk when I was working hard and was possibly overworking in my business. The doggerel went like this:

What applies to the individual applies to the nation, and I feel that in a matter of this sort health must come before wealth. I hope the Minister will look into his figures and will reconsider them very carefully. Sir, the same authoritative body to which I referred, urged the British Government to take action, and again, for the third time in 500 years, the British Government responded by taking action. The action which they took was to start a propaganda campaign advising all public bodies throughout Great Britain to let the public know what the effect of tobacco was in relation to lung cancer. Sir, I am holding up one of the posters which are being circulated by the Education Department of Health of Great Britain. If the Department of Health is circulating a poster like this, I feel it is time our Minister took notice and did something about it.

Here in South Africa I find that the Medical Officer of Health of the Cape Town City Council and the M.O.H. of the Cape Divisional Council have launched a propaganda campaign and I feel that they should get the support of the Minister of Health in this matter. In the article published in the S.A. Medical Journal, the same article to which I have already referred, the senior lecturer in the Department of Medicine, Cape Town University, made this statement—

The hon. the Minister and his Department of Health achieved great success during recent years in combating epidemics, and I should like to mention the campaign against polio in particular. It is one of the diseases that hung like a dark cloud over every parent. When a child had become a victim of polio, it always had very serious consequences. If the child did not die, he was an invalid afterwards. I really feel I would be failing in my duty if I did not express my deep appreciation to the Minister for what has been done in recent years to wipe out this dread disease.

I really rose to raise another matter, and that is the matter of health inspectors, and I should like to urge the Minister to create more posts, particularly in the senior ranks, in order thereby to provide greater opportunities for advancement to health inspectors. A health inspector fulfils a very important function and plays a very important role in the health of the nation. I feel the Minister ought to consider changing the name “Health Inspector” to “State Health Inspector”, as these health inspectors sometimes have to do inspection work for local authorities as regards their own health inspectors. They have to provide guidance to the health inspectors of local authorities and sometimes have to show them the way, and I feel therefore that something must be done to improve the position of the health inspectors of the Department of Health. One finds that these departmental inspectors sometimes receive smaller salaries than the health inspectors of local authorities whose work they have to supervise. Therefore I would urge, in the first place, that more posts be created so that they may have better opportunities for promotion, and in the second place, I would urge higher salaries. I have already drawn the Minister’s attention to instances where health inspectors of the Department resigned and took positions as health inspectors in the Railway service and where their commencing salaries were almost R1,000 more than they had received previously. It is a serious matter when there is a difference of as much as R1,000 in the salary scales of people with similar qualifications. In the particular case to which I have referred, the health inspector concerned resigned on 30 March, and commenced his duties in the Railway service on 1 April, where his salary immediately rose from R1,206 to R2,175. It appears from correspondence in this connection that the case was referred to the Public Service Commission, and notwithstanding the fact that the attention of the Public Service Commission was drawn to it, that the person walked over from the one Department to another and immediately received an increase of nearly R1,000, the Public Service Commission wrote as follows—

This attitude is adopted by the Public Service Commission notwithstanding the fact that a health inspector could resign from the Public Service and then immediately begin in the Railway Service on a salary almost R1,000 higher. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that an improvement is made in the salary structure of the health inspectors of his Department.

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule?

Earlier this Session the hon. the Minister appointed commissions of inquiry to investigate the rising cost of medical treatment in South Africa. These commissions were actually appointed before this year; I think they were appointed in 1961. They did their work to the best of their ability and we were told by the Minister that the reports would be Tabled in April. We had no quarrel about that. April came but no reports appeared on the Table. These are two very important commissions. They were appointed for a specific purpose and we who are interested in the services of the Health Department waited anxiously for these reports to be Tabled. Some time ago I put a question to the hon. the Minister. I asked him on what date the report of the Snyman Commission was made available to his Department in English and in Afrikaans; secondly, I asked him whether any copies of the report were made available to members of the House of Assembly and if so, when, what were the names of those members and why the report was not laid upon the Table? I also asked him whether he intended to lay the report on the Table of the House and if not, why not. To my amazement the hon. the Minister replied as follows: “The original report in Afrikaans became available on 31 October 1962 when it was released for publication That report was made available in Afrikaans on 31 October 1962 and it was released for publication. It had not been Tabled. He said it was made available to the hon. members for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer), Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) and Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet). Those are three members on the Government side. He also went on to say that copies became available to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) who only asked for it on the day on which the motion by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark was debated. I am amazed that the hon. the Minister should adopt that attitude in the matter of a most important report which affects the whole country and particularly those members of the House who are interested in health matters. Why did he not make this report available to every single one of us? Why did he have to pick out certain people? Whether they asked for it or not is immaterial. I wanted the report and I could not get it. It was not available. It still is not available as far as I know. It has not yet been Tabled. He went on to say that the Medical and Dental Council, the Medical Association of South African and the Pharmacy Board were also provided with copies of the report. What arose from that, Sir? Confusion amongst medical people, confusion in this House and to the inability of members to answer questions that came from outside concerning this report. We, the Members of Parliament, should have been notified first. We knew nothing about this report although it had already been circulated to bodies outside. “Medical Proceeding” wrote—

I will not go into any names—

This confusion came about entirely because the Minister failed to Table these reports at the right time; this confusion came about because the Minister did not inform the members of this side of the House that the report was available and it came about because members on this side of the House were unable to answer questions put to them by the relative bodies. It is no longer only people inside Parliament but people outside Parliament who are getting dissatisfied with the actions of the Minister. We heard to-day how dissatisfied people were about the way he is running Posts and Telegraphs. I think the same remarks that were made in connection with Posts and Telegraphs will apply to the health services if things do not improve. Perhaps there is too much work for the Minister; perhaps he should give up one of his portfolios. I do not know which one he should give up. I want to know from the Minister, when he replies, why he specifically made these reports available to members of the Government benches; why did he not at the same time allow members on this side of the House to get those reports? It is no good hon. members telling me or the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) that we did not ask for it.

Why didn’t you?

You do not know how we did ask for these reports. All I can say is that this is a very strange procedure. I do not know whether there is any precedent for this. When we learn in this House that reports and parts of reports have been circularized amongst outside bodies while we ourselves do not know about it, I think it is time for a change.

At the beginning of this Session the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark introduced a Private Member’s motion, the sole purpose of which was to praise the hon. the Minister, to tell him how smart and clever he was in bringing the efficiency of the health services to the notice of the public. That happened at the beginning of the Session and at the beginning of the Session a draft Bill appeared. We are now in the closing days of the Session and what has been done in the matter? Is the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark going to get up and thank the Minister again for the efficient way in which he has performed his duty during the last few months? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will get up and tell us how much he has done in this matter and how far he has progressed with legislation to introduce a scheme whereby the people of South Africa can enjoy the health services which we have here without undue strain on their pockets.

I cannot dwell any further on this matter except to say that it is a sorry state of affairs if the Minister keeps us ignorant of what is going on.

I want to deal with some of the diseases which come under the Minister’s Department. The first disease I want to deal with is tuberculosis. I notice from the Estimates that a large amount has been voted. There is a considerable increase in the amount voted this year to fight this disease. Earlier on we were told by the Minister that one of the reasons why there was a continuous spread of the disease, why tens of thousands of new cases were reported every year, was because he found it difficult to immunize those people who should be immunized. He told us then that the Bantu particularly had to be tested out before they were given the vaccine. We all know that that is not necessary now; we all know if a percutaneous vaccine is given, 80 per cent of those people who are vaccinated will be free of the virulent infection of tuberculosis. That in itself cannot stem the spread of the disease. We heard that from the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) that one of the main causes of tuberculosis is malnutrition and starvation amongst the Black people of South Africa. The dangers that face the Black people in northern Transvaal and in Vendaland to-day are extreme and the chances of these people becoming infected and spreading the disease are very high. We know it is sometimes due to circumstances beyond our control. We cannot produce rain in the drought stricken areas but we do know—and I dealt with this when we discussed malnutrition— that where we have a surplus of food that food must be preserved so that in times of stress it can be given to those people who are without food. That is being done to some extent to-day but we are not doing enough. In times of emergency the people in those areas must receive food over long periods. They may receive it for a month perhaps, to tide them over a difficult time but then comes a prolonged period of drought when they simply exist on a handful of mealie meal per day. That is the time when they must be given food. I know the difficulties; I know what takes place. But I do hope the hon. the Minister will do everything in his power to use all the available resources of this Government to feed those people who need to be fed. Not only will it benefit those unfortunate Bantu but it is going to stop the spread of the disease amongst the White population of the whole of South Africa. The way this disease is spreading to-day is really alarming. I think this country, with the food and the sunshine it has, has no excuse for not combating the spread of this disease. I want to suggest that every person who seeks work, whether he be White or Black, should be X-rayed before he is taken on. He must show a clean chest. I also want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the charge for X-ray, especially in the case of the Bantu, should be done away with. That 2s. charge for the taking of an X-ray plate should be done away with. We can well afford to do so because that will be an insurance against ill health. It is those little 2s. pieces that are keeping hundreds and hundreds, literally thousands, of people away from the X-ray machine.

I want to leave that subject and come to one which is equally unpleasant. Since 1951 in this country, as well as in the rest of the world, there has been a very rapid rise in the number of cases of venereal disease. I notice from the Estimates that there is no increase over last year in the amount to be voted for the combating of venereal disease yet the number of cases is steadily growing. This has been going on since 1951.

Where do you get those statistics?

I do not know whether you have heard of it, the World Health Organization. There are certain reasons for the increase in the incidence of that disease. Firstly we find that the increase in venereal disease in teenagers is rising very rapidly not only in South Africa but in all parts of the world, Sir. In the medical practice of the hon. member for Heilbron he probably does not see anybody; but if he worked in a hospital or in private practice he would see a steady increase in the number of venereal disease cases amongst teenagers. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could have some quiet?

Order! Will hon. members please give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech.

Sir if he does not want to listen I suggest that he leaves the Chamber. I am not talking to him in any case. This is a very serious matter. The young female who gets the disease is very often ignorant of the fact that she has it. These youngsters spread it because they have no idea that they are suffering from it. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I tell him that the adult population are also showing a distinct increase in this disease; especially is there an increase in the number suffering from gonorrhoea. Up to 1951 a very rigid campaign was waged against these diseases. Since the advent of the antibiotics and penicillin it was thought, and perhaps quite rightly so at the beginning, that we had these diseases under control. There was a drop in the number of cases. We now find, however, that the organisms are becoming resistant to the antibiotics and to the treatment with penicillin. Not only are we finding it more difficult to cure those people who get the disease but the strain of the infection seems to be more virulent. More and more antibiotics and more and more penicillin have to be used to cure it. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he starts a campaign immediately to bring to the notice of all people the dangers of this infection. He must do it in such a way that the people do not become terrorized in believing that it is something dreadful, that it is something from which they cannot be cured. People were told in the past that they would go blind or mad if they contracted the disease. People must get to know that this disease can be treated successfully if caught at an early stage. If any person is suspicious that he has the disease the sooner he attends a clinic or his private doctor the better for all concerned. I also want to say that it seems to me that much more money will have to go into research, especially into this particular disease, to see whether or not we cannot find a vaccine to immunize people against it. Because as the years go by we are going to find that the strain of these two diseases is going to get stronger and stronger and more and more difficult to eradicate. Whereas with a vaccine we will know that we can at least ward it off.

I now want to spend a minute or two on bilharzia. I want to bring to the notice of this Committee the fact that this disease is spreading very rapidly right throughout the Republic. There is scarcely a part of the Republic to-day that is absolutely free of it. I want to say to the Minister that we appreciate the efforts by the various institutions. These are the S.A. Institute of Medical Research and his own departmental research team. But in spite of the work that is being done by these people the disease is rapidly spreading throughout South Africa. Johannesburg, for instance, was free of the disease up to a little while ago. We now find in one of the suburbs of Johannesburg, in Northcliffe, that 4.06 per cent of the children are suffering from bilharzia. It is a very difficult disease to cure and it is a very easy disease to get. It is very difficult to keep children out of water; so we have a double problem. Not only have we the problem of educating the child and the adult as to the dangers of swimming in bilharzia-infected water but we also have the problem of being unable to cure the disease, quickly. It takes months and months to get rid of this disease. How are we going to educate the people? How are we going to stop them from going into bilharzia-infected water? How are we going to find a rapid cure for this disease? These are problems to which the Ministry will have to put its mind.

So we find, Sir, that there are three diseases: tuberculosis, venereal disease and bilharzia, which require an intense campaign of investigation and research. I am going to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he institutes a medical council for research. Over and above the research workers that we have at the moment we need a body that will concern itself primarily to medical research. It will require the importation of large numbers of people to come and help in this work. We will have to find the money to pay them. To me it is a tragedy that so many of our own people leave the country. We have to do our best to retain the brains that we have here. We have to pay them salaries commensurate with the importance of their work. We have to bring people from outside to help. Let us here in South Africa where we have these diseases on our doorstep, these diseases which are causing countless deaths and great misery, see whether we cannot solve this problem.

Another small matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister before I sit down is something which follows on what the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Mr. W. L. D. M. Venter) has said. He spoke about quacks and the dangers associated with their work. I want to ask the Minister to do something immediately about the so-called masseurs which we have in this country. We have massage salons in the large towns which we know, in many cases, are nothing more than camouflaged brothels. The unfortunate part about it is that the women and the men who run these massage salons are using the name “masseur” to make out that they are on the same level as the physiotherapist. I am going to ask the Minister if he will not bring in legislation as soon as possible to make these salons unlawful if the people working in them are not properly certificated. It is most important that we free the physiotherapist from the terrible stigma that has become attached to anybody who works in a massage institute. Some of these people have spent many, many years at university and now they are grouped together with an unscrupulous crowd of people who are making money out of a false impression.

Finally, Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the time has come for him to make it known throughout the world that the services which the people get in South Africa are as good, if not better, than a number of the services in other countries. When we compare our health services with those in other African States there is really no comparison with the services which we are rendering to all sections of our population. We cannot rest at this; we have to give the lead. This Minister must make sure that we not only do whatever we can for the people here in South Africa but that we spread our knowledge throughout Africa. Let me give one example. Think of the work we have done in regard to poliomyelitis. We led the world in that regard; we got the world to adopt a new attitude towards this disease. Because of the research that has been conducted in this country that disease has almost been beaten. If we could do it in connection with that difficult disease I see no reason why we cannot do it in the case of the others I have mentioned. [Time limit.]

I should like to devote the few minutes at my disposal to the great problem we have in regard to the shortage of general practitioners in South Africa. Of the 8,249 registered practitioners in South Africa 48 per cent are in private practice, that is to say, there are about 4,250 private practitioners. Of these 1,730 are specialists. That leaves us with only 2,250 general practitioners to look after the health of 15,000,000 people in the Republic. One should try to find the reason why there are so few general practitioners in the country. It may be that an insufficient number of students are coming forward or it may be that general practice is unattractive, or not remunerative; or it may be both. In the first place I should like to investigate the possibility that an insufficient number of students offer themselves for training as doctors. I have obtained an extract of the numbers who enrolled for training in the years 1960, 1961 and 1962 at the Pretoria University, Witwatersrand, Stellenbosch, Cape Town and Natal. In the case of Pretoria University there were 422 students in the first year in 1960; in the second year there were only 107. Only 67 qualified as doctors in 1960. In 1961 there were 251 first-year students, in the second year there were 125 and 61 qualified as doctors. In 1962 there were 267 first year students; 125 in the second year and 59 qualified as doctors. I understand that this year there are about 400 in the first year at the Pretoria University. These are either a lot of dull students or there is something wrong with the admission or the selection of the students, because of a total of 267 only about 90 or 100 pass at the end of the year to continue with the second-year course. We find the same position at Stellenbosch. There were 96 in the first year and only 39 went on to the second year. From these must be deducted the number who fail the second year. In 1961 there were 102 in the first year, 49 in the second year. In 1962 there were 89 in the first year and 52 in the second year. In the case of the Cape Town University the position is a little different. There we do not have the great difference between the first-and second-year groups. In Natal there were 41 in the first year, 43 in the second year, in 1960; in 1961 there were 41 in the first year and 42 in the second year; in 1962 there were 40 in the first year and 40 in the second year. That was at the university college for non-Whites. These all passed in the first year, but in the case of the White universities the position is alarming. I feel that the selection here is not what it ought to be. I think it is unfair to the parents of the students to permit them to take the first year and then to cut them off on a vertical line when only 80 or 90 can be taken for training in the second year. It is immaterial what marks the other students attain; all of them fail. In other words, they lose a year’s study. If a wider first-year choice of subjects were to be given so that students may pass on merit and if at the end of the first year, those who have done best were selected to continue their medical training, while others are permitted to continue in dental surgery or veterinary science or in a purely scientific direction, it will be a great improvement. But as things are now, I feel it is altogether unsound and unfair, and I want to urge the Minister to give his immediate attention to this matter and to see to it that we do not have such a waste of young students as we have in the case of the medical faculties at present. We cannot afford to have so many students failing in South Africa every year. We will simply have to permit people who obtain enough marks at the final examination, to continue in a scientific direction, to attain a B.Sc. degree or to qualify in veterinary science or dental surgery. So I do not think it is so much a shortage of students, because the students who go usually are those who have obtained a first class; they must have taken three languages and they have to have mathematics before they are permitted also to receive university exemption. They are some of the best students and two-thirds of these are lost because there are not sufficient facilities in the second-year training course for all who have obtained the standard of 50 per cent. If we do not apply selection, we have to expand the facilities as regards the second year and subsequent year’s training and I would ask the hon. the Minister that he should see to it that the facilities at the various universities are improved immediately so that we can take more students in the second and subsequent years, and so that of a total of 300 or 400 students we shall not have a mere 60 at the end of the sixth year who qualify. I think it is a shameful waste of human material. If we are unable to create facilities at the existing universities to provide a proper training for these students, I would ask the Minister to give immediate attention to the opening of another medical school in the country so that those students may study there, for then only will we be able to get the qualified students to wipe out the great shortage of general practitioners existing at present.

What I have just mentioned may be one reason why we do not have enough general practitioners. I have shown that there is no lack of interest in the profession, but that does not solve the problem as regards the general practitioner yet. We find that of 4,000 doctors in private practice, almost half, viz. 1,730, plus a further 105 who registered as specialists last year, fall in the specialist class. Thus half of the private medical practitioners are general practitioners while the rest are specialists, and as one of the members of the Medical Council has said, such a state of affairs has developed as regards specialists that they will have to take in washing one of these days to be able to make a living. But why does the general practitioner qualify himself further to become a specialist? Because the general practitioner normally has to work about 16 hours per day, and sometimes throughout the night also in order to earn a meagre living. For that reason they prefer to become specialists, where they have to work fewer hours. They are in their consulting rooms certain hours of the day and in the evenings and during the nights they are not disturbed and they may charge higher fees. I am borne out in this by the findings of the Snyman Commission. Together with the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) I am sorry that this report was not made available in good time, but this report confirms what I have just said. [Time limit.]

I want to agree to some extent with the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) as regards the intake of students in the first year and the number thrown out in subsequent years. This is a tragic loss to the country of men of good brain who after all have been selected on merit but just cannot keep up with the others. Something should be done.

But I want rather to confine my remarks to the hon. Minister to a matter that I find it difficult to debate with him because I think he constantly misunderstands the intention of this side of the House. He thinks we come here only with destructive criticism and that it is his duty to refute every remark we make with contumacy and not to appreciate the fact that the spirit on this side of the House, in this debate at any rate, is one of constructive criticism in the hope that we can shed a little light into the dark spots which exist on his side. I hope that in this spirit he will accept what is being said to-night. Now this hon. Minister is trying to carry out a Health Act which was promulgated in 1919 and reflected, if anything, the medicine of 1900. We are now in 1963 and the medical life of this country has changed considerably. We have changed from a country where the prime measures for public health were considerations of sanitation, a good water supply and dealing with infectious diseases. We are outside that range now in a large part of the country. The Europeans, the Coloureds, the Indians to a large extent, and even the Bantu, have reached a stage where those are no longer of prime importance and we are more concerned with the environmental diseases like tuberculosis and other diseases which need attention, as also nutrition and malnutrition and matters of that character. And the duty of the Public Health Department is to promote health. Now this hon. Minister unfortunately has adopted the attitude that it is his job to deal with curative conditions, that he is supposed to cure things, and it is in that spirit that he has come forward with great pride—I am not going to talk about the fact that we have not been able to secure copies of the Snyman Report—but it is in that spirit that he brings the Snyman Report before us. This Snyman Report is concerned with the cost of medical services. He brings forward the question of the Reinach Medical Aid policy. Now that again is curative services. I want to point out to the hon. Minister that there is plenty of provision for that under the provinces, and in other ways, and he should ask his Department, and it should be the policy of his Department to promote health, to prevent disease, not to cure it after it has been established. Nowhere is this more marked than in his attitude towards the public health nurse, and to public health in general under the local authorities. I point this out, Sir, because it is time that something was done about it.

The public health nurses under his aegis fall into three different categories. We have the district nurse, we have the clinic nurse and we have the health visitor. Now, the district nurse and the clinic nurse must be qualified as registered nurses. They are registered general nurses and in many instances they are also registered midwives. Their work is confined to curative work. If they do any preventive work, the hon. Minister does not refund the salaries which are otherwise refunded by him. He refunds in general 87½ per cent of the salaries, or the costs of these two types of nurses, namely, district nurses and clinic nurses, and these nurses are confined more or less, as I say, to curative measures. People are hurt, or people bring their children to be looked after, and things of that nature. That is the work of the district nurse. Now the health visitor is in quite a different category. Unfortunately the Minister only refunds one-third of the salary of a health visitor, 33⅓ per cent as opposed to 87½ per cent, and this health visitor is a woman whose primary object is health prevention, not health cure. And that is the primary object of the hon. Minister’s Department. This health visitor is a specially qualified person. She has to be, like her colleague, a registered general nurse. She has to be a registered midwife. But in addition to that, she must do at least one year post-graduate study and obtain the health visitor’s certificate. In other words, this woman is much more highly qualified than the nurses in respect of whom the hon. Minister is refunding 87½ per cent. What is the result? The hon. Minister’s Department knows it well. The result is that the local authorities do not employ health visitors, they do not employ the best qualified persons, except in a few instances. They employ the clinic nurse and the district nurse and they send these people if possible out to do the work. It goes further than that. Not only does the hon. Minister not face up to his troubles and problems in regard to health prevention, but where these very district and clinic nurses are employed, if they are employed on preventive measures, he takes that amount out of their salaries so that when they are actually employed on the work which he would need, if they are doing preventive work, he subtracts from the amount that he refunds to the local authority the time occupied on that work. And he goes further. He will not subsidize the local authority when it does preventive work against infectious diseases if the work is successful. If the local authority succeeds in preventing infectious diseases, for the persons occupied in that work the position is that the local authority does not get a refund. But to make things even more ridiculous, completely ludicrous, what does he do? When the infectious disease has broken out, when in other words, a local authority which does not take the trouble to prevent or has failed or does nothing, what does the Minister do? He refunds the cost of caring for these sick people. He makes a refund on that. So in other words, he puts a premium on the failure of the local authority for not carrying out the work.

I want to go further and say that he knows that the health visitors are not being employed. Worse than that, he knows, or he should know, that the Royal Sanitary Institute, who formerly gave the health certificates, is fading out of the Republic. Examinations have not been held for at least a year. Yet he has not brought pressure to bear so that the gap can be filled. I have discussed this matter previously in this House with the hon. Minister of Education, and it seemed to me that obviously he was ignorant of what was going on, because in his reply he said to me “I will write you a letter about this In other words his officials sitting beside him could not give us an answer. So both the Departments, the Department of Education and the Department of Health, have fallen down on this particular important point, the last link between the family and illness. I want also to remind the hon. Minister that he himself has told us that thanks to our efforts, he has opened out-patients departments for mental health. In other words, he is allowing mental health cases to be dealt with at home. I am informed, and I believe it, that the mental health authorities are releasing fairly large numbers of mentally ill patients whom they can now control by various methods, to their homes, at a stage long before they would have done in the past. We know too that patients are being released from tuberculosis hospitals earlier. Once they become non-infectious they are released to go home. We know that there is coming to pass very soon a law which will permit the treatment of alcoholism in the homes. Who is going to carry out this work? Does he think the district nurses will do it? They do not know how to do it. These important things, alcoholism, mental health, the early release from hospitals need very serious attention. We are releasing patients to-day after an operation in three or four days. That does not mean that they are well enough to go uncared for. We are trying to keep the old people in their homes. It does not mean they do not need care. This is a person who is trained to do it. The health visitor is the only person in the whole country who is trained to look after these people in their homes, to see when they need help, to see what help to send to them, to give them advice where to go for other help, like doctors. [Time limit.]

One can only speak in terms of the highest praise of the excellent work done by the Department of Health in fighting malaria in the Transvaal lowveld. It is a part of our country with very rich water resources and fertile soil, and which will in future probably become one of the most densely populated agricultural regions. For many years it has been sparsely populated because of the incidence of malaria in the region that deterred people. By the action of the Department and also of the Institute for Medical Research, outstanding work has been done in combating malaria, and in this case one cannot fail to mention the name of one of the officials of the Department, viz. Dr. Annecke, who will be remembered for many years to come on account of the extremely valuable services he rendered to the community of the lowveld. The great success in fighting malaria was attributable to the fact that the Department concentrated upon combating the carriers of malaria, viz. the mosquito. Since the commencement of the campaign against the mosquito, there has been success in fighting malaria, and whereas 15 to 20 years ago the incidence of malaria, particularly in the late summer months, was regularly very high, we have found in recent years that malaria cases have become a rarity. It is a great blessing to that region that so much progress has been made in combating this vexatious disease. But now there are some misgivings among the public there, among the inhabitants of the lowveld, and I, too, am apprehensive, whether the Department has not departed from a good course, because in recent times, as far as I know, they have abandoned the fight against the malaria mosquito, and they have concentrated more upon the treatment of people. The treatment of people suffering from malaria, and thereby also to prevent them from becoming carriers of malaria, is, of course, the best method to adopt, but I do not think it is possible in practice, in view particularly of the large Bantu population, to eradicate malaria there unless one concentrates upon combating the carrier of malaria, the mosquito. I think that in recent years, since the fight against the mosquito was discontinued, there have again been more cases than in previous years. That is why we wish to appeal to the Department once again to give attention to combating the mosquito and not to concentrate only upon the treatment of persons. As I have said, in view of the large Bantu population in the region, and in view of the adjoining Portuguese territory, which also has a large Bantu population, and where the fight against malaria is not waged so effectively, it remains a menace unless attention is given to combating the mosquito which spreads the disease. That is why we are asking the Department once again, as in the past, to concentrate upon fighting the mosquito and so to prevent the spread of malaria.

When I was interrupted by the time limit, I had not completed what I wanted to say about the health visitor in regard to whose education I want particularly to draw attention. In the past she has not received education in the mental aspect of illness, and also that she must receive instruction in knowing where the patient can receive other treatment. In fact, Sir, this woman is the key to the health promotion services bringing health to the public. She is with the family in the crisis of their lives, in death, at birth and when there is illness, at the times when they are in trouble. This is the woman to whom they look and this is the woman who should receive all the support on the preventive side of medicine that this country can give her, and she should be treated in the same way as the sanitary inspector and the medical officer of health. She should be one of the protected members of the personnel of the Health Department. It should not be possible that a health visitor be dismissed by a local authority without the consent of the Minister.

Having said that, I want to turn to another aspect which I think should be brought to the notice of the Minister, and that is that there is a breakdown in the control of habit-forming drugs, and it is the Minister’s Department which must look after it. The drugs are adequately controlled up to the point when they reach the pharmacist. In the pharmacist’s office they are also controlled very well, and they are to some extent controlled when they are in the hands of the doctors, because, while there are doctors who fall by the wayside and become drug addicts, on the whole they are very easily detected and treated, or at any rate brought to book and adequately dealt with. But when the nurses come into the picture our difficulties begin, and this is not a difficulty which is only experienced here; it is a difficulty that arises in many countries. The problem is that the nurses’ treatment with habit-forming drugs is very difficult to control in hospitals. If a nurse is looking after an individual patient there is not a great deal of difficulty, though trouble could arise there, but in general a nurse who is giving injections of habit-forming drugs, like pethidine or morphia, she has one patient, she gives one dose or two doses or three doses, and the doctor will soon find out if the patient is not getting the drugs. But in the nursing home you have a nurse looking after, perhaps, ten to 20 or 30 patients. She is not single handed, but one charge nurse, particularly at night, is in charge of a large number of patients, and it is possible with, shall I say, a prescription for ten persons, each to have 2 c.cs. of pethidine, for a nurse to give just a little less than the 2 c.cs. to one patient, and if she has ten patients she is easily able to get for herself a complete dose or even a double dose, and in that way you have abuse of drugs. It is difficult to control. Furthermore, pethidine, which is the worst of all the habit-forming drugs, is supplied in large ampoules up to 10 or 20 c.cs. I may say that at least two and a half or three years ago, the Medical Council recommended to the Department that pethidine should only be supplied in single dose ampoules, that there should be no large bottles supplied, because it is a colourless, tasteless drug, and it is so easy for an individual to take some out and replace it with distilled water. It is not discoverable with ordinary methods. Or you have, perhaps, pethidine in 2 c.c. ampoules and a patient is under weight, or a child, and 1 c.c. is prescribed. I here remains an open ampoule with 1 c.c. in it, and it is the destruction of that 1 c.c. under control where the breakdown comes. In other words, the hon. Minister’s Department must not merely issue pious notices. It must work out a method by which the patient will get the drug which is intended for him, and if the prescription is for 1 c.c. and a 2 c.c. ampoule is provided (and it may be difficult to do anything else), there must be some plan by which that 1 c.c. can be destroyed. That is the problem facing the Department, the control of morphia and of pethidine from the time it reaches the nurse to the time it should reach the patient and, where there is an excess, the destruction of that amount should be carried out under careful and adequate precautions, so that there can be no abuse. Otherwise the control is adequate. But the Department is carrying that responsibility, and they must carefully go into this matter.

I was pointing out to the hon. the Minister that general practice is not attractive because it is not remunerative and because the hours are almost impossible. I should like to draw attention to the fact that, for example, round about 1930 to 1940, before the war, general practitioners charged 25 guineas to do an appendectomy and to-day they still do it for the same fee; they charged ten guineas to take out tonsils, and to-day they do it for £12 10s.; a confinement was ten guineas and to-day they charge £15. A consultation in those days was 10s. 6d. and a visit at home was 15s., and for a night call it was £1 10s. What is the position to-day? A consultation is only 17s. 6d., a visit at home costs £1 5s. and a night visit is £1 10s. Just compare that with a plumber. I went to visit a plumber’s child at his home and charged him 15s. After that I asked him to come and mend a tap at my home. An apprentice came along and he charged me 7s. 6d. for it. That was in the past. What is the position to-day? I get R2.50 if I visit a sick child, or his wife, at his home, and if he sends an apprentice to come and mend my tap he charges me R3. If the tradesman to-day gets more for his services than a medical man, I feel that there is something very radically wrong, and therefore I plead for an increase in the fees of medical men. In some places the fees have been adapted. I just mention it here to show that the fees of medical men have always remained within reasonable limits, as the Snyman Report also indicated. And if the patient is a member of a sick fund. the remuneration of the medical man is much less than the figures I mentioned. In this regard the Snyman Report says—

I think that is a tragic state of affairs and I want to direct a serious appeal to the Minister, in view of the fact that he has adopted the report of the Snyman Commission, to see to it that these matters are remedied, because in view of the fact that sick funds are being encouraged, the private patients will now join those sick funds and pay a low fee, and the medical men working on the Witwatersrand and on the Free State goldfields, as well as the others who have been appointed as Railways and Harbours Sick Fund doctors, will find it even more difficult to increase their income from these Sick Fund patients. Therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to negotiate with the Minister of Transport so as to ensure that something is done not to keep the remuneration of the medical man working for that fund at just one-quarter of what is received by the doctor when he treats a private patient. In so far as the Mines Sick Fund is concerned, the mines contribute nothing to the sick fund of the mineworkers, and I feel that negotiations should be entered into with the Chamber of Mines to ensure that they in fact do contribute to that sick fund, so that the medical men will receive a remuneration which is more than one-third of what they would have received from private patients. I think the way in which medical men are being exploited by some of the sick funds is scandalous.

Before resuming my seat I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzberg (District) (Capt. Henwood) when he pleaded for better conditions for the nursing staff. We know that the demands made on the nursing staff to-day are much higher than they were before. Whereas formerly a girl from Standard VI was accepted and trained as a nurse, she is now expected to be from Standard X, because we found that those who had passed only Standard VIII could not easily pass their first examination in anatomy. They must now attain a very much higher theoretical standard and they must still do the same practical work, and in comparison with other girls of their age, like bookkeepers and typists, their remuneration is very low. They do very responsible work, they work long hours, and when they do their three months’ night duty per annum, which is expected of them, they are on duty from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. They do perhaps have an hour or so off in between, but that is not of much use to them because they have to stay on duty. I feel that the conditions of service, and particularly the salaries, of nurses should be improved, especially in the case of trained nurses. After a girl has to-day completed her three years’ training, she is expected to study another year before she is allowed to sit for the midwifery examination. After having passed this examination, she receives only R85 or R90 a month. I think that is quite inadequate. We saw that in the beginning of the month they asked for an increase, and therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will do his best to ensure that the trained nurse particularly will receive better remuneration than is the case at present. I make this appeal to the Minister on behalf of the medical men of the country. As Minister of Health the hon. the Minister should see to it that these people also receive fair remuneration.

I should still like to say something with regard to a resolution taken by the Medical Council at a recent meeting. At that meeting it was resolved that the S.A. Medical Council would ask for an amendment in the relevant Act to empower that Council to fix maximum medical fees. In this regard I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that of the 29 members of that Council, not more than a dozen have had practical experience of private practice. The greater majority of them are people who have had desk jobs and in addition there are laymen, and also dentists and nurses. If these people are now to decide what fees doctors may charge, there will be a revolt amongst the doctors in this country such as has never been seen before. I do not want the S.A. Medical Council to be allowed to decide what fees doctors should charge for their services. This is a matter which should be left in the hands of the Medical Association and its Federal Council. If this body has then fixed what the fees should be and somebody charges more, then only should the Medical Council be able to take action in the matter. We refuse once and for all to allow a semi-lay body like the S.A. Medical Council to prescribe to us as professional people the fees we may or may not charge.

I do not intend following upon the lines of discussion of the hon. member who just sat down except to say that I support wholeheartedly his plea for increased salaries for the nursing staff of this country. I agree with every word he said in this connection. If our nurses are paid better salaries, it can only lead to better services in the health departments of our country.

I want to speak about those people who are the most to be pitied among those who are ill. I refer to those people who are mentally disordered and defective. I have read with great interest the latest report (1960) of the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene. In this report the position in regard to mental hygiene in South Africa is clearly set out. It is necessary that it should be realized that there are 22,658 of these persons in South Africa. Of these almost 9,200 are Whites, the rest belonging to other races. These people are housed in 13 hospitals and institutions, and it was interesting to learn from the hon. member for Durban (Central) what is being done for them. They are, for instance, given extra-mural care and such treatment in these hospitals that during 1960 4,231 could be discharged. Whether they were discharged completely cured, or whether they still needed a certain amount of care after that, I do not know. But even so, this is a very high figure. I was shocked, however, to learn that 5,763 persons were admitted to these hospitals during the same year. I am glad to say here to-night that whereas we have always in the past complained about overcrowding at these mental hospitals, to-day there is no overcrowding at all, even if it is the case in regard to Whites only. The situation in this regard is, I believe, still very bad as far as the non-Whites are concerned, and if my memory does not fail me, I think 590 of these people had to be locked up in police cells because there was nowhere else for them to go. This is something to which the hon. the Minister should give his urgent attention.

Coming back to the report of the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene to which I have referred earlier on, I want to say that I detected therein a new idea and a new thought, it says—

It is especially to this last-mentioned aspect that I wish to draw attention. It is well known that in days gone by psychoses and serious mental defects were the only forms of mental ill-health which were recognized. But we have changed since then. To quote from the report of the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene once again—

Now, the hon. member for Durban (Central) pointed out that the medical health of the people of South Africa was being administered under an Act adopted in 1919. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the last commission of inquiry into mental health sat in 1937. That is many many years ago. Consequently, I should like to urge upon the Minister that it will only bring good for the country to appoint another commission of inquiry now, not only for the purpose of investigating the methods we are using in South Africa—and we are using good methods—but also those methods used in other countries. Such a commission, I submit, can be of great help to the Minister.

The hon. member for Geduld referred to the shortage of doctors. In this connection I should like to learn from the Minister whether what I heard a little while ago, i.e. that there are only eight psychiatrists in the whole of this Department, is true. I understand further that there is such a shortage of medical men in the hon. the Minister’s Department, and especially for mental health services, that use is being made of doctors who have retired— some of them come from the Indian Army— and, as a matter of fact, of anybody they can find. I am also disturbed by the facts given in this report about mental nurses. Their number becomes fewer and fewer. For instance: during the period 1933-9 501 of these nurses were trained. This number dropped during the period 1947-53 to 222 and increased again during the period 1954-60 but only to 244. In other words, we are now training half the number of mental nurses for three or four times the number of patients. This is extremely disturbing.

I want to deal with the position of these mentally defective persons, especially the mentally defective. These people are housed free in institutions: the Alexandra, Umgeni Water Falls and the West Rand institutions. To-night I want to urge upon the Minister the necessity for creating an entirely new approach to mental health. The best suggestion I came across in this connection is the following—

Mr. Chairman, do we realize what a big thing this becomes? Do we realize what an important thing this is? We must take note of what the medical practitioners say, i.e. that 30 per cent of the people visiting them in their consulting rooms suffer from neurosis in one form or another. [Time limit.]

I should like to say a few words in connection with nurses at mental hospitals, with specific reference (1) to the number of posts; (2) the grading of those posts and (3) the chances of promotion. Normally it takes a nurse 13 years from the day he is appointed as learner nurse to reach the top of the scale for nurses. Once he has reached this maximum he can normally expect to be promoted to first-grade nurse. We find, however, that in reality he remains on that maximum for another seven to eight years before he comes into consideration for promotion to first-grade nurse. The reason for this is that there are not sufficient posts for first-grade nurses. When he is eventually promoted he only gets an increase of RIO per month. Nobody can accept promotion at RIO per month particularly if he has to go to another town in order to get that promotion. The costs attached to such a transfer are so high that he must in the circumstances lose on the transaction. That is why I want to know whether it is not possible to create more posts for first-grade nurses so that when a nurse has served the State faithfully for 13 years he will in the ordinary course be promoted to first-grade nurse, because at that stage they are already doing the work of a first-grade nurse without any additional remuneration. And if possible he must get his promotion in the place where he lives, where he is already established and where his children go to school.

Another matter I wish to raise is in connection with the possibility of separating the nursing service under the Department of Health from those services which fall under the provinces. In 1956 all civil servants received an increase with the exception of these people. They were told that the matter would be considered. Although it was sympathetically considered, it was ultimately decked that they would not receive any increase. The reason was that the co-ordinating board on which the provinces and the Government are represented did not want to approve of it. The result was that these nurses of the Department did not get any increase although they are also civil servants. I think, therefore, that a clear distinction should be made between these people and the nurses of the provinces. It is mainly girls who do this work under the provinces. It is natural for them to get married in the course of time and thus they make it possible for those below them to be promoted. As against this it is men who do this work in the Department of Health in other words, the breadwinners of the families. I definitely feel that it is wrong that the provinces should have a say as a matter of fact an overwhelming say as far as they are concerned.

That is why I again ask whether the time has not arrived that these people should be given a new status, or preferably a new name. We should turn them into full-fledged civil servants and their conditions of employment should be improved in such a way that the best people are attracted. We have already raised their academic qualifications to Std. VIII but it is still doubtful whether even with this qualification we are attracting the best people. I think, therefore, that it should be raised still further to Std. X. If we can do that and at the same time detach their service from that of the provinces I think we shall be creating an attractive service for them. I know the Minister is sympathetic towards them and that is why we expect him also to treat this matter sympathetically and thus look after the interests of our nurses in our mental hospitals.

Unfortunately I have only a limited time available in which to reply to all the questions put to me during the course of the debate. I should have liked to reply to each one in detail, but if I do not have time to do so hon. members may be assured that attention will still be devoted to the points raised.

The hon. member for Drakensberg again asked that investigations should be made in regard to our services for the mentally ill. I want to point out that in our Department we have specialists of outstanding reputation in the profession. Amongst them are people who have specialized not only in South Africa, but also overseas. We are therefore able to be kept au fait with the best services rendered abroad in this regard. A number of years ago a world-renowned psychiatrist from Holland visited South Africa. After having gone through all our hospitals, he spoke about them with the highest praise. In the report he submitted to his country in regard to his visit, he stated that our services in this sphere were amongst the best in the world. He even came across techniques which he had not encountered in other countries before. In fact, he expressed his great appreciation of the quality of the services we render.

If we take into account that we already have these qualified people in our service and that they alone could institute an investigation. I do not think there can be any justification for an investigation at this stage.

Do you not consider that our people will gain a broader outlook by also visiting other countries as this professor from Holland has done?

Such things are always encouraged. We do so because we know that the medical profession is a fast-developing one and one always wants to apply the latest methods and the newest techniques and measures.

Then the hon. member referred to the overcrowding in the mental hospitals. She said that this was not the case in regard to White patients, but in regard to non Whites. In this regard I just want to say that I have already stated on a previous occasion that we are busy erecting two more hospitals for non-Whites, at Umtata and Mafeking. These hospitals have not been completed vet, but we hope that they will become available within the., foreseeable future.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) pointed out the dangers of habit-forming drugs. He said that it was the task of the Department to see that such medicines are not abused; the Department should evolve methods to prevent it. But the trouble with such matters is that one always has to deal with the human factor. The hon. member said that habit-forming drugs which are handled by nurses could not be properly controlled, with the result that they fell into the wrong hands. But it is the responsibility of the doctor to see to it that there is proper control over the actions of nurses in this regard. It is his responsibility to see to it that these medicines do not fall into the wrong hands, and that superfluous supplies are either destroyed or given back. Unfortunately this is just where there is not the necessary control, namely that the doctor does not always keep proper supervision. One in fact does not expect it to be necessary to exercise control over such a responsible profession as the medical profession.

I found it peculiar that the hon. member for Durban (Central) again made an indirect attack on me and my Department, because we devote so much attention to health schemes. He said that we spend too much money on health schemes which are in fact part of the nursing services and as such fall under the provincial administrations, and not under my Department. I find that peculiar because last year the hon. member’s bench-mate, the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) moved a motion in this House in which he advocated health schemes! Then he wanted us to institute such schemes, but now that we do so we are being attacked! Sometimes it is very difficult to find any logic on the part of hon. members opposite.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Durban (Central) pointed to the difference in the subsidies paid by the Central Government in respect of certain services. In this regard he mentioned health inspectors, where the subsidy is one-third, as against seven-eigths for district nurses. The hon. member also held the view that this state of affairs was the result of antiquated legislation. But now the hon. member knows about two commissions which were appointed to investigate the financial relations between the Central Government and the provinces. The one is the Borckenhagen Committee, which has already published part of its report, and the other is the Schumann Commission. which is still continuing its investigation. The matters raised by the hon. member are, therefore, connected with this, and it may, therefore, be expected that the investigations to which I have referred will also offer a solution for that problem.

The inspectors to whom I referred are under the control of the local authorities and not under that of the provinces.

Yes, that is so, but the finances of local authorities are also included in these investigations.

The hon. member for Rosettenville raised a few important problems here. In the first place he said that bilharzia was spreading. We know that it has spread from an area north of the Witwatersrand down our coast right down to Port Elizabeth and Humansdorp. The problem, however, is how to combat bilharzia. The hon. member suggested that a new committee should be appointed for this purpose. Allow me to point out to him, however, that we already have the C.S.I.R. and the Medical Research Institute; in fact, at three different places where a particular study is being made of this problem. In Nelspruit there is a division which concentrates on studying the life cycle, the appearance and habits of the parasite. In addition, a study is being made at Potchefstroom of the ecology of the slug, of its life cycle, of the methods of destroying it, etc. In Johannesburg the Medical Research Institute is making experiments to ascertain whether the slug is susceptible to certain infections, with the object of determining whether one can, perhaps, kill it in such a way. Therefore intensive research is already being done at the moment.

Research always adopts two forms, a negative and a positive form. Negative research indicates that one need not seek a solution along certain lines. Research has been done as to the possibility of destroying the slug by means of treating the water with certain preparations. But it has been found that this cannot be done without, at the same time, also destroying the other forms of life in the water, or creating a source of danger to man and beast. Research has, therefore, shown that a solution along these lines is not possible yet. Hitherto only one method has been suggested, namely that the cycle should be broken, i.e. the cycle between the parasite, the slug and the human being. Hon. members know this cycle. The human being carries the parasite in a certain form, evacuates it, and it lands in the water: the slug picks up that parasite, it increases, adopts other forms and gets into the water in those different forms, and the human being then comes into contact with that water and again picks up the parasite. It is this cycle that should be broken. And it can be done in different ways. The one way is to destroy the slug; the other way is to ensure that the parasite evacuated by the human being does not land in the water. In order to do that, it is necessary to teach the population hygiene. They must be taught not to make use of the veld, but of latrines. But it is a serious problem, particularly amongst the Native population. It is a serious problem, because a large section of the Native population have not yet learnt our habits of hygiene. Nevertheless, the Department is trying to tackle the problem by trying to enlighten the Bantu.

I, therefore, do not think it is necessary to establish yet another research organization such as the hon. member asked for. Apart from the C.S.J.R. and the Medical Research Institute, we also have the report of the Du Toit Commission, in which it is pointed out that it is no use making various disjointed attempts. All attempts should be co-ordinated under the C.S.I.R. That is the recommendation of that Commission.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also referred to the problem of tuberculosis. We all know that this is a very serious problem, and we all know what methods we are adopting to combat it. The hon. member has now suggested that all Bantu should be X-rayed. If one bears in mind that it costs at least 20 cents to X-ray one person, one can imagine what this would cost. But the hon. member evidently thinks that the problem can be solved in that way. I agree with him that that may be the case in regard to an urban population which is properly controlled by a local authority. Then such a method may be successful. But we know the Bantu population. The position is that even though a Bantu may not have incipient tuberculosis to-day, he may in fact have it to-morrow. That is because many Bantu unfortunately still do not know how to live hygienically. It will therefore not be of much assistance to know that this or that particular Bantu is free from T.B., because he may become infected at any time. Therefore I do not believe that X-raying all Bantu will help much. The greatest problem we experience in regard to the Bantu is to ensure that he comes to be treated. That is the problem everywhere. City councils have already discussed the matter with me. Let me illustrate the problem by giving an example of what happened. A Bantu is sent to hospital because he has T.B. He is very ill and therefore he accepts that he should be treated. He has to stay in hospital until he is completely cured, otherwise he becomes a chronic case, and when once he is a chronic case he perhaps cannot ever be cured. But what is the experience of the city councils? The Bantu receives an unemployment allowance while he is in hospital, and as soon as he has collected a little money and thinks that he is strong enough he simply disappears from the hospital and goes back to his people. That is therefore the problem, and it will not be solved before the Bantu can be taught that he must present himself for treatment to the centres established for that purpose. There are all kinds of problems. We evolved a comprehensive scheme for the Transkei and wanted to put it into operation this year still. It would have cost approximately R400,000. But eventually we had to step back in the face of these problems. There is not yet such a measure of control over the Bantu that we can dare to spend this large sum of money. In fact, it is no use spending large sums if the desired results cannot be achieved.

We have now evolved a new scheme with Johannesburg, just because the Johannesburg City Council to a large extent has Control over its Bantu population. The Government has offered to supply the City Council with all the necessary B.C.G. vaccine—and this vaccine is quite expensive—in order to enable them to vaccinate the Bantu in their area. The hon. member has said that 80 per cent of the Bantu can be immunised against tuberculosis by means of this vaccine. That is in fact the case with the newest form of this vaccine. With the old vaccine the results were not so effective.

But the new vaccine has also created further possibilities. Dr. Dormer, who is at the head of our tuberculosis research, discovered by means of experiments that the new vaccine can be applied without the person having been tested previously. If this vaccine is applied to a person who has tuberculosis, one very soon notices a reaction. It simplifies our task because it makes it possible for us to vaccinate the whole population in order to ascertain who has T.B. and who has not. Then if finances allow of it such a person may still be X-rayed before he is given treatment.

I therefore think I can say that with this latest form of vaccine we have now seen a ray of light. As I have said, we first want to apply this new vaccine in Johannesourg. The financial year of the Jonannesourg City Council starts in July, and therefore the scheme can then be implemented. We rely on the co-operation of that City Council, so that in a year’s time we will perhaps be able to say that we have tried a new method which can also be applied in other areas.

I was a little surprised at the unfair attack of the hon. member for Rosettenville in regard to the Snyman Report. That just proves that it does not always pay one to try to do too much for someone else. The Snyman Report came to hand on 1 November. As hon. members know, the major portion of December is holiday time. The report then still had to be printed, and the Government Printer is busy with it. He has not been able to complete it yet because he is snowed up with work. But to-night the Minister of Health has to bear the blame for it. But what have we done? Because I did not want the medical profession to wait so long for the report, we made it available to the Medical Council and the Medical Association and also to the Department. Hon. members need just have inquired at the Department. But only members on this side of the House did so. Therefore, whilst I went out of my way to make the report available so that hon. members did not have to wait for the printed report, I was attacked to-night. I am surprised at this reaction. It is in any case not the sort of thing one expects from reasonable people.

The hon. member for East London (North) again dealt with the problem of tobacco smoking. The hon. member misunderstood me if he said that the Government did not intend to do anything in regard to the problem. If that was so, it would surely have been a most irresponsible attitude. What I in fact said was that at the moment it was not possible for us to do anything. Let me deal with this problem further. It is a very real problem which affects a large part of the country, and therefore I want to deal with it in detail.

In the first place, I think we can accept today that there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer, That is beyond all doubt. The only question is how close that link is. In that regard we see various opinions expressed in the different countries where this problem is already being investigated. In America it is said that smoking is " a major cause” of lung cancer. In England they are a little more cautious because they say it is “an important cause”. In Russia they are even more cautious. There they say, “It is a factor.” In the light of the results of the latest research, I think it can be said that Russia is nearest to the truth. In other words, it is clear that smoking is in fact a contributory factor to the occurrence of lung cancer. However, it is not the only cause or it. There are many other factors which contribute towards lung cancer. Now we must act like intelligent people. Therefore, as soon as we become aware of the fact that it is a contributory factor, we should not immediately start destroying the whole of the tobacco industry in the country. We cannot do that.

Let us pause to deal for a moment with the tobacco industry in South Africa. To-day the production of tobacco is 14,600,000 lb. The number of farmers who make a living out of it is about 10,000. There are 38 factories processing tobacco, out of which 5,460 families make a living. The turnover of the industry is R40,000,000. I am not saying for a moment that if in fact smoking causes cancer it should not be stopped. What I am saying is that before one stops it one should at least make sure of the facts. One cannot just act irresponsibly in such a matter.

What steps are you taking to determine the factors causing lung cancer?

I am busy explaining the matter. The hon. member should just be patient. Through careful scientific experiments it has recently been proved that there are various constituents in tobacco-smoke which may possibly cause lung cancer. One of them is a series of tar derivatives—therefore not all of them, but certain of them. Other constituents are phenol, ammonia, and certain acids, etc. The so-called “free radicals” constitute another element. Nicotine may be another factor, as well as arsenic. Although each of these elements is present in microscopic quantities, they may well be contributory factors. At the same time it is perhaps possible to combat all of them, or only those which can in fact cause lung cancer, if they do not all do so.

It is peculiar, but all the indications are that one contracts lung cancer when one breathes in smoke over a certain period and at a certain intensity. Tobacco smoke by itself may not affect one at all; in other words, if one only breathes in tobacco smoke one need not necessarily contract lung cancer. In fact, it has been ascertained already that animals living in an atmosphere of tobacco smoke do not contract lung cancer. There is, therefore, an indication that something else must also be present. There are many data to show that persons in the rural districts do not contract lung cancer as easily as people in the cities. It has also been ascertained that when one inhales tobacco smoke together with the polluted air in a city, one is liable to contract cancer. Therefore, there is also another element, namely the smoky city atmosphere, polluted by diesel gases, chimneys, etc. Therefore, the farmer may say that if there are these two factors which cause lung cancer, the factories should be closed and all motor vehicles taken off the road, because why should the farmer alone be singled out? I do not say this is the right reply under the circumstances, but it is a reply which the farmers may give one.

Dr. Geoffrey Dean, who investigated the matter in South Africa, pointed to a few interesting data, and the first of these is that South Africans are by far the heaviest smokers in the world. In spite of that, there is a very low incidence of lung cancer in South Africa. That also indicates that it is not only smoking which causes lung cancer. The reason for the low incidence of lung cancer in South Africa is that we live in cities which are not yet as highly industrialized as the other cities of the world.

Experiments have also brought to light that it is not all the parts of the tobacco leaf which are equally deleterious. Of all the parts of the leaf, the stems and veins are the greatest carriers of the elements causing lung cancer. That immediately opens up a new vista, because it may be possible to eliminate the stems and veins in the process of manufacturing cigarettes. Through that it may be possible to manufacture cigarettes containing no elements causing lung cancer. That is a further possibility. Research has shown that there is also another factor which may promote lung cancer. That is the temperature at which the tobacco is smoked. But that is not all. Experiments have also brought to light that the way in which the tobacco is dried may have a great effect on the elements which cause lung cancer. The indications are that tobacco which is dried in kilns contains more of those elements than tobacco which is dried naturally.

Hon. members will, therefore, see that the experiments already made in various countries throw new light on the problem. It is no longer necessary for us to ruin the tobacco industry as the result of those experiments. There are now other possibilities which may be investigated further. It may perhaps lead to a solution being found for the problem within the foreseeable future. Lung cancer is not caused in one day or even in one year. On the contrary. It is contracted after one has been smoking over a period of years. In any case, I foresee the possibility of a solution being found within the next few years. I have had consultations with tobacco companies, research workers and tobacco growers. The manufacturers have told me that if only we could tell them what constituents should be removed from the tobacco, they could devise filters to do so. We, therefore, have already had evidence of the greatest degree of co-operation on the part of the manufacturers. All the indications are that within the foreseeable future it ought to be possible to manufacture a cigarette which will not cause lung cancer.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) raised the question of health inspectors and pointed out that health inspectors in the service of the S.A. Railways earn more than their colleagues in the Public Service. Of course, that is an anomaly. I just want to tell the hon. member that an investigation into the grading of posts in the Department of Health has just been completed. This grading will be established on a functional basis, and consequently these anomalies will also gradually be eliminated.

The hon. member for Waterberg raised a very important matter. Unfortunately it is a matter in regard to which we have not yet taken enough precautions, namely, the use of insecticides in regard to fruit, vegetables, trees, etc with all the new insecticides which exist and which penetrate the soil, there is the possibility that they may be absorbed by the tree and thereby eventually land up in the fruit itself.

Now it is true that the Department of Health to a certain extent administers insecticides. Every such insecticide has to be registered and containers have to be labelled in the prescribed way, indicating the degree of danger, the antidote, etc. These precautionary measures are, however, not enough because it is the use of the insecticide which causes the problem. A farmer may, for example, spray his fruit with a certain insecticide the prescription for which states that the fruit should not be plucked for, say, a fortnight thereafter. But now the fruit may start ripening before that time and then the temptation is very great to harvest the crop and to market it although that fortnight has not yet elapsed. Another danger is that where an insecticide is used which is absorbed by the tree and consequently may land up in the fruit itself, that fruit may perhaps not be fit for human consumption at all. Supposing a farmer has made a mistake by picking his fruit too soon. The Department will be able to ascertain whether the fruit is perhaps poisonous, but that may take three weeks, because the new chemicals are very complicated. Of what use will it be to tell that farmer that his fruit or vegetables contain poisonous matter if that fruit or those vegetables have already been sold to the public?

There is only one solution, namely that the manufacturers of insecticides should test every insecticide in such a way as to ascertain speedily and easily whether that poison is present in the fruit or vegetables. That is the only safety valve there is. At the moment, however, there is nothing we can do, except to direct an appeal to our farmers and to the public to be doubly careful. In so far as the future is concerned, I hope that further developments in the direction I have mentioned will help towards combating this tremendous problem.

If perhaps questions remain over to which I have not replied, I want to assure hon. members that I will devote careful attention to the points raised.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 37.—“Health (Hospitals and Institutions)”, R12,455,000, put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Revenue Votes Nos. 38 to,40 and Loan Votes R and H (Agricultural Economics and Marketing).