I move—

The main object of the introduction of this Bill is to provide a measure of relief to active service volunteers who have received loans for housing purposes from a local authority or a building society. Those loans, as I shall explain are made for a twenty year period. The interest and redemption has to be repaid over a twenty year period, and there is some danger, as a result of borrowers being on active service, of their not being able to keep up those interest and redemption payments, and certain of the provisions of this Bill are designed to meet that difficulty. The opportunity is also being taken in this Bill to deal with one or two other housing matters which require attention. The clauses in the Bill dealing with the extension of the loan period under the Housing Act and the Additional Housing Act, are Clauses 2 and 9. Clause 2 provides that the following proviso shall be added to Section 6 of the Housing Act—

Section 9 of the Bill provides in paragraph 6 of the new Sub-Section—

It has been found that while numbers of borrowers on active service manage to keep up their interest and redemption payments, either by letting the house or assigning the rents, or being able to meet such obligations by army pay, there are many who are able to pay only the interest. This suggested amendment is designed to give the necessary relief to the active service volunteer who is doing his best to keep up at least his interest charges, by arranging for the loan period to be extended at least for the period he is away on active service. The power to be given in this amendment to the Central Housing Board will enable it to deal with each case on its merits, and will undoubtedly have the effect of retaining a number of service volunteers as householders, who will otherwise have to throw in their hands after the war. Section 2 deals with the case of a borrower who has obtained a loan, the repayment of which together with interest, must be made over a period of 20 years—a loan from a local authority. Section 9 deals with the case of the borrower who has obtained a loan from a building society. The effect of this amendment will tend to minimise the loss in connection with building society loans which may accrue to the Government and the building societies, through volunteers not being able to keep up the full payment. Then in the first part of Clause 9 and Clause 10 of the Bill, we are providing for the case of substitution of borrowers. In the past certain borrowers have been unable to keep up their payments, and the local authority or building society, with the approval of the Housing Board, has allowed another borrower to be substituted. But that is not strictly in accordance with the terms of the Housing Act, and it is to regularise the position in regard to the past, and to regularise future cases of that sort, that this amendment is being made. Then Clause 7 of the Bill introduces a new principle. Clause 7 provides that—

1. “(3) The powers conferred and the duties imposed upon a local authority by this Act shall be deemed to be such powers and duties as are referred to in Section eleven of the Public Health Act, 1919, (Act No. 36 of 1919).”

Now, Sir, if one refers to Section 11 of the Public Health Act, there it will be found that very wide powers are given to an Administrator, and ultimately, if necessary, to the Minister of Public Health, to deal with a local authority which does not carry out its obligations under the Public Health Act. Section 11 (1) (a) reads—

The section then goes on to prescribe how the Administrator may enforce his wishes. It gives him power to levy rates or to recover from the local authority by other means, or to apply monies which may have been provided from the consolidated revenue fund. Now the experience over the past years during which the Housing Act, as amended, has been in operation, has shown that while a number of local authorities have been fully alive to their obligations under the Housing Act, some have not faced up to their responsibilities. Admittedly all local authorities are not on the same footing. There are many smaller local authorities who have made an honest and sincere attempt to provide better housing amenities for the inhabitants—and when I speak about amenities I speak of them for all sections of the community. There is a duty imposed under the Act to see that all sections of the community, European, Coloured, Native and Indian, have adequate and proper housing facilities. Many of the larger local authorities have embarked upon ambitious schemes. We have a Municipality such as Port Elizabeth which has provided, I think, the model for the whole Union. I notice my hon. friends over there nodding their approval, but I can say that without fear of contradiction. It would well repay the hon. members to go over these schemes and see how by natural process the local authorities have been able to provide accommodation — suitable and adequate accommodation — for all sections of the population.

Have they quite separate areas for Europeans?

They have been able to provide adequate accommodation for all sections of the population where they are living—without compulsion by legislative enactment they have been able to provide townships for Europeans, and coloured people—separate areas for Europeans and non-Europeans. At one time you had the most disgraceful slums, places like Korsten at Port Elizabeth, where these unfortunate people of all races were living cheek by jowl.

Do you approve of separate areas?

I certainly approve of it and the people living there… .

Why is it not done in the Cape Peninsula?

Hon. members would see how these people are enjoying life in those areas in Port Elizabeth.

Why is it not done here?

If the hon. member would come with me on a visit to some of the Municipal housing schemes in the Cape Peninsula and to some of these schemes erected by the Public Utility Company of the Citizens Housing League, he would see that the same process is going on here, a process which gives offence to none and is of interest to all.

If you introduced a small Act, the process would be unnecessary.

In dealing with this matter in the light of experience, that experience shows that the principle underlying the housing Act is a salutary one—and I repeat that many of our local authorities have done their duty, but many of them have not faced up to their responsibilities and the object of this Bill is to bring greater pressure to bear on local authorities than has been done in the past. I realise that in the case of some local authorities it would be impossible, with their limited financial resources, to do all that should be done, and I visualise the time coming, and not far distant, when the State will have to step in and assist by building itself… .

Why not now?

I shall deal with that in a moment. I am glad my hon. friend put that question. I think the State itself will have to undertake a greater share of responsibility than it has done in the past. We have the benefit of the twenty years—more than twenty years—during which the Housing Act and its amendments have been in operation, and in the light of that experience I think we are in a position to review conditions of housing matters and to reconstitute our plans for the future. So much for this provision which is an indication of an attempt by the Public Health Department to stiffen up the housing policy and to accelerate the pace of housing and of building construction in this country.

Under what circumstances will compulsion be exercised?

Where the Chief Medical Officer of Health submits a report and recommends that certain things should be done in the interest of public health, then, if the local authority fails to implement that report, the Administrator may step in, and if the Administrator fails, the Minister of Public Health may step in. Now this procedure is to be taken over mutatis mutandis in regard to housing matters. Where reports are received from medical officers of health or from inspectors sent out for that purpose, shewing that a local authority is not facing up to its housing responsibilities, then the Administrator will be asked to step in.

Is not that the position now?

No, there is no provision under which pressure can be brought to bear on local authorities in respect of housing. The only pressure that can be exerted on local authorities is the pressure of public opinion. There is no legal pressure. Pressure is now to be brought to bear on any local authority to improve housing amenities for its inhabitants. In Section 6 of the Bill it is provided that the Minister may delegate certain functions under the Housing Act to the Housing Board. That provision is in order to facilitate the working of the Act, particularly in regard to the acquisition by the local authority of land for housing purposes, and to avoid unnecessary delay. Frequently matters have to be submitted to the Minister for his approval and the present procedure in some cases involves delay. It is not proposed under these powers to delegate any matters which may be regarded as controversial. Finally, Clause 3 deals with the restriction of the alienation or lease of dwellings under approved schemes. The necessity for the amendment of the law arose in connection with the absence in the titles to properties in Durban of some provision restricting ownership and so on, to persons of European descent. That problem in Durban has been solved by the insertion in the deeds of sale of an additional clause restricting re-sale to Europeans. It is suggested that this legislation should be proceeded with in order to meet the position in the country generally where houses erected for Europeans may be taken by non-Europeans or vice versa. In other words, this clause is inserted in order to enable the local authorities to carry out their intention, namely, to provide certain schemes for Europeans, others for Coloureds and others for Natives. Those are the provisions of this simple Bill dealing with housing. There is no doubt that the public conscience has recently become awakened to the need for better housing facilities in this country. Much has been done during the past twenty years, and I do not agree with those who see in the alleged failure to meet the situation any cause for despair. A great deal has been done, a great deal of experimental work has been done, through the Housing Act and through the Housing policy, but there is no doubt that a much more vigorous campaign will have to be inaugurated. The time has come when the State will have to wage total warfare on slums, on slum conditions, and on inadequate housing. Bad housing and malnutrition are the two most potent causes of tuberculosis. If we put better housing with better nutrition in the forefront of a social welfare campaign, we would be doing well. The Government has regard to the feeling of the country, it has regard to the prickings of public conscience on this matter, and the Government is preparing and scientifically planning a campaign in regard to housing. There are some who, when they hear that a plan is being prepared, are inclined to sneer and smile tolerantly and to talk about ,,another plan”. I would remind those cynics that no campaign, whether in the sphere of science or no military campaign, no welfare campaign, has ever succeeded without proper preparation. Even those who are now busy driving Rommel out of Africa have had to spend months in scientific preparation. We are following that analogy. The Government is preparing its plan carefully, methodically and scientifically; it is accumulating all the necessary data in order to deal with this matter on a wholesale basis. At present the National Health Commission has been entrusted, inter alia, with the task of making recommendations about housing. The Department of Public Health is about to appoint a body to carry out a nation-wide housing survey. That is most essential. We must know the facts before we can know how to act. That housing survey is overdue and is about to be carried out. There are plans being formulated at present by the Housing Board which will be specially applicable to returned soldiers. Schemes are being worked out which will be primarily applicable to them. Then the status of the Housing Board itself will have to come under review. We have a full time National Roads Board with a permanent technical staff dealing with questions of national roads. The time has come when we shall have to have a full time Housing Board with a permanent staff of experts which can plan housing on a national basis. That will be done. I mentioned earlier on, when dealing with the position of the less financially stable local authorities, my own opinion that the time had arrived or almost arrived when the State itself would have to conduct a building campaign.

It is the duty of the State.

I am glad you appreciate that.

Well, well, I am glad my hon. friend supports me in that. I have not heard him say much in that regard in the past in support of that policy, but I am glad I shall have the support of the hon. member in acting on those lines.

You must have been deaf.

There is no reason why the State itself should not undertake a Utility Housing Scheme and form a Utility Housing Company and build itself. These are matters which are now being thought out and considered by the Department of Public Health in conjunction with the Housing Board and other experts, and I feel convinced that if we proceed along these lines we shall have the support of the country as a whole. This is a matter rising above all party considerations, a matter of vital concern to the welfare of the people of this country, and this small Bill, with one or two new policies indicated, is an indication of the new lines of policy to be put into operation in the future. I commend this Bill to the House.

The hon. Minister of the Interior is a very good imitator of the hon. Prime Minister. When he came to the end of his speech here now, one almost thought that one was listening to that immortal statement of the hon. Prime Minister in Bloemfontein in 1940. It has become customary that when an hon. member of the Government stands up to speak on social matters, then the sum total of his speech usually is: They are making plans, or they have appointed a commission. Every important social matter is tackled by this Government in only one way, and that is either by making plans that will apparently never be brought to fulfilment or by appointing commissions that will take years and years to report. That is the sum total of social reform work that can be expected from this Government of all the talents. The hon. Minister who has just sat down, has said that in the past 23 years—that is since the introduction of the first Housing Act in 1920— only experimental work has been done. Now, after the experimental work has been completed, they are beginning to formulate plans in connection with the housing of people, and he says that the time will arrive when “total warfare will have to be waged against this problem.” The time will arrive! But it is peculiar to see how the Minister of the Interior is trying to gloss over and justify the dereliction of duty and the neglect of duty of this Government. He tells of the plans that will be made. He fails to inform the House what those plans are and when they will be brought to fulfilment; whether he will be willing to carry out those plans now when this serious and urgent shortage of housing exists, or whether it will be carried out in the distant future; whether it is something that may perhaps happen if they are still in power after the war. The people must know how to judge regarding the promises and the plans of the Government. On February 8 of this year the Minister of Finance held a long oration here in this House about what the Government has already done in the social sphere, and inter alia he said this—I quote his own words from the Hansard report—

In other words the Minister, in his customary skilful way, tried to create the impression in this House and outside that this Government has attained wonderful achievements and that the amount for sub-economic housing has been trebled. When the Minister of Finance speaks in terms of millions then he creates an impression, and he has perhaps actually brought the people under the impression, that provision has actually been made for the housing needs of the people. That is the impression that the Minister tried to create, but I say that with his usual skilfulness he juggled with figures. Actually, as revealed by the Minister of the Interior who introduced this Bill, the Government has neglected its duty reprehensibly in connection with this important aspect of our social work during the past three years. Let us now put the statement of the Minister of Finance to the test. Unfortunately, the latest report of the Central Housing Board available to this House is dated 31st December, 1940. No report has been laid on the Table for the past two years, and we therefore have no data on which we can go. All we have to accept is what the Minister of the Interior has told us, and then our own observations. Let us test the statement of the Minister of Finance on those grounds, to find out what the position actually is in connection with this extremely important matter in our country. Important admissions have already been made to the House by the Minister of the Interior. A few days ago there appeared before the Health Commission in Cape Town representatives of the Utility Company of the local urban Housing League. They gave evidence before the Commission. The leader of the deputation was Advocate Te Water. Well, I think that all the members of the House know who Advocate Te Water is. For several years he represented us as our High Commissioner in London. After his return to our country, he withdrew from politics, and so far as I know he is not a member of any party. But he is associated with this extremely important body which has been established for the purpose of providing the poorer section of the population in Cape Town with housing. In his evidence before the Commission he said inter alia—

That utility company was established when the leader of the Opposition was Minister of the Interior.

That does not matter. Here we have a statement from a representative body that the Government has neglected its duty woefully, so that a private body had to intervene, and if the Government had not neglected its duty so reprehensibly during the past 3½ years, then it would not have been necessary to submit evidence of this nature. That is the position. The Minister has admitted this, and I ask hon. members of this House if the Minister at the introduction of this Bill said a single word in connection with what the Government has done in that sphere. All he told us was what the Government was going to do—the plans they are going to make. He could not announce anything as to what they have done, particularly as regards the past two years. Now the Minister comes forward with this amending Bill, Where he has a golden opportunity here of doing something tangible in this respect he comes with a little Bill that does give alleviation to certain persons, but which in fact will do nothing to improve the position. The Minister of the Interior has said that the main object of this amending Bill is to give persons on active service a certain extension of the period for repayment of the capital sum. That is virtually all that is being done, and beyond that nothing. Advantage is not being taken of this Bill to improve the great weaknesses of the existing Act. One of the most important is that the Sate has no power to compel a local authority to give effect to a scheme. He has said that this must be done, and that the State will have to take the responsibility on itself, but here in this Bill he has the opportunity to give the State the power to exercise that compulsion.

But that is one of the provisions of the Bill.

The Bill does give certain powers to the Government that are contained in the Public Health Act. The Minister has said, however, that those powers will be applicable only when a report is introduced in connection with the health position of a specific locality. Another weakness is this—and it is an important matter that has been brought to the attention of the Government by this side of the House over a period of years—it is a matter that perpetually engages the attention of the people and it is one of the most important matters that will serve to build up a healthy nation—namely, that no provision is being made for separate residential areas. This provision could have appeared in the Bill. The Minister has provided that certain properties built for one race cannot be alienated to another race. But actually no provision is made to compel local authorities by legislation to provide for separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans. The Minister has had the opportunity to do so in this Bill, and he did not do so. But I revert to the other point, namely that local authorities ought to be compelled to proceed with housing schemes. I want the Minister to inform us how many cases there have been in this country since the coming into operation of the Act in which the Government has forced or tried to force urban authorities to proceed with housing schemes. That is the best test. Another weakness, particularly in the Act of 1937, is this. Provision is made for the granting of building loans to individuals to build houses. But these are building loans. They are issued only for the building of new houses, and do not provide for the purchase of existing houses. There the Minister could also have brought about a change. Why confine it to building loans, and why not also grant loans to a person who wants to buy a house without necessarily having to build a house, particularly in view of the fact that a scarcity of building material exists today. Where we are getting a Bill here from the Government to improve the housing of the people, it may indeed be expected that the Government will provide all possible facilities to the population so that they may buy as well as build houses. Can the Minister tell the House in how many cases 100 per cent. building loans have been issued, loans that cover the building costs, the cost of the land, and all relevant matters. They grant a Joan to a maximum of 90 per cent., and how many of the average employees who receive from £30 to £40 a month are able to put down £150 cash on a house of £1,500? If the Minister now wants to provide for the needs then he must follow the example of the Railway Administration and advance the full value to applicants. I have mentioned a few of the most important weaknesses in the old Act. There are numerous others which the Minister should know about and which have already been brought to his notice. He has had the opportunity here of bringing about improvements, but he has not taken advantage of that opportunity. The actual problem in the country is this. There is a serious shortage of houses. That is the problem that exists, and that is where the Government has negelected its duty deplorably during the past 3½ years. In Cape Town alone, it is said from 300 to 600 houses must be built annually to provide for the requirements resulting from the natural increase in population. During the past year not 10 per cent. of this number of houses was built, and the result is that the housing distress has become worse. We have not the data we ought to have, but we have to go by our own observation. Particularly as regards Johannesburg, every property agent has dozens of names on his books of people who are still waiting for a house to be vacated. The inevitable result of this is overcrowding, and overcrowding in turn results in the creation of slums. That is what happens when there is an urgent shortage of houses. It results in overcrowding, and then slums are created. Another inevitable result is that the price of houses soars, as has already happened. The Government has tried to prevent speculation, but they will never be able to control it by tax on profits when properties are sold. There is only one way of preventing it, and that is to provide the population with adequate housing. But we have this serious problem particularly where there is a shortage of houses. In the first place, as I have already said, we have overcrowding, and because there is overcrowding slums are created. The next result is that as a result of the overcrowding all lines of colour distinction are gradually wiped out. I want to remind the House of a letter that appeared in “Die Burger” a few days ago in connection with a decent European family who could not get housing accommodation in Cape Town, and who were compelled to hire rooms with a coloured family. The newspaper went into the matter, and all the facts of the letter were established. This is only one case that has come pertinently to the attention of the public. The obliteration of all lines of colour distinction is inevitably caused by overpopulation and by the creation of slums, because the poorer Europeans are compelled to hire houses and rooms in coloured areas in the slums. This shortage of houses presses the heaviest on one section of the population, namely the poor section. When we go about in our cities we find that the well-to-do section of the population do not suffer through overcrowding. The well-to-do man can buy a house, even if it costs twice as much as usual. Where we find overcrowding is with the poor section who cannot afford to buy houses, and for whom the State makes no provision. That is where the need is highest; it is that section of the population who suffers the most. How can we build up a spiritually and physically sound nation when a large section of that nation lives in hovels in the slums of our cities? I repeat the question: Can we ever build up a healthy nation when a large section of that nation is compelled to live in hovels in the slums of our great cities? Can we build up a spiritually and physically healthy nation in that manner? That is the problem which is staring the Government in the face. What does it help to announce with a great flourish, as the Minister of Finance has done here, that one warm meal per day will be given to school-children? What does it help to give one meal or even three meals to those children at school if those children have to grow up in an environment in which one would not permit one’s native servants to live; I say, what use is one or even three meals, what does it help to fill the stomachs of those children, if we allow such children to deteriorate spiritually and morally in such environments; how can we build up a nation if we allow the future citizens of the nation to be compelled to grow up with natives and coloureds in slums? What strikes us particularly when we go to the slums is the language we hear there, not English or Yiddish, but the language we hear there is Afrikaans. You can go about in the slums of all the great cities and make a survey of the persons living there, and you will find that from 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of them are Afrikaans-speaking. These are members of our people who have planted civilisation here in the country and who made every sacrifice for the country, and now they are being compelled to live in slums. I want to ask the Minister—it is not within the scope of this Bill, but let him inform the House—how many slum properties and in how many cities slum properties have been demolished in the course of the past two years. I do not think he can inform us of one case. On the contrary, more slums have been created. Slums have multiplied, and no slums have been demolished. What is the proud record of this Government during the past 3½ years? When the war broke out they sat still and allowed matters to take their course. They said, let matters take their normal course. Then they suddenly discovered that there was a threatening shortage of building materials and a certain portion of the building materials was frozen. Then again they discovered that there should be a form of control, and the result was that the building control was created. But if this Government actually had the interests of the people at heart and if it had been a Government which could have looked into the future, then they would have foreseen that there would be a surprising demand for building material and that they should immediately conserve the building material, and they would have ensured control. It was inevitable that a shortage would arise when imports were stopped. The Government should have made timely provision for making available building material to provide a large section of the population with housing. The Department of Defence has erected thousands of buildings during the past 3½ years. Ninety per cent. of those buildings are of a temporary nature. Those buildings will answer their purpose only for the duration of the war. Then they will have to be scrapped because they will no longer be of use. Wherever we go in the country there are buildings of the Defence Department. But has the Defence Department reckoned with the temporary nature of the buildings, and erected them accordingly? No, these buildings have been erected with the best materials and in the most solid manner so that they will stand for 50 or 60 years instead of 3½ years. They have taken no account of the fact that these buildings will again have to be broken down within a few years, and that the material will apparently have to be sold cheaply. No, every building is built of the best machined bricks, and inside we find the best timber and other equipment. Everything has been done in the best way and at the highest cost, and these are all buildings of a temporary nature. The Government could have provided for those buildings to be drawn up cheaply and all the valuable building material could have been economised. Why could the Department not have ensured for instance that they should get thatched roofs instead of corrugated iron roofs? They only have to stand for three years, and a thatched roof lasts thirty years or longer. That would have been a great saving, not only of corrugated iron but also of the wood that is needed for the framework. Green wood could have been used for the thatched roof. Just consider the quantity of wood and corrugated iron that could have been saved. What necessity is there for putting down the best flooring boards? They could have been cement floors, and there is plenty of cement in the country. Hundreds of thousands of feet of wood could have been saved. These are but a few examples of what could have been done if the Government really had the interests of the people at heart, instead of thinking only of the war and not caring what the results would be as regards the population. These are a few of the things that the Government might have done to prevent to some extent this critical situation that has arisen. Only now, after 3½ years, there is an announcement that an experiment is being made in Johannesburg with a house built of a certain kind of cheap material. The experiment is only now being made. What is the Government going to do in the meantime—between now and the time when they are going to give effect to those mysterious plans of theirs? The Minister must say what he is going to do. What provision is the Government going to make for the thousands of people who cannot get houses? More slums are being created day after day. This Government will he known as the Government of slums. Instead of clearing up slums they created slums through shameless neglect of the people and neglect of duty. They have done nothing else than to aggravate the problem, and to multiply problems instead of solving them. It is easy to attack the Government, and it may be asked: But what does the Opposition suggest? I shall say what we suggest. We have already said in broad lines for what we stand. I will again explain it to the House. The first point is that the housing of the population is the duty of the State. That is one of the most important aspects of our social policy. If we want to uplift and educate the people, and if we want to do social reform work to place the people on a decent basis, then the State must assume the responsibility for the housing of the people. The State must assume this responsibility just as the State has assumed the responsibility for education. That is the first and the most important principle. When we take up the standpoint that the initiative must come from the State and that the State must bear responsibility for this task; then and only then shall we obtain adequate housing for the whole nation. What will have to be done in addition? The Government does not know what the needs of the nation are. The Government is not in possession of the necessary figures. During the past two years no survey has been undertaken to see what the housing requirements of the population are. The Government does not know what the shortage is, and where the shortage is. It does not possess the necessary information. Therefore we say that a national survey must be made of the housing requirements of the population. We must know precisely what the needs of the population are, and where those needs exist. When the Government possesses that information then the Government can set to work systematically to provide housing for the population. I say again that this is the policy of this party. This is the policy that this party has preached for years. Furthermore we say this, that where that housing is provided the population must be divided into certain classes. We must not begin with the man who can afford to buy his own house, but we must begin with the section on the lowest rung of our economic life. When we speak of those who are on the lowest rung of the economic life then we think involuntarily of the needy aged people and the physically unfit. What is their condition today? Six schemes were launched by the previous Government for the aged. But those schemes would have provided for merely about 600 to 1,000 of them, and there are thousands who require help. No proper provision has as yet been made for the aged and the physically unfit. What is the situation now? The old people get £3 10s. per month and a cost-of-living allowance of a few shillings in addition. On account of the serious shortage of houses they are obliged to pay from £2 to £2 10s. for an empty room. This means that they have £1 or £1 10s. over to buy their food and clothing for the month. Now what does the Government do for them further? The Minister stood up here and said—We are making plans! Plans that will perhaps be carried out in the very distant future. In the first place we must make provision for those people. Then secondly, we must make provision for the unmarried men and women workers. Hostels have been erected, but they are insufficient for the requirements of that section of our people. Hostels must be ercted to provide accommodation for those men and women workers. Not only to provide in their physical requirements, but particularly when they come from the Platteland they are all too inclined to arrive in wrong environments where they come under the inflence of wrong ideologies, and are ultimately lost completely to their people. For that reason it is essential to erect hostels not only to provide in their physical requirements, but even more in their spiritual requirements. A vigilant eye must be kept over them, so that they shall not deteriorate spiritually and physically. It must be done on a big scale. If the Government leaves this sort of thing to local authorities there will be no improvement, and if we had to wait for the execution of the plans which are now being made according to the Minister, then so long as they are in power certainly no additional hostels will be erected. The third point of importance is sub-economic housing schemes. Considerable sub-economic housing schemes have been carried out, but these have not been tackled intensively. We must have sub-economic housing for every section of the population with incomes below a certain fixed figure. There is also another stipulation in connection with this that we advocate. The tenant must have the right to buy as well as to hire the house. Not only must he have the right to hire the house—the rent must be sufficient to cover the redemption and interest of the capital—but he must also be placed in position, if he can pay off the capital by means of monthly instalments, to buy the house for himself. That is one of the most important aspects of the whole subject. The ideal must be security for the population, and you cannot give this to the population unless every man is assured of having a roof above his head in all circumstances, no matter what may happen. Social security means nothing without a provision that every man shall have the ultimate right and shall have the opportunity of owning his own house, and to have a roof over his own head and over the heads of his family under all circumstances. For that reason, as regards a sub-economic scheme, the tenant should have the opportunity of ultimately possessing the house by purchasing it. I do not want to go into details now, I only want to touch on the principle. Then in connection with economic housing I want to point out further that the Act of 1937 provides that everyone whose income is below a certain figure will be covered thereby. But is that the case? If we view the needs of the population, and the large number of houses that have been bought and built in the last five years, then we see that a sadly small number of persons has been assisted under this Act. Actually the law has been of little value. Deplorably few people were placed in a position to avail themselves of the privileges granted by the Act. That scheme must be extended. Every man in receipt of a wage under a certain sum must have the opportunity of obtaining a 100 per cent. loan. It must not be necessary for him to possess one-tenth or any other percentage of the purchasing price. If you grant full loans, and have a system of easy payments, then that man—and he falls in the class which embraces the most wage-earners—is provided with the opportunity of possessing his own home. These are a few of the most important aspects of the policy that we on this side advocate, and it is a systematic policy that proposes something tangible—it is not plans that hang in the air, not things of which we hear but to which effect will never be given, but it is something tangible that we are laying before the House and the people and that will in fact be brought to fulfilment. The ideal we postulate is that every man must obtain social security, and that involves the assurance of a roof above his head and above the heads of his wife and children. Every man must ultimately possess his own house. We shall realise this ideal and bring it to fulfilment. I say again that if we have to wait for the fulfilment of the plans which the Minister has announced, then we shall have to wait for it until Doomsday. There is only one way of solving the urgent problems and to provide in the needs of the people, and to ensure proper housing for every member of the population, and that is to get rid of the Government, and to bring this side of the House into power. I conclude by repeating what I have said before. I say again: If you want to build up a strong and healthy nation then you cannot succeed if a large section of the people are compelled to live in the most gruesome slums of the great cities.

I welcome this Bill that the Minister has introduced, if for no other reason that it shows to the House and to the country that the Government is aware of this most pressing problem, because I do agree with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) that this question of housing is one of the most urgent that we have before us in this country. In my own constituency, as I go round, I see the most appalling overcrowding. There are slums of all sorts growing up in areas that were not slums before. The rents are abnormally and incredibly high, and all the efforts of the Rent Board, to my knowledge, have not succeeded in keeping the rents in those neighbourhoods at a reasonable level, and the reason for that is that there are simply not enough houses, or indeed enough rooms, to go round. Then there is one other point that the hon. member for Fordsburg made that I must substantiate too, and that is that in my own constituency also most of the people who are crowding together and who are being compelled to live under slum conditions, are mainly Afrikaans-speaking people. They have drifted in from the countryside; in general they have not much money, the towns have not enough rooms or houses to give them, and they create—indeed the are compelled to create—slum conditions where formerly there were no slums. I therefore welcome the Minister’s statement that the Government has this matter in mind, because there is no doubt in my own mind that this housing problem is of the utmost urgency. I agree that you cannot create a sound nation unless you not only feed them adequately but house them adequately. To show how pressing the need is, I would like the Minister’s department to enquire from the Johannesburg Municipality what the waiting lists are like for the municipal housing schemes. I have endeavoured on various occasions to place constituents in them and in each case I have been confronted with a waiting list that is incredibly long, a waiting list that can only remain a waiting list unless we tackle the housing problem in a much more realistic way than has been done up to date, I am glad, I repeat therefore that the hon. Minister has brought forward this Bill, because it does show that he is alive to the problem, and I particularly welcome the suggestion that he proposes to implement the recommendation of the Planning Council that there should be a permanent Housing Board, and I propose that that Housing Board’s first job might well be the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lordsburg, that it should take a survey of the housing needs of the whole country, so that it can draw up some adequate plan whereby in a reasonable period of time—and I stress the word reasonable—we shall be in a position to know exactly what our housing needs are.

But I said I am appointing a special commission right away.

I did not hear that. Now that the hon. Minister tells me that he is appointing a special commission, may I suggest to the Minister that on this special commission there should be at least one, if not more women. If ever there is a job which is a woman’s job, it is this question of adequate housing, and I would like to tell the House something of my own experience in this matter. Some years ago, about six or seven years ago, a body of philanthropic-minded gentlemen in Johannesburg, realising the necessity for better housing, set out to take advantage of the Government’s sub-economic housing money, and to establish a sub-economic housing scheme. They had a couple of plans drawn up, and just as they were ready to give effect to these plans, it occurred to someone that it might be a good idea to ask a woman to come along and look at those plans with a housekeeping eye. I happened to be that woman. I was asked to come to a board meeting, and I was presented with the two plans and asked to express my views on them. Well, they looked quite nice plans on paper. One contained a kitchen, a living room and two or three bedrooms. On paper it looked very nice, but I said to them: “Where is your bathroom.” The architect looked at it and said: “That thing in the kitchen is the bath; when it is not used as a bath a plank will be put over it to cover it and make it a table.” I said: “But what happens when Johnny comes home at 5.30 and he wants a bath and mother happens to be cooking the supper.” The second plan also appeared to be a good one on paper. But it contained a coal stove in the kitchen-living room, and it contained an entrance hall and two bedrooms. It was a block of flats, and each flat contained an entrance hall and I repeat a kitchen-living room, with a coal stove in this hot country, and one or two bedrooms. There was a little corner besides where there was a shower but no proper bathroom. I said to the architect doubtfully: “Yes, it looks all right, but what is this funny thing in the entrance hall?” “Oh,” said the architect “we do not think that a sink would look nice in the kitchen-living room, so we put it in the entrance hall.” I promptly asked the architect whether he would like a sink in his entrance hall. Then I am afraid I rather lost my temper. I said that the whole idea of the housing scheme was to enable people to live decently, yet their proposed plans did not allow it. On that the Board got a bit annoyed, and said: “If you don’t like these, well, you improve on the plan.” And Sir, although I am no architect, it was easy to put them right. I drew a line and divided the entrance hall in two to make a kitchen and bathroom. I said: “you don’t need an entrance hall.” I said: “What you need is a common living and dining room, a separate kitchen and bathroom and two bedrooms,” and that is how the block of flats ultimately went up. I am telling the House this story only to show how necessary it is to have several women on any housing scheme. Their job is to live and work in a house, and run it. They know the difficulties the housewife has to put up with, and they are better fitted to look at the plans, because they know from bitter experience in many cases, where the shoe pinches, and I hope I will get the assurance from the hon. Minister that if and when he sets up this Board, he will put a number of women on it.

A number of women?

Yes, even a number of women—the more the better. I can assure the Minister they would be very useful. Then there is another point in the Minister’s statement that I welcome. He said that one of the things they propose to do is to get on with the building of houses for soldiers. There is a great need in that respect. Not only is there an influx from the country into the towns at the present time, but as the soldiers are boarded out of the army for some reason or other, they tend to drift into the towns and congest what is already a congested situation. I would like to suggest to the hon. Minister therefore that his proposed Board should work in co-operation with the Civil Re-Employment Board.

That is going on.

I am delighted to hear that, because as the men drift out of the army they might well be employed on new and additional housing schemes that the Government intends setting up. Then there is one other factor I should like to impress on the Minister, and that is that there should be no delay. The congestion is serious. There is a great need for building work both in Johannesburg and in the other big centres in this country. May I suggest to the Minister that he will achieve a double purpose if he does not delay, but gets on with his schemes. For he will not only lessen the housing congestion, but he will also find plenty of work for the artisans who are today out of employment, and he will find employment for the soldiers who are boarded out of the army. Then it has been suggested by the Building Controller from time to time that there might soon be a relaxation of the building control. I would suggest to the Minister that he presses for that relaxation to be expedited. I have a case in mind. Here in Cape Town, I believe, there is a builder who has enough material, wood and iron and other materials, to build 30 houses, but he is not allowed to proceed with the building because of the building control. I suggest that it might well be put to the Building Controller that where materials are available, the builders might be allowed to build houses of the type that is most urgent, that is the cheaper houses. That is where the need is greatest, and I would suggest and urge on the Minister that he puts that point to the Building Controller. After all, the builder has the material in hand, and there is no reason, as far as I can see, why the builder should not be allowed to get on with the job if he has the material. In the first place, I cannot see any reason why he should be restrained from doing so. In the second place, there is an overwhelming advantage in letting him do it, an advantage both to the artisans and the unfortunate people who are compelled to live in slums because there is no housing for them. There is one final point that I would like to make to the Minister. I do agree with the hon. member for Fordsburg that in any building scheme, we should begin at the bottom. It is the low income groups who have the most urgent need of adequate houses. I go through my constituency and it shocks and horrifies me, and it worries me to death sir to see the kind of rooms and the slums that decent people have to put up with, and bring their children up in.

Have you spoken to your municipality about it?

The municipality is doing its best, but there is no doubt that the municipality wants assistance and co-operation from the Government. It is not reasonable to fob off the whole job on the municipalities. I should like to invite the Minister to go with me on a tour through my constituency, and I would show him yards attached to small cottages, and around those yards with only one tap and poor sanitary arrangements are anything from 10 to 15 rooms, and in each of those rooms a family lives which is paying an exorbitant rent for that room, sometimes as much as £3 or £4 for that room. With the best will in the world, the municipalities cannot cope with the increasing influx from the country. It is all well and good to say, as the Minister does, that it is the municipalit’y duty and leave it at that. I do admit that it is their duty, but it is not possible for them adequately to cope with the influx from the country, and I would like the Minister to evolve a way whereby the Government, too, would have a hand in the matter, because this matter is a national problem. It is no good pushing the responsibility on to the local authorities, and rest content with that. It is a national problem, and it should be solved in a national way, and I do hope that the board the Minister sets up will tackle the matter from that point of view.

We already notice that there is going to be a chorus of praise among the supporters of the Government, that members there will signify their joy that this Government at last realises the importance of the problem. That they have realised the importance of the problem does not quite appear from the amending Bill which is now before us. But the joy of the hon. members there is based on the speech of the Minister. In that speech they see the possibility of the Government viewing the matter in a serious light, and of the Government perhaps doing something. I wonder why the Minister did not make more of this in his speech, but he has indicated on a previous occasion that he is going to appoint a commission of inquiry.

For a national housing survey. I merely mentioned it today, but it was announced some time ago.

We are already chary of commissions of inquiry, particularly where we have to do with a matter in respect of which most of the data is known, and while we also have a permanent Central Housing Board. It is a part-time housing board, but the salaries of the members amount to £2,700 per year, and it consists of only six persons. That board should have had the data collected years ago. I would like to know what the board actually does. If I am not wrong, someone is getting £1,500 as chairman. It may be a little less, but he gets a considerable salary. I would like to know if the Chairman devotes his full time to the matter. The salary of the Secretary for the Department of Public Health is only about £1,800, and then he is a full-time official who must control all the affairs, while we find that £2,700 is spent on salaries for the Central Housing Board, and not a single person who sits on it has ensured that the information that is necessary is made available. I am suspicious of such a special commission that will again take up time, perhaps one year, perhaps two years—then they will bring up a report and nothing will be done. We are suspicious, just as we are suspicious as regards the large National Health Commission that will perhaps report in 18 months, and from which nothing further will eventuate.

Wait and see.

The Housing Board should have possessed the data. No special commission should have been necessary. We need a permanent housing board, but it must consist of persons who work, not of persons who draw £2,700 and who meet a few times a year.

The allegation is quite incorrect.

That is the feeling I have. I do not know who is Chairman at the moment, but I have in mind that it is Sir Edward Thornton. If he is still Chairman, what time has he to devote to the work of the Housing Board while he holds a high military rank? We do not attach much value to the promises of the Government and of the Minister. The action of the Government in the past has proved that they are not serious about the matter. If the Minister can provide proof that they are now adopting a different standpoint and really want to act, then his schemes, if they are good, will be welcomed by this side of the House. The Minister has indicated that in the future, perhaps the distant future, there will possibly be State control of housing. We look upon this as an important matter. For three years, we have been pointing out how impotent local authorities are, and how they are not really grappling with the matter. The matter is not being tackled because everything depends on the local authorities who are generally out to economise, and who are not keen to assume what they must perhaps look upon as a dangerous financial commitment. It is consequently clear that the State must have a great share in housing. I admit that we must have a survey, but we should have had that years ago. I exonerate no Government of the past, but homage can be paid to the leader of the Opposition that he at least made a start, and although the Minister says that a start has been made by utility schemes, that was at least a start in that period, but since that time we have not developed as we should have developed. There is, however, no necessity for a commission to make a survey. They cannot make a survey in detail. This is something that must be done under the permanent housing board by a large number of officials throughout the whole country, who will be able to supply the data. That is practical. A special commission is not required for that. We know what data we want. Let us get the necessary data through the permanent housing board. If the work has to be undertaken throughout the whole country, so that every square foot of the country is covered, and it is undertaken through a thousand officials whom we have everywhere, then we shall have the particulars in a compartively short time. A special Commission cannot travel about and gather the data. But we already have the data in respect of the big cities. There we know what the position is. We know that the increase of slums during the past ten years has been greater than the clearance which has taken place. We know that the number of houses that have to be built today is more than the arrears we had ten years ago. It is a very serious matter. That is the position in arrears, in respect of which we already have data, and because we have the data we should not come here with an amending Bill to put in order a few points of minor importance, but we ought to come with a plan to improve conditions without delay. We see that even today the Controller of Building Materials is not in the least setting to work systematically. We see that in the good years in which we are now living people are looking for houses and cannot get houses. There is no material, no houses can be built. But at pleasure resorts beautiful houses are built. I can mention the case of one house which has only now been completed. There are two or three bedrooms in the house, but the house is so luxuriously built that it cost £6,000. The house has only two bedrooms, but a beautiful private bar, a beautiful dining room, a beautiful reception room. How is it possible that a private house can be built at a holiday resort, a house that is occupied now and again, but which costs £6,000, while we cannot carry out any housing plan for the poor people? It is an incredible position. There are evidently certain people who can follow the methods and exercise the influence that can enable them to do this. I do not want to accuse anybody, but I say that it is obvious and that there must be an explanation. I know that even the Government needed rooms in certain places, and the building of these rooms had to be postponed because certain material was not available. How then can a private person build such a luxurious place? It is simply incredible. The problem of a shortage of houses is not caused only by refugees and foreigners, but our own population has been falling into arrear for years, and is falling still further into arrear as regards houses. The Minister has indicated in this little amending Bill that they are now going to empower the Administrator to prohibit houses in certain localities falling into the hands of other races, prohibiting houses from passing from one race to another. I think it is a good thing, but it does not solve the actual problem, that areas in the cities and towns should be determined so that the population can be divided and each can live in his own area. We do not only want a pegging of the position as it is now, but we want a determination of separate residential areas in the various cities and towns. Then there is something radically wrong with the rise in the price of building materials. There should long since have been the strictest control, so that the material that is available is used for the building of houses that are the most necessary. There is no effective system. In this period no luxury should be permitted, and the price of material for houses should be fixed in such a way that no excessive profits could be made. The hon. Prime Minister said with reference to native wages the other day that wages are not everything. I agree. The question is what your wage can buy. The Prime Minister indicated that we must ensure that the price paid is reasonable, in other words that one must bring down the price of absolute essentials. Here there is still considerable scope for improvement. The Minister should ensure that there is proper control. I know that there is price control in general, but we see how the houses are becoming dearer and dearer, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for the people to get houses. Unfortunately, as I said, we cannot attach great belief to the dreams the Minister has had. I do not believe in his dreams. We want to see deeds.

These are not nightmares.

Not nightmares, but the sort of dreams you get from hashish, beautiful dreams that never come true. But we have a definite policy in the matter. We want to apply it universally to the whole population. What we propose is a complete housing programme, just as we want a health service for the whole population, and work for the whole population, and nutrition—just as much do we want a housing scheme that will be of universal application to the whole population, and that can happen immediately. The powers of democratic governments are being doubted today. I see no reason why this should be so. We see how the Government can spend hundreds of millions if they find it necessary. In the same way the money can and must be found to accommodate the population in such a way that the nation can be a material asset, a cultural asset and also a spiritual asset to the country. This amending Bill contains small points that are good and we are not opposed to them, but we are not enamoured of mere promises from the side of the Government. We want to see actual signs of these matters being tackled and of the Government now taking steps, important steps, to solve the housing problem of South Africa. There are numerous points of detail which it is unnecessary to mention now, because I believe they will fall on deaf ears. I regret to say I do not believe that the Government is really concerned and really wants good advice. I believe they are out merely to rectify a few small points, but a far-reaching scheme unfortunately remains a dream, and with this Government in power it will probably remain a dream.

The subject of housing that this Bill deals with is probably the most important need in this country for all sections of the community. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member who has just sat down, that this is not a matter which should necessarily call for the appointment of another Commission before a decisive start is made in meeting the need. We know that there is a desperate housing shortage in this country. The need is known, the facts can be got very largely from the local authorities, and the problem is really very largely one of finance, and that does not seem to be a matter so much for a Commission; that is a matter for the Government to decide as one of policy. I think that any plans that the Government has in connection with housing should be made available to the Planning Council, because the importance of housing has a double aspect. There is the need to provide houses for the masses of the population, and there is the repercussion of a bold housing scheme upon the community as a whole. It is, of course, particularly of importance in connection with the problem of post-war employment. I must confess that despite the explanation that the Minister gave, I cannot quite understand the need for Section 3 of this Bill, as to what exactly this is intended to effect. It purports to divide areas between the various races. As far as the people whom I represent, the native people, are concerned, that is already so, and as the Minister said in his speech, in practice, as Government moneys which are advanced to the local authorities are being spent, separate schemes are in fact put into effect for different racial groups of the community, and as a matter of fact it has been my experience, not only amongst the European population but amongst the African and coloured people, that this is what they prefer, provided that the conditions under which they live are good conditions. But the danger of legislatively making separate provision of that kind is this, that there is the danger of a precedent being set up for a division of property rights, which is an entirely different matter from a racial, occupational separation. That, as a matter of fact, is what has happened so far as the native people are concerned. Originally the Native Urban Areas Act simply provided for separate housing provision to be made out of public funds for the residents of native areas, and left untouched the property rights outside those schemes. That is what this Bill does; it provides for separate provision being made, and once a precedent like that has been set up in legislation it has been the experience of those of us who represent the native people in this country, that it is later used as a justification for entrenching upon the property rights of the weaker groups. I am not suggesting that the hon. Minister will do that. I know what his personal policy is in the matter, but at the same time it seems to me that he is creating a precedent here which hon. members on the Opposition side of the House will find very useful if they came into power and wanted to carry the matter any further. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has consulted any of the non-European organisations on this point. I see that he is setting up a commission of non-European people to advise him on matters affecting them. I am not now dealing with the merits of that step, but if such a commission has been set up, it seems to me that this would pre-eminently be a matter to submit to them. I feel that the provisions of Section 7 of this Bill do not go far enough, and on experience a clear case has been made out for the extension of these powers. Section 7 provides for some measure of compusion upon local authorities to provide for the housing of the populations under their jurisdiction, but it only provides for those compulsory powers in the circumstances set out in Section 11 of the Public Health Act. Section 11 provides—

and then certain powers come into play. Section 7 adds a new Sub-Section to Section 21 of the Housing Act, and provides—

In other words, powers of compulsion are only given where there is a report by a Public Health Inspector.

No, the chief health officer, and he is the Secretary for Public Health.

I am obliged to the Minister for the correction. Now, sir, it is not easy to say in advance how exactly this would be interpreted, but it seems to me that if the intention is, as I feel it should be, to compel the local authority to house its people in the proper manner, to the satisfaction of the Minister, that should be set out clearly.

Does it not follow as a necessary inference? The Secretary for Public Health is now given the power to coerce.

Yes, but only where he can definitely report that the public health is in danger, and I feel that the housing situation in a locality should not be allowed to come to the point at which public health is in danger, and I think the Minister ought to have powers to stop it reaching that point. That is why I feel that this power that the Minister is taking here, does not go far enough.

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

I move—

I did not have the opportunity yesterday in the time at my disposal to touch on all the points that we would like to bring to the notice of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. The next point to which I would like to refer is this: An English mother in Johannesburg wrote to me about her son in the air force—no matter how peculiar it may sound to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) that an English mother should write to this side of the House—and she raised this complaint, that when a boy in the air force meets with an accident then his parents, if they want the boy to be buried at his home, have to pay an extreme price on the railways for the transport of the body. I put a question on the Order Paper, and the reply to it came from the hon. Minister of Railways that the facts as mentioned by us are quite correct. It comes down to this, that such a parent, if he wants the body of his son who had died in the accident in order to bury it at home, then he must in the first place deposit £50 with the Railways and then pay 1s. per mile for the transport of the body. From the reply of the Minister of Railways one can deduce that what is said here by us is correct. The Minister then said that he would go into the matter and see what can be done. But now I want to ask the Right hon. member, if this is so, then there must probably be quite a few other cases where the parents had to pay this high sum, and I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will not institute an inquiry into these cases and ensure that that sum is repaid to the parents. That is the least we can do for those people. These people have indisputably given their lives for the cause in which they believe, and it is not right that the parents, when they want the bodies back, should pay an excessive price for the transport of the bodies. I must say that it came as a shock to me that such a thing should be possible. It is a shock to me to learn from the Minister of Railways that such a thing is possible in South Africa, that a parent who gave her son should pay excessively to get back her son’s body. The Minister of Railways said he would go into the matter, but my request to the Minister of Defence is this, that he should go into the matter, and if he finds that there are such cases where the parents must pay to get back the bodies of their children, that he should repay the money to them. I hope that he will give this assurance to the parents. That is the least we can do. The other point I want to raise is a broad one. We would like to have the assurance of the Right hon. member today that if matters go as he recently said it was probable they would go in the North, that the fighting according to him will come to an end later, that he will then make a plan about the troops. The number of troops that has been mentioned approximately as the number we have brought under arms is about 200,000. I am mentioning an approximate figure. I do not know how many of those 200,000 will go across the water to the armoured division, but in the event of the fight being concluded, then it is indisputable that a great number of troops will have to lie idle. There will be nothing for them to do. I readily accept that for certain purposes a number of persons in uniform will have to be retained in the North, and also in the Union. But I want to ask the Right hon. member if, in order to economise expenses in the country, he will not try to get us away from this £48,000,000 that is being asked on the Estimates, he will not give the country the assurance—the House will break up one of these days, and we may not again have the opportunity—that when matters in the North have been completed, as it was said recently that they would soon be completed, whether he will not then allow a large number of troops to return to their normal occupations; a large number of the troops will inevitably have to return to the Union, and we would like to know if he will not make a plan so that these people can return to their normal occupations. I do not want to go further into this point, because one of my hon. friends on this side has told me that he wants to speak more specifically on this point. The Right hon. member owes the country this assurance that we shall not have large numbers of people who will ultimately have nothing to do, and will yet walk about in uniform. If they are not necessary in the North, and if they are not needed in the Union, it is in the interests of the State that the expenditure should not accumulate as it is now accumulating.

As I said yesterday, it was not my intention to take part in this debate, but after the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has spoken, I feel it my duty to take part in this debate. And let me say this here, I am going to be like the widow with the unjust judge. I am going to persist until the hon. member for Kensington has withdrawn unreservedly that statement which he has made.

What will it help to withdraw it; he has said it.

It is important that a good spirit should be created in the army. We feel that one of these days we shall quite possibly be called upon to take that army over. [Laughter.]

You need not laugh about it. It can happen.

Yes, particularly if they go on like the hon. member for Kensington. After I gave my report on September 4, some places wanted to bind me. I said to them: Look here, friends, always take your hat off to a soldier, to any soldier who is in uniform, whether he is a Sap, or whether he is a Unionist, or whether he is a Labourite, or whether he is a Nationalist—it makes no difference. Let us have respect for a soldier. What you should do is to hate those persons who dragged our country into the war, but do not hate the soldier. It is said that we are fighting for democracy. Numbers of the soldiers in the army are relatives and friends of mine, and as soon as I receive a letter from them in which they reveal their grievances to me, then they are stigmatised as skunks by that member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). If they come to complain to me, then they are stigmatised as skunks in uniform. Do you know that numbers of my people have been killed in battle and are wounded, and if they write letters to me in which they inform me of their grievances, then they are thus stigmatised by that hon. member. It is my duty to defend them here. They are my friends and relatives who have sacrificed their lives, and how can the hon. member go and describe them as skunks in uniform? But what else can we expect of him. I must say I respect the judgment of the Prime Minister in not taking him into his Cabinet or not making him a judge. I sometimes thought that the Prime Minister was not doing right towards that hon. member, but now I see that the Prime Minister was right in not taking him into his Cabinet or making him a judge. This morning I sat with persons who had received medals. If the hon. member for Kensington had seen that, then he would of course have described them as skunks in uniform. They have done more on the battlefield than he has ever done. Here I have a letter from a soldier, and if I now produce that letter here, that man will be described as a skunk in uniform. And then we are fighting for democracy! I am the representative of many of those soldiers. It is their duty to come to me and it is my duty as their representative to submit their interests here in this House. Do you know what the object of that member is? He wants to drive a wedge between us and the soldiers.

He cannot succeed.

You know that I am sometimes wild, and you sometimes find it difficult to keep me in order, but I have never yet used that sort of words which the hon. member on the other side has used. Last year I got up here on this Vote and got the first turn. I felt my responsibility. If it should happen—I hope it will not happen—that I should become a frontbencher, then I must realise my responsibility, and not use that sort of expression and words here. Do you know what those Nationalists do in the camps? They get “Die Transvaler” surreptitiously. They are too afraid to be seen with it, and they surreptitiously give it to one another to read.

And they must fight for democracy.

Yes, they are told that they must fight for democracy, and then they are compelled to act in that way. I have said before that I have little belief in human beings, and I believe still less in a hypocritical human beings. I have here a letter from a man who describes himself as a farmer. He did not put the address on top. He says he does not want to hurt General Smuts, and that he has troubles enough. But he wants to bring to the attention of the Government the circumstances of those farmers of whom he is one. He says this, inter alia—

Those are the promises made to those farmers by the people on the other side. This man has been long at Voortrekkerhoogte, and those promises were made to him. Do you know what he writes further? They are obliged to sell their farming concerns, because they cannot get leave and go and look to their farming activities during the week-ends. They sell their farming concerns and buy a little house in the town. He writes that the result will be that after the war they will be saddled with the house, and their little farming concerns are destroyed. What is the Minister going to do with that class of person? Now if I bring forward this sort of thing, then those people are described as stinking skunks in uniform. That makes me recall that when the Union troops had the setback at Tobruk, it was probably that class of person like the member for Kensington who wanted to suggest that General Klopper had just surrendered.

Because he is an Afrikaner.

I presume that he was one of the people who said that treachery had been committed. [Time limit.]

It is with great hesitancy that I rise to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister this matter which I now want to discuss. The reasons for my hesitancy are the following: In bringing this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister, I feel sorry for the person who wrote to me concerning the matter, and for this reason. When an Afrikaans-speaking citizen who is in the army writes to anyone in the Opposition, he is branded as a skunk in uniform. I do not know what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) would think of anyone who is in the British army and who writes to us. This is a British officer who came to this country. In the second place I am hesitant because I feel that it will be of very little avail to raise this matter. The Prime Minister may take up the matter, but the particular object of this person was to give publicity to this position. I gave him the assurance that he need not think that it would receive publicity, or that it would be reported in the circles where it should be reported. This is a case which will certainly not find favour in military circles in South Africa, and still less overseas, and I feel convinced that the censor will see to it that it will not be mentioned outside. In any event, care will be taken that it is not brought to the notice of the authorities concerned. For that reason it is perhaps not advisable to raise the matter. But I do so at the specific request of the individual concerned. This person is a high British officer. When the war broke out, according to his letter, he immediately enlisted and did his duty. In the meantime he reached the age of 45 years, and as soon as he arrived in South Africa he was discharged. He does not complain about the fact that he was discharged. But his complaint is based on the fact that his treatment in the army was such that he is sorely disappointed that he ever enlisted. He joined up as a captain, but he did not receive the pay of his rank. He was paid according to a lower rank with the result that approximately £395 would be due to him, if he were to be paid according to his correct rank. He was sent to Abyssinia as a political officer, and he has it in writing that the assurance was given to him that in Abyssinia, because is it an unhealthy country, he would receive compensation by way of an allowance of 9s. to 11s. per day. He did not receive that. I do not want to enlarge on the details. According to the information which was given to me—and if it is not correct, I shall be glad if the Prime Minister will give me the correct information—there is an amount of approximately £700 owing to this person. He did not receive this money.

What has that to do with us?

I know that that hon. member does not like hearing things which hurt them. I shall explain what it has to do with us. The position is this, and I want to emphasise it in connection with this case. This will at the same time reply to the question of the hon. member. Every now and then members on the other side get up and they have a great deal to say about the treatment which will be meted out to soldiers when the war is over. There are hundreds and thousands of soldiers who are placed in this position, that they are discharged because they reach the age of 45 years. They find themselves in this position, that they are in necessitous circumstances even while the war is in progress. What confidence can they then have in promises which remain to be fulfilled after the war? It may be said that there are not many cases of this nature. In this connection, I want to quote from the “Daily Sketch.” It is clear that there is a great measure of bitterness in the minds of the officers concerned; and the following appeared in the “Daily Sketch”—[Re-translation]—

If this type of thing is allowed while the war is in progress, how can we expect these promises to be fulfilled when at some future date the war comes to an end? I did not raise this matter with a view to making political capital out of it. On the contrary, I was hesitant in raising it, because I felt that I might prejudice this person rather than benefit him by so doing. I do, however, want the Prime Minister to give his attention to this matter. It is true that this is something which falls under the British Government, but there are numbers of these people who come to this country, and if steps are not taken to see to it that they are treated correctly by their own Government, then at a later date we shall be saddled with them.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the serious dissatisfaction there is at the dispersal camp at Sonderwater. I am not at all sure whether this camp is at Sonderwater or near there, but a great many complaints have been made in the past in connection with the running of that camp and the way men have been treated there after having come back and waiting for dismissal from the service. On account of the regulations these men are detained for a certain time before they are fixed up or are allowed to leave the camp. Now I have heard a lot of complaints. I am not going to deal with complaints that I am not sure of, but I want to draw attention to complaints I have heard myself. I have one in connection with a man who had not only served through the Abyssinian campaign and had gone through Libya, but he had also served through the Great War. When he got to the dispersal camp he was not well—he was in a condition where he should have been invalided out, and the complaint he made was this—that he was treated by a noncommissioned officer, he was ordered to go on parade, and do sentry duty, although he was not in a fit condition to do so. I would ask the Minister to give his attention to complaints of that kind, and try and remove the dissatisfaction which exists in regard to the dispersal camp. I understand that men have been treated in a way which they don’t deserve, and when our men come back after having served their country and are then treated in that way, it is bound to create a good deal of ill-feeling. There is another matter I want to draw the Minister’s attention to—a matter I know of personally. It is the case of one of our men who was beyond Tobruk when it was taken, and who fought his way back to our fortress. Eventually he was sent back to the Union suffering from bad feet, and this was the treatment he received. He was put in a tent with the water coming through it, and he complained that men who had never seen service were given feather beds, whereas he had to sleep on the floor. I hope the Minister will give his attention to these matters, and see that these causes of discontent are removed.

I want to say a few words in connection with the camps for prisoners-of-war at Sonderwater. Approximately 70,000 Italian prisoners-of-war are detained there, and I must say that the camp made a particularly favourable impression on me when I visited it. I do not want to say that I am not at all in a position to pass judgment, because forty years ago it also fell to my lot to visit prisoner-of-war camps, but at that time inside the fence, and I must say that if I had no other choice, I would rather be detained in our prisoner-of-war camps than in those of forty years ago. The difference in favour of the present camp is appreciable. These camps are kept clean. The sanitary arrangements are particularly good. The food is excellent, and what one must particularly bear in mind is that the 70,000 prisoners-of-war are encouraged to do useful and sound work. The soul-deadening loneliness which accompanies detention in a prisoner-of-war camp has been reduced considerably. The discipline amongst prisoners-of-war too, is very good. I think we can all be proud of the fact that we in South Africa know how to treat the victims of the war in our camps. But, and it is a big “but”, the guards are soldiers who are armed with rifles, and they are coloured people. I do not want to be prejudiced against the coloured soldiers. But I must say this, that the impression which the guards made upon me is the opposite of the impression which the camp made upon me. It was definitely unfavourable. I noticed that the armed coloured guards, drilled as they should be, did not at all display the military discipline which one would have expected. They have no respect for their European officers, and there are all sorts of rumours in regard to their conduct and excesses. I do not know how much of that is true, but judging by what I personally saw, I am inclined to believe a little of it. I spoke to one of the senior officers and he told me: “Yes, here they don’t care, but when they’re on the battlefield, they’re excellent.” If that is the case, then I suggest that they be sent to the North. I understand that there a number of Moors participate in the battle on the side of the enemy; let them go and tackle the Moors. It will be good for them. It will be better for them than to be idle in the camps, causing trouble to their officers and other people. If the information which I received is correct, those troops receive £17 10s. in the case of married men and £15 in the case of single men. Why not engage some of our own aged citizens to stand guard at these camps? They could do it very well. Those prisoners-of-war are very tame, it seems to me. They are obedient and willing to subject themselves to the discipline of the camp. They do their work and they are well behaved. Why cannot some of our aged citizens guard them? There are many citizens in the Transvaal, the Free State and even in the Cape Province who know very well how to handle a rifle, much better than those coloured guards do. I can give the assurance to the Prime Minister that many of our old people would like to earn this £17 10s. They will carry out their duties in earnest and they will not be a nuisance to the people in the neighbourhood. They will not cause any of those troubles of which we hear today. My request is that the Prime Minister should bring about this alteration. A short while ago we heard the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) emphasising in this House that a great many of the “Oudstryders” were very badly off. Here is an opportunity for them to render better services to the State than are being rendered today, and to save themselves from the economic difficulties in which they find themselves.

A great deal of angry feeling and misconception has been aroused by certain remarks of mine yesterday afternoon in Committee.

You asked for it.

I hope I shall have the induldgence of my hon. friends opposite and freedom from interruption in referring to these remarks, and in telling hon. members exactly what I did say. In regard to the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) I don’t know whether he was here yesterday when I spoke. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman) almost rose in a state of passion.

I had good reason.

The hon. member was under a complete misconception of what I had said.

I know what you said, I was here. You called the soldiers “skunks”.

Is it not elementary justice that I should be allowed to defend myself without interruption. I have now got the transcript of my speech yesterday, unaltered by me, and what did I say? Let me read to the House and to the Committee what I did say—

[Interruptions.] Mr. Chairman, I sat perfectly quiet under attack, and I have the elementary right to reply. Now, what was the speech of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus)? If I understood it aright—I don’t always understand him correctly, but he will correct me if I am wrong—[interruptions]—I understood the hon. member to say that in one particular unit near Cape Town 300 men had been asked to take the oath, what he called the blue oath, and only fifteen had taken that oath, and then afterwards pressure of an illegitimate kind had been brought to bear, leave had been stopped or threatened to be stopped, and other pressure had been brought to bear, and then 50 of them took the oath. Now, I say that that is just the sort of information that Zeesen is looking for. It is just the sort of thing that should not be paraded in this House, and I say that the soldier or soldiers who took that information to the hon. gentleman, knowing that he was opposed to the war, opposed to this Government, did so with only one object, and that was to make trouble against this particular army, of which he is a member.

Skunks.

Wait a moment; I used that strong language, I felt at the time it was justified, but that language has now been twisted to mean that I said that any soldier in the army who goes to any member of the Opposition in this country —[interruptions.] The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) put that construction upon it, and I say that that was never intended by me—[interruptions.] Do my hon. friends want me to say this, either they want to try and start a political hare running, or they do not? [Interruptions.] Can I not even ask for a fair hearing after being attacked?

Not a man who is not a gentleman. [Interruptions.]

Look at those sportsmen. I sat quiet for three-quarters of an hour this afternoon, and I did not interrupt a word. I was challenged by the hon. member for Ventersdorp to get up and make an explanation, but his friends behind won’t let me. If there was anything that I said capable of a general construction, capable of an insult to our soldiers or even to my friends opposite, I at once disavow it. I expressed a very strong opinion about a particular individual or individuals who went to the hon. member for Moorreesburg with that particular secret information, secret military information, about the numbers who took the blue oath or refused to take it. [Interruptions.] I say again that was secret military information which they took to him. I say, sir, that no adjective in my vocabulary is strong enough for those gentlemen who took that secret information to the hon. member for Moorreesburg about the numbers who took this blue oath, but I refuse to have my words distorted into a general attack either upon hon. gentlemen opposite, or on our soldiers. What I said I will stand by in that particular instance. But to suggest that I was referring to my hon. friend the member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom), or my hon. friend, the member for Ventersdorp, my own friends—[interruptions.] When I come to my hon. friend, the member for Brits (Mr. Grobler), he went out of his way at Salt River twelve months ago and told the country that the hopes of his party were based on a German victory, and he ranged himself behind South Africa’s pro-Nazi No. 1, and I say that when he stands forward as the spokesman of the soldiers of South Africa, I wonder whether I am in a mad world or not.

I never said that.

My hon. friend does not deny that he nailed his flag to the Nazi flag pole twelve months ago.

I deny it.

Did my hon. friend never say that the hopes of his party depended on a Nazi victory.

No, I never said it.

I never saw the denial; when did the hon. member deny it?

On a point of explanation: I did not say that the attitude which we adopt in this House and in the country is dependent on a German victory. I want to explain that for once and all. I did say that the attitude which we adopt will be expedited by a German victory. That is something quite different. I clearly said at the meeting concerned, which was wrongly reported, that the attitude we adopt will be expedited by a German victory. And what is more, I added: “even if Germany were to lose, the attitude we adopt will continue, because it is the only attitude which can serve as antipode against the Communistic standpoint.”

I am glad to hear what the hon. member has said. What he says now is that he told the public of South Africa that the political cause for which they stood would be hastened by a German victory. Well, do you wonder that I have been indignant to think that a soldier serving our cause, fighting on our side, should go to him with his grievances. Of course I felt indignant, and I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will understand that indignation. I repeat I have nothing to withdraw in regard to my language in regard to the particular soldier. That is the phrase I used.

No, you did not.

Nonsense. [Interruptions.]

I will read it again—

Tales, I repeat, which revealed secret military information and which will no doubt be heard from Zeesen tonight.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has very probably heard of the judgment which a judge gave a few years ago in the Transvaal court, when the judge, referring to the defendant in the case, said: “It was tragic to see the defendant struggling with the truth.” I think you will agree that we in this House have never yet seen a more tragic exhibition that that given by the hon. member for Kensington as he struggled with the truth.

On a point of order, may the hon. member say that the hon. member is lying here?

Of course, what do you know about it?

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) did not use such language.

From this morning until this afternoon bets have been contracted left and right through the lobby and the passages that before the day is over the hon. member for Kensington will come to the House with his tail between his legs to ask the pardon of the soldiers. If you have ever seen anything with tail between the legs, then you saw it here this afternoon. All this struggling with the truth, and all these excuses, cannot save the hon. member from the swamp in which he has landed himself. We sat here, and you, Mr. Speaker, also sat here, and we all heard him use the words, more or less: “That the soldiers who go with their grievences to members of the Opposition are skunks in uniform”. As the hon. member put it yesterday, he did not use the singular, but he spoke of “skunks in uniform”.

I have the words here.

I refer to the “Cape Times” report.

This is Hansard.

I refer to the “Cape Times” report which interpreted it that those who go with complaints to us must be “skunks in uniform”.

The “Burger” report says the same.

I am glad that the hon. member accepts the “Burger’s” report as correct, but even the report which the hon. member for Kensington has quoted can clearly have only one meaning and that is that the person who brings his complaints to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) is a “skunk”, and the hon. member mentioned this as an example. What is the difference between a person who goes to the hon. member for Moorreesburg, and all the other persons who go to members of the Opposition. It is self-evident that all the others who come with the same sort of complaints in the same circumstances are also “skunks”. If the hon. member for Kensington now wants to indicate that he referred to this case, and to only this case, then he is a tragic figure who is struggling with the truth. I think I can leave him there. I only hope that he will now go and address a meeting of soldiers. I will take a bet that he will not do so. He will not have the courage after the report in the “Cape Times”.

Will you do it?

It is not necessary for me to address a meeting of soldiers. Where soldiers are in my audience, they are quite welcome. Any hon. member can read the report in the “Cape Times”. Let the hon. member submit it to his colleagues who are sitting there next to him. Ask them what their opinion was of what the hon. member said. Is there one of them who will say that we have given an unfair interpretation of the words of the hon. member for Kensington? Let him ask his own colleagues, particularly his English-speaking colleagues, what opinion they expressed of him yesterday afternoon in the lobby. For that reason there were all these bets that before the day is out the hon. member for Kensington would come to ask pardon with his tail between his legs. I leave him there. I would like to bring something else to the attention of the Prime Minister. In March last year the Voortrekkers of Pretoria West wanted to camp out. The Voortrekkers is a movement under Afrikaans-speaking leaders that occupies the same place that the Girl Guides and Boy Scouts occupy among the English-speaking section. The Voortrekker schoolchildren movement in Pretoria West last year applied to the Department of Defence for permission to camp out. You would hardly believe it, but the following discourteous reply was sent to them by the Secretary for Defence—

That is all. They apply for permission to camp out as they have done every year. Without any reason being given as to why the permission cannot be granted, it is simply refused. The Voortrekker movement may not camp out over the Easter week-end. The Prime Minister knows that in the same period permission was never withheld from the Boy Scouts or from the Girl Guides, and it was even never refused to the kaffir pathfinders to camp out in accordance with the old custom. Thereafter the parents of the children by way of protest drafted a letter which they sent to me to submit to the Prime Minister, in which disapproval is expressed not only of this, but in which the Prime Minister is also respectfully requested to allow the children to camp out as Voortrekkers in the old way, and this was the reply which the Prime Minister sent me—

Here is not a case where the Prime Minister can shift off the blame on the secretary of his department or on a subsidiary official, because it is said here that the Prime Minister has carefully considered the matter. Then it is said further—

The Prime Minister thus says that there is no desire to withhold from the Afrikaner movement what is granted to the English-speaking organisation, and yet that privilege of the Voortrekker movement to camp out is withheld. Now the Prime Minister says in his letter that the police did not recommend that the application must be granted. One must accept that the Voortrekkers of Pretoria West are a subversive organisation and that the survival of the British Empire depends upon whether children can camp out or not. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, presumably the vote under discussion includes the maintenance of our newly created South African Navy. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the creation of this South African Navy, and I wish to congratulate the personnel of that navy on the wonderful achievements they have already attained; they have already established quite a proud record. It is felt, Mr. Chairman, that this creation of our shadow navy may be only a temporary measure, but we hope it has come to stay, and that this navy of ours will be a permanent force. No defence of this country can be complete unless we have some ships and some means of making the coastal defence effective. I want so say also that the navy will be an additional outlet for our youth as an avenue of employment. Both the white races here have maritime traditions, and I hope this part of our wartime activities will become a permanent thing. I would like the Prime Minister to know how much the country welcomes this establishment of a navy. It is a dream come true, and I think the country is prepared to maintain its navy at the full strength of which it is capable.

There is one matter I would like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister, and that concerns the Italian prisoners of war made available to farmers and others. I would like the Prime Minister to give us better facilities and better terms. On account of the native labour shortage on the Platteland we are compelled to make use of Italian prisoners of war, but there are considerable difficulties. I myself have made application and the authorities were friendly when I applied. I got all the particulars, and they sent the conditions under which the prisoners of war are provided, but as soon as I made application I was told curtly that the application cannot be granted. Even to this day I do not know what the reason is.

When was that?

A few months ago, or I think a little longer, just before we came down. I do not know if the Minister knows how bad the labour scarcity on the Platteland is. Many, of our farmers can produce more if they can get the labour. I understand that persons who employ the Italian prisoners of war are very satisfied with them. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he cannot give us better terms. Cannot he abolish the guarantee? I understand that it is now reduced from £9 to £5. Abolish it completely, and let the State provide these people with clothes. If they remain in the camps the State has to provide them with clothing in any case. Let us only pay their wages and provide them with food.

Mr. Chairman, we have frequently been told about the money which has been wasted on the acquisition of land and buildings for defence purposes. It may be that on two or three occasions more has been spent than was necessary, but I think it will be of interest to the whole country if the Minister of Defence will give us some information on the great amount of money that has been saved to the State by the acquisition of land and buildings for defence purposes either entirely free of charge, or else merely in exchange for some token payment. I think if that information could be given us, we shall find that the amount that has been saved is very considerable, and that will do a great deal to allay some of the accusations that have come from the other side regarding the amount of money which has been wasted in land and buildings purchased. I think it will be of absorbing interest if the Minister can give us information on that score. Now, I should very much like to bring to the notice of the Minister a matter which I think deserves his attention, and that is in regard to our non-European army services. I am very definitely of the opinion that these services have now become so vast that it is no longer possible to control them under one directorate. The time has arrived when the non-European army services should be divided into two sections, one for the coloured and one for the native soldiers. I think that is essential if proper justice is to be done to both sections of our non-European fighting force. There is a very definite Native Affairs complex about the non-European army directorate, and I doubt very much whether the coloured side of it is really receiving that share of attention which it deserves. I am of opinion that the native section is also suffering, because the whole force is treated as one, and it is too large for any one organisation to control. The time has arrived, it is indeed long past, when the whole of the directorate should be overhauled and a separation of the coloured and native sides effected. I am certain that as a result of that you would have not only a great improvement in the efficiency of the service, but you would do a great deal to allay causes of dissatisfaction, which undoubtedly exist.

I referred just now to the Pretoria West Voortrekkers and the refusal to give them permission to camp out. Now I want to ask if I must deduce from the reply of the Prime Minister that the Girl Guides and the Boy Scouts are now looked upon as movements that support the Government in its war, and I would like to know if they have now become political movements, but that the Voortrekker movement may not be allowed to camp out because it must hold itself aloof from politics? Is it because they do not support the Government’s war effort that the children may not be allowed to camp out and to drill? I would like the Prime Minister to give his attention to this matter once again. I cannot believe that what stands in this letter is correct. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister has really considered this matter and that he has really written these things. I want to assume that there is a mistake somewhere, because to me it is simply far-reaching that it is said here on behalf of the Prime Minister that the other movements form part of the Government’s war effort, and that because the Voortrekkers do not form part of the Government’s war effort these privileges and rights are withheld from them on that account. May I further just remind the Right Hon. the Prime Minister that the Governor General is the patron of the Voortrekker movement, and may I also remind him that he personally is also a patron of the Voortrekker movement. And may I ask him them, in view of those facts alone, whether he can persist in his standpoint that the little Voortrekkers will in future not be allowed to camp out from time to time or to hold drill exercises, but that the kaffirs may do this, that the Pathfinders may do this, that the Boy Scouts may do this, that the Girl Guides may do this and that even other movements in the country may do this. I want to make a serious appeal to the Prime Minister. I have now again received a letter from the parents of these children in Pretoria West. I want to ask the Prime Minister again to consider this matter afresh and to ensure that this unfair discrimination shall not continue. If some official or other in the Department of Defence has made a mistake, if some official or other has blundered by taking this line of action, then I ask the Prime Minister not to protect that official ad infinitum, but that he should now extend permission to those people to camp out and to hold their drilling exercises. I want to make a very serious appeal to the Prime Minister not to allow these conditions to continue. I want to ask him to put a stop to these conditions, and then I want to express the hope that he will give immediate instructions to his department and to the police, whoever is responsible for this unreasonable discrimination, to put a stop to this state of affairs. Now there is another question which I want to bring to the attention of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. I would like to know from him whether officers of the National Volunteer Brigade, in their capacity of officers, are entitled to arrest civilians and to treat civilians in the way in which this person concerned was treated. The person’s name is Mr. M. J. Smuts. Perhaps it will immediately soften the heart of the Hon. Prime Minister. He is from Vereeniging. His address is 37, Stanley Avenue. It happened to him. He is in the service of the firm of Stewarts and Lloyds of Vereeniging. He is a surveyor and he is employed by that firm. He is employed by them in the clerical department. Another official of Stewarts and Lloyds with the name of Mr. Reid, is a major in the National Volunteer Brigade. On a certain day Mr. Reid caused this Mr. Smuts to be called to his office. I now want to read out to the Hon. the Prime Minister in Mr. Smuts’s own words, as he reported it to the Adjutant-General of Defence Headquarters. He wrote—

This Mr. Smuts is not a member of the National Volunteer Brigade. He is called to the office of Mr. Reid in his capacity as a member of the staff of Stewarts and Lloyds. He writes further—

This is a portion of the letter which this Mr. Smuts wrote to the Adjutant-General, Defence Force Headquarters, Pretoria, to lodge a protest against the fact that he, a civilian person in the employ of that firm, was virtually placed under arrest by an officer of the National Volunteer Brigade in this manner. Now you would expect that after this protest a proper investigation would be instituted into the action of this Mr. Reid. But what is the reply that Mr. Smuts got? It is this. The letter dated 23rd June, 1942, and it reads as follows—

I would like the Prime Minister to give his attention to this aspect of the matter. Mr. Smuts submitted these complaints. No investigation is instituted. No single person comes to him or to Vereeniging to institute an investigation into the matter. No, the only reply he gets is this—

I ask this House, and I ask the Prime Minister, if in all his life he has ever heard of a greater prostitution of justice than this, that the ex parte statement and denial of the accused is simply accepted in this case without the complainant in this case ever getting the opportunity to submit his case, without any investigation being instituted? It is simply said: “As the allegations made by you are in the main denied by Major Reid, therefore we are not going to take any further steps.” Mr. Smuts went further into the matter. He addressed a further letter to the Adjutant-General, and the second reply which he got, dated January 2nd, 1943, reads as follows—

In this case also I would like to ask the Prime Minister to go into the matter. To push aside a complaint that is submitted in this manner, where the freedom of the person is concerned, and to accept the ex parte statement of the officer without instituting an investigation is a prostitution of justice and the country. I would like to know from the Right Hon. the Prime Minister if he approves of that sort of action on the part of people who are not even in the Permanent Force, and who have no authority over the civilian persons in that neighbourhood. It perhaps may be good if the Right Hon. the Prime Minister notes the kind of questions which Mr. Reid put to Mr. Smuts, questions concerning his neighbours, questions about what his wife does, and questions of a domestic and personal nature, which I cannot look upon other than as a disgrace that persons should be allowed to overwhelm civilians in this manner, and then when these persons lodge complaints the department should simply shrug its shoulders and refuse to institute an investigation, and that they should allow officers in their service to play the mighty gentleman against civilians.

I am not going to maintain that I am right, but I do suggest that the amount of military travelling on our Railways on duty could be reduced. I am not now referring to men travelling on leave and returning from leave, but men and women transferred from one centre to another for some special training which might be given at one centre. I had in mind that during the last Session when I was here I met three young girls from Johannesburg who had joined up. They had come to Cape Town for three weeks for some special course of training and they were leaving for Durban for another three weeks special training, after which they were being returned to Pretoria. That is to say they had to go to three points in the Union, the three points which are farthest away from each other. I have now in front of me a case which I am going to present to the Defence Department where a man who had joined up, went through the Abysinnian campaign, was severely wounded, brought back to Natal, operated on two or three times, and was eventually found a job in a military office in Natal. He was a solicitor in private life, and he was given a job where his legal experience was of use to the army. The centre where he was employed was his home town, and his wife’s home, and suddenly, without reason, he was ordered to report to George in the Cape Province. I suppose someone will have to be transferred to Natal now to do the job which he was doing. So I suggest that there is quite a lot of unnecessary military travelling both for training purposes and for the purpose of transfer. I suggest that if the Defence Department overhauled its offices a bit it could reduce the amount of travelling. Apart from that, I have nothing but admiration for the way in which the Defence Department is conducting affairs under very difficult circumstances. We started from scratch and we have built up a very fine army, an army which is second to none. We are in the process of improving the conditions of that army, and I believe that when the Government has considered the various recommendations which are coming both from its own Committees and from members and from the men themselves, our army will be one of the best and the envy of the world, and I pay this tribute to it for the simple reason that where-ever we go, whosoever we meet, we find nothing but praise for the efficiency and the smartness and the intelligence of the men who make up our South African army—our Springboks. No praise could be greater than that which is showered on our army by men from outside South Africa, and I think it is only due to them that that praise should be voiced in this House, both for the benefit of the men themselves and their relatives, and that a due meed of appreciation should be shown. I am sure that no one, whether he be opposed to the war, or whether he be in favour of the continuation of the war, can point a finger to any part of our South African army and say it has fallen short of what we had expected of it.

The sum of money under this Vote amounts to the colossal sum of £48,000,000. The question arises with us on this side whether it is still necessary to maintain this accelerated and colossal pace in view of the fact that war circumstances in our opinion have greatly changed. Two years ago—even shorter than that—there was a menace from Abyssinia, as the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister represented it. There was the danger, as represented, in Egypt. Today the position is that the Continent of Africa is clean, that Abyssinia is clean, that Egypt is clean and that even Tripolitania is clean. The forces of the enemy are restricted today to a small portion of the Continent of Africa, and yet it appears to us that the Government is busy sacrificing colossal sums of money belonging to South Africa at an accelerated pace. The question arises, if South Africa proceeds with this war at that pace, whether the accusation will not ultimately be thrown at our heads that we are busy committing aggression. We on these benches would be the last to ask that the Government should not immediately arrange the defence of South Africa to perfection in these days of commotion and therefore we do not identify ourselves with the request that insufficient money should be made available purely for the defence of the Union. For this reason it appears to us that this amount of £48,000,000 that is being asked is too much in view of the size of the population and in view of the sacrifice that South Africa has already made in man-power and in other material directions. Consequently I want to propose that this amount be reduced by £20,000,000. I move—

I did not want to speak on this Vote, but since I take very great interest in the defence of our country, I think that it is right that I should also say something. I am afraid that my hon. friends on the other side will expect me to say certain things, but I shall not do so. I shall leave that in more capable hands. I want to say, however, that I am surprised at the motion of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) to the effect that we must now reduce this Vote from £48,000,000 to £28,000,000. The hon. member has apparently forgotten that we are continually supplementing from the rear that portion of our defence which we had to send to the North, and that there are large coastal areas which must be protected and guarded, and even those parts which were conquered must still be protected. We do not know in which direction the war may later develop. We cannot therefore at this stage withdraw a portion of our troops from the North, because at a later date it may prove necessary to send them back again. The conveyance of troops involves great expenditure. It costs a great deal of money to move them to and fro. I should like to remove a few misunderstandings which exist here. I was not in the House the other day when the newspaper in the North was attacked. I refer to the newspaper which is known as the “Springbok.” I have the paper in front of me. It is not a secret paper; anyone may read it. It is a non-political paper. It only contains news of the country which is published to our soldiers in English as well as in Afrikaans.

Do you tell the soldiers about the double salaries which you draw here?

No, we only tell them about the foolish remarks which are passed here.

That I believe. It will be a one-sided report.

My hon. friend is in dreamland. It was said here by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) that certain newspapers were not allowed in the camps. I have probably been in the camps more often and have probably had more to do with the camps than any member on the other side, and I can give the assurance to the hon. member that I personally have sent Afrikaans newspapers to the various messes. They got “Die Volkstem,” “Die Vaderland,” “Die Burger” and any English newspaper which they wanted. It was never prohibited. I personally sent newspapers to the various messes. When they wanted them, they could get them. I visited the camps and I found newspapers in the messes of the men as well as in the messes of the officers. I can assure you that every man has the right when he goes to town or when the goes out in the evening, to buy any newspaper he wants. We never prevented him from doing it. Even at Kafferskraal and Sonderwater I personally saw these newspapers everywhere. I cannot understand where hon. members get the information that the troops may read only certain newspapers. That is not the position at all. Every man can read what he wants to. We distributed newspapers ourselves. I went so far as to get native newspapers and to distribute them amongst the natives.

I can believe that.

I am very sorry that my hon. friends on the other side now want to let the world know that they are the champions of the soldier, and that they are now trying to create the impression that after the war they will see to it that the soldier gets something. I can assure you that I have the greatest respect for everyone of our soldiers, because in the social sphere many of them are better than we are, and I have the greatest respect for the sacrifices those people make. I can assure you that I and my Division take the greatest interest in the men, that we take greater interest in the men than in the officers. When I visit my men in their messes and at other places, in their kitchens and everywhere else, I converse with them and I know what their feelings are. In so far as complaints are concerned, I want to tell my hon. friend that I too was a soldier, and I believe that when a soldier is idle and he has no grievances, then he is not a soldier, but as long as that soldier fights, you will never hear him voicing grievances. But when he is idle in camp and there are inciters who hold out other policies to him, then he is often inclined to accept them. But I am quite convinced of the fact that the Government will see to it that those returned soldiers are treated properly. In so far as leave is concerned, I think that hon. members on the other side who had boys in my division, know that I assisted them in obtaining agricultural leave, and there is no one who can say that it was made impossible for him to obtain agricultural or week-end leave. Then there is another point which was raised by the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler). He spoke here of an officer with the rank of captain who did not get a captain’s salary. I can assure the hon. member that there are hundreds in the country at the moment who hold the rank of captain and who do not receive a captain’s pay. They wear three pips on their shoulders but they do not get the salary of a captain. When they come from England and serve here for a certain time, they cannot expect to receive the full salary of a captain. My hon. friends on the other side are supposed to take such great interest in the soldiers today. But did they assist us in recruiting the soldiers? No, they called the soldiers khaki pests. But now that they know that the Springboks are returning, they want to catch votes, and now they promise to do anything for the soldier. But if they really take an interest in the soldier, why then do they object to the policy of the Minister of Agriculture to reserve Crown lands until the soldiers return? And if they take such great interest in our soldiers, why did they not assist us to obtain better pay for the soldiers? No, they refused. I am sorry that they did not assist us in obtaining better pay for the soldiers. I feel, therefore, that it is my duty today to enlarge on certain things and I want to assure the House that I have the greatest respect for every soldier who was prepared to sacrifice his life for this country.

I think the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) is under a misapprehension. I did not say that the newspapers were not admitted. I said very clearly that the Nationalists, the people with Nationalist feelings, were afraid to read those papers. They are afraid that others will see them. I never said that the papers were stopped from coming in. I want to remove that misunderstanding.

What reason have they to be afraid?

Well, they are afraid. Then the hon. member said that as soon as a soldier in the army had nothing to do, one could expect trouble. In other words that means that a large section of the army is doing nothing at the moment—that is what we find to be the position today, and why should they have nothing to do? There are any number of our people in the army who are anxious to return to their farms. I have a letter here which I should like to quote a few lines from—

Why does not the Minister of Defence give those people leave to go to their farms? The Afrikaner does not take as long as other people do to fit himself to go to the fighting line, and if he has had six months training he will be quite able to go. The Prime Minister could give those people leave, and as soon as he thinks he needs them he could call on them again. We have very little information and we do not know what all this money is being spent for. Aeroplanes, aerodromes, guns and so on, are mentioned here, but we do not know how much money is being spent for all these things. We know that there are about 200,000 people in the army. If they get £200 or £250 per year as an average, then it means £50,000,000 for salaries only. To my mind we are not going to win this war by the number of soldiers we have. I am convinced that the war will be won by weight of war material. In other words, it is the air force, the big guns and the tanks which have to score the victories. According to the summary before us only a small proportion of the money is being spent on materials and equipment. Personally I think that it would be much better to let half these soldiers go on leave—put them on reserve. Take this money and spend it on equipment to arm the soldiers properly so that they can hold their own. According to the reports that have reached us there have only been two divisions up North. That means that we have had about 40,000 soldiers on the battlefields up North. So that we would have about 140,000 here in the Union. What are they doing here? They are being paid. Rather take all that money and spend it on better equipment. I feel that the Minister of Justice is not treating us fairly. He could have detailed how much money is intended for salaries, how much for equipment, how much for the air force—but he gives us no information. He does not take us into his confidence. Let him give us confidence, and create confidence, but he does not do so. I am very much concerned to see money being wasted like that. Take our fortification works. We are unable to see how much money is being spent on those. In principle I am opposed to fixed fortifications. South Africa is too large for us to have such fortifications here. Everything should be mobile and movable. We should be able to chase from one end to the other. It is no use having large fortifications here near Cape Town to defend the town. If the enemy came near the town and started bombarding the town it would be the end of Cape Town. Cape Town must be defended from far away. We must stop them a long way out at sea and that means that we must spend money on our air force instead of spending it on fortifications and big guns near the town. That is my opinion. Now I want to say a few words about the soldiers. Let me say this, that hon. members opposite are twisting us and ridiculing us because we are pleading the cause of the soldiers today, while we did not do so in the past. But that is what hon. members opposite say. Not one of them has been able to prove from Hansard that we on this side of the House have ever said anything against the soldiers. It is nothing but loose talk from the other side of the House, and not one of them has got up so far and has convinced us by quoting from Hansard that Jacob Wilkens said this, that or the other. Our sympathies have always been with the soldiers. Why? There are many Afrikaners, Nationalists and true, upright Afrikaners, who have been forced directly and indirectly by their chiefs to join up. Are we to have no feelings, are we to be out of sympathy with those Afrikaners who have been dragged into the war in that way? Is it not our duty to plead the cause of those Afrikaners who have been dragged into the war in this way? And now hon. members say that we refuse to serve on the Select Committee. No, they wanted to get us on that Select Committee, but let them go and serve on it themselves, and if they treat those people unfairly, then we can criticise them here. We want to scrutinise everything here, and we don’t want to do things behind closed doors. It has also been stated that we have never had a good word to say for our soldiers. What I said here I have also said outside, and I am prepared to say it anywhere, and that is that nowhere in the world, especially so far as the war in the air is concerned, will one get a better soldier than the South African. We are accustomed here to the wide, open spaces. We have the free air above us, and that is why the Afrikaner is better able than anyone else to fight in the air. That is my view. Can hon. members say that we have ever said anything against the Afrikaner, that we have ever alleged that he would not be a good soldier? Let hon. members look at my last speech. They will see there that we have never thrown mud, but I want to do a bit of it now, though not against the Afrikaners. Sometime ago we read in the papers that numerous Afrikaners had been killed up North. We wonder how many of them were killed as the result of the incompetency of their officers? [Time limit.]

I really doubted this afternoon when listening to the debate, whether I was still in Parliament or not. Having listened for nearly four years, when this vote was under discussion, to the way in which the Defence Force was slandered and attacked, to the slander and denunciation heaped on the Defence Force and on our soldiers, I was surprised to listen to the speeches made by members opposite today, and I ask myself this question: Is that still the same Opposition? Is the Opposition still following the same policy as they followed in the past? They have suddenly changed their policy since they have heard of the elections, in exactly the same way as year upon year and month upon month they have consistently altered their policy as they have gone along.

Give us any example to show where we have slandered the soldiers.

It absolutely astonished me to listen to the speeches this afternoon to hear how the soldiers who had been described as everything that was low and mean were being defended by the Opposition in the violent language used by them.

What you say is untrue; we have never attacked the soldiers.

Our soldiers were stigmatised as the “Red Tabs” and as the scum of the earth.

Where was that done?

Both in this House and outside this House the soldiers were always referred to with the greatest contempt. They were ridiculed and howled down, and that is not all. Outside, on the platteland, they were persecuted, and in the towns as well, they were knocked about, stones and bricks were thrown at them—and we even had cases where they were killed. Yes, and that all for the sole reason that they were in uniform. And today we are to be told by those self-same persons who have never had a good word for the soldiers that they are here today to defend the soldiers—they are standing up for the soldiers who have now suddenly become heroes in their eyes—the self-same soldiers who in the past were described as the greatest rubbish and the scum of the earth. If those members are really so concerned about our soldiers, if they are really so well disposed towards the soldiers as they want to make us believe, then I want to put this question to them: What have they done throughout this whole war to help our various war funds? Have any of them on any occasion appeared either in this House or outside the House wearing any of these badges to show that they have made a contribution of some kind towards those funds for gifts and comforts for the soldiers? It’s quite easy to juggle with words now, and to try and make others believe that they are really good Afrikaners, and that they want to look after the interests of the Afrikaners—now that they find that there is going to be a General Election. It is all very well now to try and get the votes of the soldiers. But where is the proof? Let hon. members prove that they are well disposed towards the soldiers, or that they were well disposed towards them. And that is not all. When Tobruk fell, the occasion was celebrated by hon. members opposite as though it constituted a severe defeat for the enemy. It was a scandal. I saw it with my own eyes, and if I had done the right thing I should have reported it. It was stated openly that our country would be better off without the people who had been captured at Tobruk than with them. And now those hon. members come here and pose as the champions of the soldiers. There is only one test of true patriotism and love of one’s mother country, and that is to honour one’s great men. There is no better test of patriotism. And in what way do hon. members opposite render homage and honour to our great men? Is there any need for me to delve into history? Need I remind the House of the treatment accorded to the late Gen. Botha or the late Gen. Hertzog? Need I remind the House of the way they have treated Gen. Smuts? I can go back further in our history. We have honoured them all. Those who have gone to their graves, we have honoured them even after they have gone to their graves, but have they been honoured by the Opposition? No, in this House we have been told on previous occasions that we are fighting for Haile Selassie. We have been told that the men wearing the red tabs are fighting to put Haile Selassie on his throne. That is what the Opposition have been saying. Now, they have no more to say about Haile Selassie. Now we are told that we are fighting for Communistic Russia and Stalin.

And it is so.

I take off my hat, like the Prime Minister, to Stalin, because through the instrumentality of those thousands of Russian soldiers who have died for their mother country on the Russian plains, whose blood has drenched the soil of their mother country for the sake of the freedom of their existence and their liberty, and for the sake of the freedom of other nations, the future freedom of the world has been assured. We admire Holland, Belgium, Norway, and Greece—we admire the people of those countries who have fought and died for their mother country, but we certainly do not admire the Quislings and the Musarts. Let my hon. friends opposite be honest and prove not by words in this House, but by actions that they are concerned not merely with the votes of the soldiers, but also with the welfare of those soldiers who are prepared to make the greatest sacrifice any man can make in the service of his mother country—men who are prepared to serve in the army, and if necessary to die for their country, and for their honest and sacred convictions.

I find it very difficult to say anything after having listened to the speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). I would rather not say anything about him and follow my own course. I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) on behalf of the Afrikaner Party.

Which is defunct already.

I am afraid my hon. friend is politically defunct. We have moved that this colossal amount of £48,000,000 be reduced by £20,000,000. I wish to contribute a few ideas and a few reasons for the amendment in addition to those already mentioned by the hon. member for Hoopstad. I want to point out to the Prime Minister that in 1940-’41 we voted an amount of £54,000,000; in 1941-’42 an amount of £80,000,000, and in those two years, and even last year, when the estimates were under consideration, we always took up the attitude that we should watch the Government in the course it had taken, seeing that the Prime Minister had said that the Union forces were going to attend to matters in Africa. The great fight in Africa has now practically come to an end. The hon. member for Frankfort (Maj.-Gen. Botha) has explained to us what is involved by our troops being on guard. But surely those duties cannot entail the huge expenditure involved in a full and active campaign. The active campaign conducted in the past must necessarily have cost more money than it is going to cost if we only have to guard our shores and the territory where we have been fighting. In that sense alone we consider that it will be unnecessary and unjustifiable to vote a larger amount than we did last year, but I go further. After the resolution passed by this House on the motion of the Prime Minister that our troops can go and fight outside of Africa we consider that if they do fight outside Africa in another war zone, it is fair to expect that if they fight for England, if they help England or America, England or America should bear the full expense of the expedition beyond the borders of Africa. Our contention therefore is that this amount is excessive and cannot be justified. Now I want to prove that point from a different aspect. I have here Proclamation No. 344 of the 20th February of this year, and in this Proclamation I notice in regard to non-European military service that the men serving in that particular corps will be regarded as being married if for a period of two years before joining up they have lived with a woman as man and wife, or if, before joining up, they have lived as man and wife with the mother of their children. The Prime Minister will agree when I say that many of these non-Europeans do not have only one wife. Take the position of the natives. A native who has joined up has perhaps three or four wives. Whether there are dependants or not such non-Europeans who are married will be paid £17 10s. plus rations and quarters, and the unmarried will get £15 plus rations and quarters. At first glance it seems unfair to the married native that he should get £17 10s. while the unmarried one gets £15. But it seems to me that we are not keeping the purse strings as tightly as they should be kept. I think it is unnecessary to pay a non-European soldier an allowance of £17 10s. per month if he is married, and £15 if he is single. That being the case we cannot possibly understand the course that is being followed by the Defence Department, as it practically means forcing the country into this position, that the expenses will grow heavier and heavier every day through more and more money being taken from the population merely by the cry: “There is a war on”. I say that it is impossible to follow the Department along that course. It is the duty of the Opposition to remind the Government even during war time that it is its duty to keep its hand on the purse strings, wherever it can be done. Nobody on this side is going to say to the Government that they should not arm their troops properly, but what we fail to understand is this: That while the sphere of war in which we are concerned is getting smaller, more people are continually being recruited. Even women are being recruited today, according to the newspaper reports, for the purpose of handling anti-aircraft. There are masses of soldiers, and we fail to see why more and more should be recruited for the war. If we continue to go on in that way we shall eventually find that there will be nobody left in civilian life to attend to the machinery of State and to keep the administration of the country going. Everybody has to be in the army. I feel that the amendment is fully justified and that we should tell the Government to go slowly. The position in this country is getting worse and worse. Economically we are weaker today than we were last year and we shall continue to become weaker economically, while on the other hand our expenditure will go up more and more.

Very briefly I should like to say a few words in reply to what the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) has said. I do not know whether hon. members opposite really fail to understand our position in regard to the soldiers; do they really know as little about our attitude as the hon. member opposite seems to do? Let me repeat for his edification that we are bitterly opposed to the war. We are opposed to the war, and as we have repeatedly said we believe that it is a war which has been started not in the interest of South Africa but in the interest of another country, and we feel that not a solitary Afrikaner ought to give his blood for a war with which we have no concern. But we do regard those who have gone as a great deal more brave than the home fronters who sit here and who encourage others to go while they themselves fail to go. And when the rights of the soldiers are tampered with we shall be the people, as we were of the last war, who from this side of the House will have to see to it that justice is done to the soldier, and that effect is given to the promises made to them. I want to bring a few points to the Prime Minister’s notice. When I speak about these matters I speak about things which may be taken up wrongly. Personally I don’t care how they are taken up, so long as I may do some good by raising them. We put some questions to the Government about drunkenness among soldiers arriving here in Cape Town, and the Minister of Justice replied that the behaviour of those troops was good. But if large numbers of troops arrive in Cape Town and 200, or even 100 of them do not behave well, we quite realise the nuisance they create and the resentment their behaviour causes in our streets. I can say this, that even English papers agree with us that something should be done to improve the objectionable conditions in the streets of Cape Town. Let me mention a few incidents which occurred here. I don’t want to talk about anything that is sub-judice. At Mossel Bay there is a large camp and we know that there have been disturbances there, and that those disturbances occurred since the Prime Minister replied to my question. I know that that case is coming before the courts, so I do hot propose to go into the merits, nor am I referring at this juncture to the incident at Oudtshoorn. I spoke about the incident when a soldier used firearms on a train. The Prime Minister said he knew nothing about that, but if he would ask the Minister of Justice, the latter would be able to give him some information. The Prime Minister thereupon explained to me what the circumstances were in which a soldier was allowed to carry firearms. I want to point out to him, however, that there are soldiers walking round the streets armed with bayonets while being under the influence of liquor. When an individual or a number of soldiers walk about with bayonets and they are under the influence of liquor they become a danger to the community—nobody can deny that. There were assaults committed at Mossel Bay when a railway accident happened. I am speaking subject to correction and if I am mistaken the Prime Minister will no doubt correct me. But it has been stated that those soldiers on the train were under the influence of liquor. Now I should like to put this question to the Prime Minister, and I am doing so in the spirit of a request on behalf of everybody—and I ask him whether it is not possible, when a large number of soldiers go to a particular place, to apply a sort of coupon system in regard to the supply of liquor. I think the Prime Minister will agree with me when I say that he as the head of the army in South Africa does not want to have these unpleasant incidents occurring in the streets. It’s no use our being hypocritical and not admitting that these things happen, it’s no use our saying that nothing of the kind has ever taken place. If we can reduce drunkenness in Cape Town we shall be able to stop a great deal of the bloodshed that is taking place in our streets and actually in the neighbourhood of Parliament. We shall be able to reduce the number of fights with soldiers and between soldiers. I want to bring that to the Prime Minister’s notice. Here in South Africa we have always had to struggle for the rights of Afrikaners. Now we are told that we have equal rights. In saying that that is the case we have an admission that there has been a struggle against certain people who wanted to treat Afrikaans unjustly and unfairly. It would have been much better if an English-speaking member had raised this question, but we have been waiting in vain for them to do so. I asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that 60 per cent. of the people in the army in South Africa were probably Afrikaans-speaking, whether he would tell us in which camps the military training was being given in Afrikaans, in which camps in English, and in which camps in both languages. The Prime Minister, as he will admit, gave us a very evasive reply. He said that if people asked to be drilled in their own language their request was granted. That’s an evasion of the position. I want to ask the Prime Minister just to mention a few names of camps where Afrikaans is used as the medium for the training of our troops. He need not tell us where those camps are if he regards that as military information. Does he know of one single camp where the training takes place in Afrikaans?

All instructors are bilingual.

That’s not what I am asking. I am asking in what language they are being trained. Last Monday I was on the station when some troops were being despatched. I was waiting for a train and I was walking along the platform. I heard the soldiers talking to each other and I am convinced that 80 per cent. of those men were Afrikaans-speaking. When they had to line up to be moved to another platform the officer gave his orders in English and all the orders were in English, although it was an Afrikaans-speaking regiment—at least 80 per cent. were Afrikaans-speaking.

They can ask?

Must an Afrikaans-speaking person always ask for justice to be done to his language?

It is no more than fair that if there is such an overwhelming majority of Afrikaans-speaking men the training should be in Afrikaans without people having to beg for it. War is a terrible thing. If members of a family are killed it is a terrible thing for those left behind, and if it happens on a large scale it is appalling. It may be very fine to some people; to me it is terrible. When there was some talk about the use of poison gas it disgusted us to think that in a century such as this there should even be a possibility of poison gas being used. I asked the Prime Minister—I don’t want to mention any names of places—whether there was a poison gas factory in South Africa and what the object was. The Prime Minister replied that experiments were being made. [Time limit.]

I only have a few points to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister. I always fight for the under-dog. In this instance I am fighting the cause of the 500 soldiers who are walking the streets of Johannesburg without being able to find work. These are returned soldiers, and some of them have been to see me about employment. I have assisted some of them to find employment. I believe, however, that the Prime Minister made a promise that these people would be provided for when they came back. When I telephoned the Labour Department on behalf of one of these soldiers I was told that they unfortunately had 500 men on their books and that they had no work for these people. There was one man whom I was able to get work for, a man named Van Niekerk, and he had suffered great hardships. He told me that he had been out of employment for three months, that he and his family had no food left, and that he was unable to find anything to do. Fortunately we were able to find work for him. I now ask the Prime Minister to see to it that the Labour Department be instructed to find work for these unfortunate people who return from active service and who are medically unfit. Yesterday a lady came to see me and she told me that her son had been away from home more than two years and that he had written to her saying: “At last I can come home because I have signed the new oath”. That means that if he had not signed the new oath he could not have got leave. I want to know whether it is a fact that soldiers up North are being forced indirectly to take the Blue Oath, or whether it is a fact that they cannot get leave if they do not sign the Blue Oath. It would be highly immoral. I told that lady that I would enquire into the matter when the Defence Vote was under discussion and that I would put the matter before the Prime Minister. I want to know whether it is correct that it is a condition for these men to sign the Blue Oath if they want to get leave. Now there is another point which has already been raised on another Vote, but which should be dealt with on this Vote—it is in regard to universities. I have received a complaint from someone that a relation, his son, has not been re-admitted to the Witwatersrand University. This same letter, which was quoted here on a previous occasion, was sent to him, and a copy of that letter was enclosed in the man’s letter to me. The letter was to the effect that the son could not be taken back into the university because he had failed in his engineering examination last year, but if he joined the army and received an honourable discharge, his case would be taken into consideration again on his return. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister knows, of course, that the initiation process at the university during the first year is responsible for so many of these young fellows not passing their first year’s examination. I was pleased to notice that Stellenbosch at long last had forbidden these initiation ceremonies, but why should these young fellows be kept out of the University simply because they have failed their examinations at the end of the first year, and why are they told then that if they join up, they may perhaps be taken back when they come back from military service? I went to the Department of the Interior this morning to show them a letter which I had received from a doctor in Johannesburg. He is interested in a young fellow who has not been taken back either. That young fellow was also asked to go and join up. This doctor is anxious to send this young fellow overseas to America to study dentistry. He is interested in the boy and he is prepared to pay his expenses. I went to the Department but they refused to do anything. This is an Afrikaans-speaking boy. Why cannot he be allowed to go overseas to study there, seeing that he cannot be admitted to the universities in his own country? I want to know why that cannot be done?

I should like to raise the question of soldiers’ organisations which are springing up in South Africa as a result of the war. I think it is a matter which the Military Authorities should take cognisance of. There is always a tendency at the end of a war—and in this case during the war—for these organisations, purporting to be in the interest of soldiers, to spring up. Unfortunately, these organisations do, on occasions, get into wrong hands. There are certain recognised associations which have been in existence since the last war. I do not refer to them. They have stood the test of time, and have done good work for the soldiers, but I do think the military authorities or the Government should have some control over new organisations which are coming into being. I would like to give an instance of what happened at the end of the last war. When I got back to my home town, I found there were two soldiers’ organisations operating in the interest of the soldiers. They were both doing the same work and appealing for funds from the public. The public got tired of having two organisations and having to subscribe twice over. I was on the Committee of one of these associations. We decided that the right thing to do was for the two associations to amalgamate. We saw no reason why we should not amalgamate but for some reason the other association did not see its way to do so. The thing came to such a pass and public opinion so pressing in favour of an amalgamation, that the other organisation eventually said, “Very well, we are prepared to amalgamate, provided you hand over your funds to us and our secretary is to be secretary of the joint concern.” We were perfectly honest in our intentions, we wanted to do the right thing for the soldiers, so we said: “Allright, we agree to your conditions.” We handed over the money and their secretary took control. After the combined organisation had run about twelve months, the cat came out of the bag; the secretary of the combined organisation was arrested, and convicted of having embezzled £1,100 of the funds of the combined organisation. I am only mentioning that—I am not casting aspersions on any one running these organisations. I am only giving a warning. I hope the Minister of Defence will take notice of this, that a dangerous situation is likely to arise if we have these organisations springing up without proper control. I think the Defence Department should either licence them, or at any rate have some control of what they are doing.

I should like to touch upon something which has not been dealt with during the course of this debate, namely, the censoring of letters under the Department of Defence. One cannot hold it against the Government if in time of war it takes extraordinary steps; and, if need be, introduces censorship, but when it is carried out to ridiculous extremes, then it begins to become unpleasant. It seems that a large number of people are appointed, and the idea has taken root that many people are being appointed as censors only with a view to giving them jobs, and that they are there to smell out things for their personal pleasure and interest, and not because it is in the interests of the country. Let me mention a concrete case. Letters which I write to my little daughter in the hostel are opened by the censor.

I find that even some of my letters are censored.

That proves that the matter is carried to unnecessary extremes. I have no objection to their knowing what I write to my little daughter, but these letters are opened.

Letters of mine are opened, too.

Then you bear out my statement that there are a number of people who are inquisitive. They want to know what is written to one.

But you are in good company then.

That may be so, but surely the matter is ridiculous. The censorship should be limited to a minimum. There may be certain things, certain reasons for a limited censorship, but surely it must not be of general application. In my own experience, and in the experience of others, there are a number of people acting as censors, who just take out all sorts of gossip from letters. I want to refer to the concrete case which I touched upon recently by way of a question, namely, the position in Bloemfontein. I asked whether it was true that a number of wives of university professors and business men were doing the censoring. The Minister said that he could not give the information because it was of a secret nature, and that these people had also taken an oath not to disclose what they read. But when I arrived in Bloemfontein shortly thereafter, there was a controversy about the question and numbers of people told me that they were very glad that the question had been put because it was a scandal. Concrete cases were mentioned to me. What I am now going to mention may be a ridiculous trifle, but it goes to show what is going on. As I have said, there are wives of professors on the Censorship Board, and it is alleged that they talk about the matter, that they cannot conceal it. Recently the young son of a professor received a letter from his girl-friend, breaking off their relationship. The boy received the letter and kept quiet about it. But the second evening the whole community knew that his girl-friend had broken it off with him. It is generally said that it was the wife of another professor who had disclosed it. Whether it is true, I do not know, of course. I have here a letter from a professor in Bloemfontein who does not support my side of the House. He forwards a letter which he had received from his bank, and which was censored. He is a Government supporter; he receives a letter from his bank—the name of the bank is clearly written on the envelope—and this letter is opened. He writes: “It is, of course, only an effort on the part of the wife of one of my colleagues to discover something about my financial position.” This type of thing makes one feel ill at ease and fed-up. I want to ask the Prime Minister to go into this matter. It is not desirable that these people should be appointed in a place like this to a position where they are enabled, in this way, to find out the secrets and the financial position of their acquaintances, colleagues or competitors. Then there is another case, in connection with which there was a Court case between certain professors. I am now referring to the discharge of a certain professor as member of the Board. I was informed that the letters of the person against whom the case had been instituted, containing information about the case, were also opened and censored, and that the wife of one of the professors who had instituted the case, was acting as censor. I do not know whether she saw the letter, but it is possible, of course; and it is extremely undesirable that such a state of affairs should exist. When she sees a letter addressed to the professor against whom her husband had instituted a case, she would naturally want to read it. It is immoral that letters should be read in this way. There are wives of professors, attorneys and traders on the staff of the Censor, and they are in a position where they can see and read letters which are written to their colleagues or competitors. Can the Prime Minister tell me that a wife will not convey to her husband what she has read about him in a letter? It is too much to expect of anyone, let alone a woman. I want to say that this creates a great deal of ill-feeling. People resent this sort of thing. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister should make an effort to take into review the whole system. It creates a great deal of unpleasantness.

Perhaps I should now reply to some of the questions put to me. Many of the remarks that have fallen from hon. members, of course, are simply expressions of opinion and others again are criticisms of the Government where hon. members are not seeking to obtain any information at all. There are, however, a number of points which I feel are deserving of some reply. Let me say at once regarding the remarks by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) that I have made a note of the incident about the censor at Bloemfontein. I shall raise the matter with the chief censor and see what arrangements can be made so that subordinate censors will not be able to make wrong use of private information coming to their knowledge. I can conceive the possibility of this happening, and if what the hon. member has said is correct, then certainly the instance is one where the censorship has been abused. I shall consult the chief censor and see what steps can be taken. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) spoke about unemployed soldiers walking the streets of Johannesburg. That too, is a matter which I shall have to look into, although it is difficult to understand how such cases can arise in view of the practise adopted by the Government, of what I have repeatedly informed the House. No soldier is discharged and put on the streets. A soldier who is discharged is sent to the dispersal camp where he is treated and kept until he has regained his health and is certified as fit, or until such time as he can convince the authorities in the camp that he has secured employment. Only when he can prove that he has work to go to is he released. It is not our policy to release soldiers and let them go if they have no work, because to do so would only cause trouble and lead to grievances which is impossible to deal with afterwards. All the cases which the hon. member has referred to must refer to men who have insisted on getting away, who have produced certificates to show that they had found employment, but who either had no work or lost their jobs afterwards. Where that has happened, they should approach the camp again or they should go to the welfare officer to see what can be done for them. I want to emphasise, however, that it is not our policy to release any soldier from service until he is fit, or until he can convince us that he has found employment, suitable employment. I now come to a few matters of wider importance which I wish to deal with. Some hon. members have been asking repeatedly why at this stage, when it seems that Africa will soon be cleared of the enemy, we cannot curtail our expenditure and reduce the numbers of our forces. Let me say that if at all possible, I do not want any soldiers to be either unnecessary taken on or kept in the service. Let me explain, however, what the present position is and has been since the change in the situation has occurred. Parliament some time ago passed a further resolution providing for service beyond the borders of Africa, which will entail that possibly a proportion of our troops, not a tremendously large proportion, will be available for service beyond Africa. In addition to those, we need certain forces here in South Africa. Hon. members must leave it to my discretion to decide what is needed in South Africa. This is a matter which has to be very carefully considered. To a certain extent the danger on land has decreased, but to a different extent the danger has come closer as a result of Japan’s entry into the war. The war at sea has brought the war closer to us.

But surely you only need the air force for that.

The fortifications along the coast, the coastal guns have to be manned and the coast has to be guarded. For both purposes, so far as the air force and coastal defence are concerned, steps have to be taken now, and they are being taken; no such action was required in the past. So far as the air force is concerned and our coastal defences, our forces are larger now than they used to be in the past, and a large number of squadrons have been added for the purpose of guarding the coast and of combating the submarine menace. As to our coastal defences, one can never feel quite safe from a raid. Hon. members know what happened in a place like Sydney, a city which is well defended, but which was none the less attacked and bombarded by gunfire. Unless the enemy realises that our coasts are well guarded, that our main points of defence are well guarded by heavy guns and mobile units, there is the danger of an attack from a raider or something of the kind, out to damage us. Only if the enemy realises that the coast of South Africa is well defended and protected both from sea and land, will he keep away from here. It is for that reason that we require more men now than we did before for the protection of South Africa. Hon. members know that a specific command under a Major-General has been created for our coastal areas; there was no need for such a step in the past, but it became necessary, and it entailed increasing our troops.

But could not a number of our men be discharged?

Could they not get leave?

I should like hon. members to listen first to what I have to say. I want to explain what our forces are needed for. In the first place a lot may be sent overseas, to other areas, outside Africa. Besides that, we need more forces than before in South Africa. In addition we still need a fairly large force up North, namely in Egypt and along the North African coast, where we are engaged in big undertakings, not only in the fighting lines, but also in factories where all kinds of work are being done by us to supply the needs of the army. A very large proportion of our war effort is concerned with workshops for the repair of tanks, motors and all kinds of things which are absolutely essential for the war up North. There is a general idea that our war effort up North has been confined to the work of our two Divisions but that is not so. Our two Divisions up North constituted only part of our war effort there. A very large proportion of the work we have done there has been to serve as a workshop for the whole army up North. Egypt itself is not an industrial country, and it has not got the necessary implements and equipment to keep the army supplied, and our forces have to a large extent been employed for that purpose. Then my hon. friends opposite should not lose sight of the fact that our Air Force is not a very large body; they should not lose sight of the fact that our Air Force today is one of the outstanding efforts—so far as size and effect are concerned—we are making in the whole warzone. All this work means the employment of very many people. In addition we have our workshops here for the manufacture of ammunition, guns and all kinds of things. And the result is that the question of staff, the question of manpower, continues to be one of our most serious problems, and with the position as it is today, is does not appear likely that we shall be able to reduce the numbers of our forces.

Is it necessary to continue recruiting?

We only have to replace people today, because the wastage from sickness, casualties and otherwise, which must occur in a large army like ours, is very considerable, and the best we can expect today, in view of the use we are making of our manpower, is to maintain the numbers we have, and that will occupy all our efforts.

There was a newspaper report that there would only be recruiting for service outside Africa.

Yes, as matters are today it does not seem as though it will be necessary to do any further recruiting for service in Africa. That brings me to the question of the new attestation, generally referred to as the “Blue Oath”. There is an impression—and that impression has been voiced in this House—that large numbers of our forces have refused to take the Blue Oath, and that we are therefore forced, that the Defence Department is forced to exercise a certain amount of pressure to get the necessary numbers of people. That impression is quite wrong. I can assure the House that although there are no outstandingly large numbers attesting, the figures are none the less satisfactory. In some of our units 50 per cent. are attesting, and in other units 80 per cent. of the men are taking the new oath. We are therefore securing the necessary number of men required for outside Africa. We must not allow the public to get the impression that owing to the men refusing to take the Blue Oath, the Department is forced to bring pressure to bear.

It is said that they are asked why they will not take the new oath.

I shall deal with that. As I have said, it is not by any means necessary to apply any pressure. If we needed unlimited numbers of men for service outside Africa, there might be cause for such a step, but we cannot do anything like that. We do not require so large a force outside Africa. Our activities, our main terrain, will in any case be in South Africa. The number we shall send overseas to other war zones outside Africa will in any case be limited, and there is no need whatsoever to force any men to go.

Do you require any men at all to go outside Africa?

Don’t let us go into that question now; that matter has been settled by Parliament and I do not want to take up the time of the House by going into it again. Now the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) says that he has heard that very few men from one unit in the Cape have joined up, that only fifteen out of two hundred have taken the new oath. That is quite possible. There are units, where very few of the men have joined up; there are other units where the numbers have been medium, and then again, there are units, where the response has been excellent. I am judging from the figures and they are quite satisfactory. The promise I have made to the House and to the public that no pressure would be brought to bear is being carried out to the full by the Department of Defence. The instruction has already been issued that no compulsion, no pressure, is to be exercised. There is no reason whatsoever to bring pressure to bear. It is not necessary at all. No compulsory measures are needed to get large numbers and to force the people to join up.

Is the soldier who refuses to take the new oath going to be helped by the Government to get work if he is discharged now?

In the same way as the others exactly. The people who attested under the Red Oath are on exactly the same basis as the others who are now ready to go further. Those who have the spirit of adventure and the enthusiasm to go further will be no better off than the others who joined up and whom we shall look after just the same as we shall look after the others. There will be no differentiation. Nor is there such a thing as a Blue Oath. It is the same oath, the same orange tab is used in both cases.

Can you say that there is no pressure exercised if men are told that they will be discharged if they do not attest?

If any cases of pressure exercised by my officers are known I hope hon. members will bring them to my notice—I shall have them gone into thoroughly because anything of that kind, would be in conflict with the instructions issued by the Department. Not only have I said that no pressure is to be exercised, but instructions have been given by the Department. If there are cases of the kind alleged by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, I hope details will be supplied to me so that I can follow them up. Instances of that kind would show unnecessary zeal, misplaced zeal. There is a misconception on the subject.

Are they asked why they won’t go?

It would be wrong to ask such a question.

That is one of the complaints.

That is one of the complaints and the other complaint is that those people don’t get passes and that money is dished out to soldiers for drink.

I hope you will reprimand the Cape Town City Council.

Fortunately they do not come under me.

I notice that you say “fortunately.”

I now come to the other matter about grievances and the passing on of grievances; this question was discussed with considerable heat during the debate.

The “skunk” story.

Let me say this about those grievances. There are channels in our forces through which grievances of soldiers belonging to a unit can be forwarded by the immediate superior of a man until eventually they reach me. They naturally have to proceed step by step. It is perfectly obvious that discipline has to be maintained in such cases, and the necessary channels are defined for these things. Those channels are open. But hon. members will realise that we are a democratic country; our people are accustomed to ventilate their grievances, to complain about things, to go to their friends or even to go to a member of Parliament. That happens to be the position in this country. We have not got a professional army under professional discipline. One always has to take into account the national habits of a people, and one has to remember that the people of South Africa are always full of grievances, and they are pretty quick in publishing their grievances, and communicating them to others. And it so happens that grievances, instead of being communicated in the correct way to the Defence Department, are communicated to members of Parliament, and in that way are brought to my notice.

Do you consider that that is permissible?

I do not consider it permissible, but I would not say that it is in conflict with the customs of our people, and I would say this, in answer to what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has said that his conception of the matter, to my mind, does not quite accord with public opinion in this country. I would not say, if a soldier approaches a member of Parliament, whether he be a member of Parliament sitting on this side or the other side of the House, to speak about his grievances, that there is any call for very strong language about his doing so. If our army were a professional army, if our army were an army like the armies in Europe, where they are under strict discipline, it would perhaps be justified, but we have to take into account the fact that these people are ordinary citizens of the country who are now serving the country, and that they have always been accustomed to ventilate their grievances, and it seems to me that here in South Africa the first man one turns to, if one has a grievance, is a member of Parliament.

You should commit hari-kari now.

There are all kinds of circumstances one has to bear in mind when considering conditions in South Africa. Take, for instance, the question of the Springbok Legion, an organisation which pretends to be there for the benefit and the service of the soldiers; there is no doubt, however, that an organisation of that kind may easily be misused.

It becomes a “Foreign Legion”.

I am not saying that that has already happened, but what I want to say is this: I am keeping my eye on the position as it arises. I have no definite information before me entitling me to say that the Springbok Legion has come under Communistic influence, and that it should be stopped. I have no such information, but I am keeping my eyes open to see what is occurring.

Have you seen the type of resolution they are passing at their meetings?

There is no doubt that certain agents are trying to get a hold on that organisation, but my information is that so far not much harm has been done, and I want to remind hon. members that my information is not based on newspaper reports only. I receive reports from inside regarding what is going on, and the information at my disposal is not such that I have not felt it incumbent upon me so far to take any action.

Why is it so serious that you have even prevented the newspapers talking about it?

There is no censorship in regard to our newspapers, but what has happened in order not to give unnecessary publicity to such movement is that the editors have been asked not to publish such things; this was done merely with a view to avoid creating a wrong impression among the public. As I have said, I am watching things—that is the attitude I am adopting. There have been other organisations in this country which the Government has also been asked to condemn, and to take action against, and my reply has been: “No, the Government’s attitude is that we must see how things develop.”

Yes, just allow matters to develop.

Yes, but that was a very sensible policy as it turned out to be afterwards.

Otherwise some members would be in gaol.

In this instance too, I feel that the Government should act carefully and with circumspection, and we do not feel ourselves called upon to take action. The question of “Die Springbok”—the newspaper, has also been raised. This is a paper published for our troops up North. It is circulated among our troops up North. It is a journal which our Information Service up North considered absolutely essential. In Egypt one does not get very much news. The newspapers there are in Arabic. Our troops are not interested in those papers and they want to have their own reading matter. They want to know generally what is going on. So “Die Springbok” was inaugurated by our Information Service, and it is financed by us, it is edited by our officers so as to make sure that the necessary news is supplied for the benefit of our troops.

Have the English troops also got such a special paper?

I believe that the English troops read “Die Springbok”. They are very taken up with it. We have taken many steps for the welfare of our troops—steps which are looked upon as exemplary for other troops as well.

Are not speeches made by you published in that paper?

That I don’t know. I don’t often see it, but I hope that some of my best speeches are published in it.

Some of your best political speeches.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) suggests that you should send “Die Transvaler” there for those people.

My officers, who are good men, men of sound judgment, consider it morally necessary, they feel that it is of the greatest importance, for the troops to have this reading matter; it is better to control the paper from inside and not give it a political or party colour. There is misconception about another point raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He criticises the position of our army up North as being subordinate, as being “subsidiary” as he calls it. He is entirely mistaken on this point. Our forces are not subsidiary. We have been placed there by the British command for operational purposes, in the same way as the Greek army, in the same way as the Polish army, and in the same way as the Free French army have been placed there for operational purposes, but our South African army there is a “self-dependent” (“selfstandig”) unit. The officers are appointed by me and no-one has any say over our forces up North, except that they are told in joint operations which part they are to carry out; and that is self-evident. One can do nothing else. Unless the command is handed over to us, and the British army then becomes “subsidiary”, we cannot do anything to alter that. Take North Africa. There the British army has been placed under the American army for operational purposes, but it is not subsidiary to the American army. It is an independent (“selfstandig”) army under its own administration, but for operational purposes it is placed under another command for the sake of uniformity of policy. A number of points of minor importance have also been raised. My hon. friend, the member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom), for instance, wants us to keep our troops employed here and he wants us to put them on soil erosion works. I do not think we should do that.

No the work is a bit too hard.

If troops are to be used for that purpose, it is much better to use other material which we have in this country today in large numbers, namely our prisoners of war, and it is the Government’s policy to use the Italian prisoners of war to as great an extent as possible. One cannot employ those people near the coast, because there are certain difficulties connected with our doing so and in addition there would be a certain amount of danger entailed in our doing so. Some distance away from the coast, however, I hope we shall be able to make ever increasing use of the Italian prisoners of war, who, we are given to understand from reports from various parts where they are employed, are doing good solid word and are giving considerable satisfaction. Our people are so used to native and coloured labour that it is something strange to them to have European labour. Here we have labour of the best quality and it is cheap. The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) asks: why not make it still cheaper, why not supply those people with clothes? I feel that the conditions which the Government lays down are very easy and very convenient, and I do not expect there will be any difficulty in regard to the use of prisoners of war. We naturally have to attend to their feeding and their housing; that has to be done under the Geneva Convention. They have been sent here and it is our duty under the Convention to see these matters are properly attended to. I feel that while the war lasts and we have these men here, they constitute a source of real usefulness to the country, very much more so than people realise. The labour is cheap—one shilling per day. One has to feed these people decently but not excessively. It is the best labour obtainable in South Africa, in spite of which some people still complain; but that is due to ignorance. There were some difficulties to begin with, but those difficulties have vanished.

In the Free State one has to go to a lot of trouble to secure this labour.

Let me say this to the hon. member: at one time the Free Staters approached me for prisoner-of-war labour, and so far as I know, so far as I have been informed, in every case where application was made, the application was granted.

I can give the Right Hon. Minister the names of farmers who made application and whose applications were not granted—this was towards the end of last year.

There has been a change in policy. I believe there was undue differentiation. It was not considered advisable to grant prisoner-of-war labour to everyone. It is no use differentiating between A and B—A and B are equally good or equally bad. I believe that to start with there was a certain amount of discrimination, but I contend that that is quite wrong.

Will you give Moorreesburg and Malmesbury the opportunity of securing prisoner-of-war labour?

Yes, except where they would have to be engaged too near the coast. I should like to see my friends in Malmesbury and Piquetberg, wherever they suffer from labour shortage use prisoners of war.

Is Somerset West too near the coast?

A ruling has been given about Somerset West.

People complain that they have to pay too much.

Yes, some people always complain. They would complain even if they were given a seat in heaven. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has again raised the question of lease-lend under this Vote, on the Auditor-General’s report. I have secured the necessary information. The hon. member is not in his seat, but when I see him again I shall hand him the necessary papers. He is under the impression that we may possibly have undertaken certain commitments under the lease-lend system, and that we may be responsible for certain payments, and he has referred to two Votes in the Auditor-General’s report. The two Votes, one for £13,000,000 and the other for £700,000 have nothing to do with lease-lend. The £13,000,000 represents money owing to us by other Governments. It is money owing to us by Great Britain, Holland and other Governments. It is money which we still have to collect; and the other Vote for £700,000 is a Vote concerning civilian stores imported by the Director of National War Supplies, in respect of which certain payments have to be made. This, however, has nothing to do with lease-lend either and as a matter of fact these things happened before the coming into operation of lease-lend. I shall give the hon. member the papers. There are still a few points left for me to deal with. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) took me to task because of my treatment of the “Voortrekkers” in Pretoria. My hon. friend will realise that I know very little about, the “Voortrekkers”, except that I believe I am one of their patrons, or something of the kind. Anyhow, when an application is made for a permission for a camp or for drilling or something of that nature, my Department refers such application to the police, and sometimes the police have no objection. In other instances they do have objection. The Pretoria application, to which my hon. friend has referred is one which was turned down by the police. The hon. member will appreciate that I have not got the time to make a thorough investigation in every case to see whether the police are right in their judgment. In most cases I act in accordance with their reports, and in other cases I do not act on their reports.

Once again it is the Minister of Justice who has made a mistake.

Surely it cannot be argued that these children constitute a danger to the State?

The hon. member also raised the case of a man named Smuts, at Vereeniging. That man was under the impression that he had been arrested.

He must be related to you.

He was under the impression that he had been arrested, and he made a complaint that he had been arrested by an officer, that officer was interrogated by the Adjutant-General about the alleged arrest, and Major Reid, the officer concerned, thereupon denied the allegation. He said that he had not arrested the man, but Smuts insists that he was arrested. My hon. friend is a lawyer; he knows that the Defence Department is not a court. We do not investigate such matters. If Smuts was arrested, then he has his civil remedy. He can sue Major Reid, if he wants to.

Has he got the right, under the Emergency Regulations to sue officers?

This is not a question of the Emergency Regulations—it is his common right under the Common law of the country. I believe I have now dealt with most, in fact with all the points raised, and I hope hon. members will now allow the Vote to pass. The expense for the conveyance of corpses is a matter I shall enquire into. My colleague has already said that he will consider the suggestion that has been made.

Yes, so far as future cases are concerned, but what about the cases which have already occurred?

I cannot go into any details now.

I am very sorry but I think the Minister of Defence is very unreasonable with the drilling exercises of the Voortrekker organisation at Pretoria West, to want to push it on to the police. The police do give advice. But it is the Department of Defence who decide to prohibit it. It is not prohibited by the police but by the Department of Defence. According to law there is nothing that prohibits the Voortrekker organisation from holding camps and drilling exercises. It can only be done under the Emergency Regulations, and although the police give advice, the Department of Defence must decide. I now ask the Minister of Defence to reconsider that decision, because it is something that rests on the shoulders of the Minister of Defence. If we think over the matter calmly, then we realise that it is almost stupid to give attention to such a matter. The children are under the guidance of teachers, and they have drilling exercises in the open. What reason can there be to prohibit it?

Will you be satisfied if I make inquiries again.

Yes, I will be satisfied.

There are a few small points that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister. I understand that a member on this side has spoken about the clothing of Italian prisoners of war. I just want to bring this aspect of the matter to the attention of the Minister of Defence, that it is a great saving for his Department that these people are taken on the farms. The Department saves food, it saves lodging, it saves the payment that it has to give to these people, it saves on the clothing, it saves on the guards, etc. The Italians are good labourers. Of that there can be no question. We get them reasonably cheap. But the equipment that these people get in the camps is very bad. A neighbour of mine has now received a number of them, and his experience was that after three days he had to give them some of his own old clothes.

I will inquire into that.

There can be no doubt that the equipment with which they come out of the camps in many instances is scandalous. The excuse that is made by the camps is that they cannot get the clothing. It may be that they have that difficulty. Nine pounds is also not paid for every prisoner. A valuation of the clothing is made by the camp commandant. In some cases it is £9 and in other cases again £5. But when a man comes to work, he should have proper equipment. I can give the Minister the assurance that if those people go back to the camp, then their clothes will be worth twice as much as that with which they came out of the camp. They work well, the farmers are sorry for them and give them clothing. Then there is another point. We must provide those people with clothing and it is difficult for us to get clothing. It is difficult for us to buy twelve shirts and twelve pairs of trousers at once. We cannot do it. In the second place we must pay the retail price for it, and I do not think that this is right. The Department should make arrangements so that we can get the clothing through the Department at the price that the Department would pay for it. I think that this is no more than right. Then there is another point about which I would like information. A well-known doctor in Cape Town was recently travelling with his wife in his motor-car, an an accident occurred because somebody in the navy, who was on duty, collided with them in his vehicle. It was proved that the fault was not on the doctor’s side, but that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of this member of the naval staff. The doctor’s wife was seriously injured, and the injury is not of a passing nature, but permanent. She was a good pianist and her arm was broken so that she will not be able to play again. Now the position is this, that she can get no compensation for the injury. If that person was a member of our own army, and he was on duty, then she could have brought an action against the Minister of Defence, demanding compensation. Legal advisers have told her husband that she has no right of recovery against a member of the navy if he was on duty for the navy. He is not subject to the law of the country. It was not in the Simonstown area, but here in the Peninsula. The insurance company does not want to pay her out because they say that her husband was not negligent, and she must get the compensation from the person that was negligent. It appears to me to be very strange that if it was a citizen of our own country, who was serving in our own army and who was on duty, we would then be able to bring an action for compensation against the Government, but that we cannot bring any action because he was a member of the British navy, who was on duty. It surprises us very much. No action can be brought, and those people must manage without compensation. It is a very important question. This is one incident, but other incidents can follow, and then the person concerned has no right of recovery if it can be shown that the person who caused the accident was a member of the British navy and was driving the vehicle in that capacity.

I think there is another matter in connection with this Vote that should be discussed and I think the public outside can also expect an explanation from the Minister of Defence. Last year the Government appointed a Committee to inquire into and report on the best system for doing military work. The Committee gave a great deal of attention to the work and went to a lot of trouble and eventually the Committee issued a unanimous report. That was one of the matters about which the Committee was unanimous. Here I have the recommendation of the Committee. It is contained in paragraph 130 of the first report of the Cost-Plus Contracts Committee—

It is explained further in the summary of the recommendations where it is said—

1. (1) The present percentage remuneration should be substituted by a fixed fee to be arrived at by tender amongst selected contractors; and
2. (2) to the extent to which percentage basis is retained, the rate of remuneration should taper, being reduced in proportion as to the value of the contract rises.

In short, the recommendation of the Committee means this. We recommend that an immediate end should be put to the system that has been in operation hitherto, namely the cost-plus a percentage system. In place of it we recommend the ordinary tender system of peace time. Where this cannot be done, then another cost-plus system should be used, but it must be a cost-plus a tendered fee, and only where the case demands urgency, can the percentage system be used, but then according to the tariff it should be that the profits diminish the greater the amount becomes. That was the recommendation of the Committee, and I say it was unanimous. Immediately after the publication of the report the Prime Minister decided to accept the recommendation of the Committee, and I have with me here the resolutions of the Government in connection with this. I want to quote them—

Is it not advisable to let this discussion take place under the Treasury Vote? The hon. member will notice that the report was actually sent to the Treasury, and that the Treasury appointed the Commission.

It can be raised under the Treasury Vote, but I think it is better to raise it under the Defence Vote, because it is concerned with war expenditure.

The hon. member may continue.

I quote the decision of the Government—

1. (1) So far as possible, and taking into consideration the urgency of the work that must be done, Defence building contracts must be given out by tender.

That is in accordance with the resolution of the Committee. Further—

1. (2) In cases for reasons of urgency or any other suitable reason (which must be stated in the application), it is found impossible to adopt the procedure of tender, an application may be made to the Defence Authorities Committee for approval to give out the building contracts on a cost-plus basis.

That is also in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee.

1. (3) In cases where approval is given to depart from the tender basis, a contract calculated at cost-plus a tendered fee, which is not a percentage of the total cost, will normally be accepted.

Also in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee—

1. (4) Only in exceptional cases (the reasons for which must be stated in the application) can the Defence Authorities Committee approve the acceptance of a contract calculated on cost-plus a percentage.

Again according to the recommendation of the committee. Then the resolutions go further about procedure. Here we see now that the Government has decided after careful consideration to carry out the recommendations of the Cost-plus Committee in toto.

Not in toto.

Yes, on that point. But now I was surprised to learn from a reply which the hon. Minister has given to the member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) that a conference suddenly took place in Cape Town, I assume between the Treasury and the Master Builders. I do not know who convened the conference, the Minister of Defence, or the Minister of Finance, but there was a conference in Cape Town.

It was the Authorities Committee who convened the conference.

The hon. member for Kensington put the following question to the Minister of Defence—

1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a Press report which indicates that the Master Builders are opposed to the recommendations of the Cost-plus Contract Committee, that the system for future defence work should be changed from the cost-plus a percentage to cost-plus a tendered amount.
2. (2) Whether this matter was discussed with the Master Builders.
3. (3) Whether as a result of this any resolution was made; if so, whether he would make a statement about the resolution and the reasons for it.

To this the Minister of Defence answered: Yes, such a conference did take place. He also replied that the matter had been discussed with the Master Builders and the result of the conference was as follows—

1. (1) By tender; and
2. (2) by cost-plus a fixed fee. Such a fee will be determined beforehand by a technical committee which will consist of … .

And then follow the names of the members of the committee—

1. (a) The Quartermaster-General (Chairman).
2. (b) The technical adviser of the Defence Authorities Committee (Mr. Moyers).
3. (c) The Chief Quantity Surveyor, Department of Public Works.
4. (d) The Director of Fortifications and Coastal Works.
5. (e) The Director of Works (Defence).

[Time limit.]

The Minister of Defence has been asked by several members this afternoon what his policy is in connection leave for soldiers. The instance was mentioned here of a soldier who has been in the North for two years already, and who has not yet had leave. I also recently received a letter from a mother of a soldier in my constituency, in which she claims that her son has been in the North for two years and has not yet had leave. I would like to know what the fixed policy is in connection with this. Then I want to bring another matter to the attention of the Minister, a matter which I have already raised on a previous occasion. I have brought to the attention of the Minister the incident that occurred at Oudtshoorn recently, when there was a clash between coloured soldiers and European citizens of the town, and I asked him to institute an inquiry. I said at that time, and I want to repeat it now, that in the past we have had a number of complaints about the behaviour of the soldiers, especially at the beginning of the war. But I can say to the honour of the soldiers that the discipline among them has been considerably improved. Those of us who often travel in the train must bear witness that we no longer get that hooliganism when we go about in the country, which we saw before. But I do not think that this can also be said about the coloured coldiers. We find that when the coloured soldiers pass in a train and the train stops at a station, then all kinds of acts of debauchery take place. When they go back on leave to spend a holiday, then it appears that they are not under sufficiently strict discipline. I have here a cutting from yesterday’s newspaper which says that during the past week-end two street fights occurred where coloureds clashed with the police. It was at Mossel Bay. In Oudtshoorn a coloured soldier clashed with a young man named Sharp on the northern side of Oudtshoorn. A European woman went to the assistance of the European man. She was assaulted and her leg was broken. Afterwards someone else who came to see the woman was attacked and the police were also attacked. I have asked the Minister whether an inquiry has been instituted and I would like to know from him whether arrests have been made, and whether the people have been prosecuted who were the cause of the trouble. I understand that one of the coloured soldiers has been arrested. I would like to know whether he is going to be prosecuted, and if not, why he has been exempted. I also want to inquire further of the Minister of Defence what he proposes to do in the future to bring coloured soldiers under better discipline so that at least there will not be a repetition of the conditions we have had at Oudtshoorn, and which according to the newspaper has occurred at Mossel Bay.

The farmers in the Swartland area will be very grateful to the Minister of Defence, namely that he will give them an opportunity to get Italian prisoners-of-war as labourers on their farms. Further the Prime Minister has said that it will not be able to happen near the coast. I want to point out to him that Darling and Vredenburg are not far from the coast. It is only a few miles, and the Minister of Defence can hardly exclude them. I mean that at Somerset West Italian prisoners-of-war are permitted and there they adjoin the sea. I understand that in one case the farm house is two miles from the sea. Why can they get Italian prisoners-of-war, but these places that I have mentioned, and which are well-known to the Minister are penalised.

Do they get prisoners-of-war at Somerset West?

I understand from the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) that this is the case.

Yes, that is so.

I will take those places into consideration.

I thank the hon. Minister for that. I want to come back to the newspaper, “The Springbok”, that is issued in the North. The Minister’s answer really does not satisfy me. Here in South Africa, where the political situation is what it is, here we have representatives in this House for the war and representatives against the war, and where the position is that if ten members go over to the other side, then the matter is completely different. I say that in such circumstances the Government is not entitled to issue a newspaper among our troops at the expense of the State, a newspaper that must give them war news, but the speeches of the political leaders on the other side are now also included.

But political speeches are not published.

I have no special knowledge of the newspaper. I have seen one copy. I depend on information that I have received.

Last night I looked through two and there is nothing of a political nature in them.

Yes, the Hon. Minister has now looked through two. But I understand that his speeches are published in the newspaper. A political speech has a colour. Some of his speeches have been published and not a single speech of a leader on this side of the House has ever been published.

I think that my speech which was broadcast in Britain was published.

I want to make an appeal to the Hon. Minister. Is it now fair to publish a newspaper at the expense of the State to give information about the war and in which speeches are brought in, but in which not a word is mentioned about this side of the House. If the party on the other side wants to distribute a newspaper among the troops in the North, let them do so, but let the political party pay for it. They must not take State funds for such a matter. It causes comment and it brings a stain on our country. I feel strongly on the matter. We here in South Africa, where political differences are so sharp, and where we are divided almost equally strong, we must act differently from other countries. There are other instances which we will discuss later in the course of this Session, but now we have to do with one case which creates a wrong impression, that a newspaper is issued at the expense of the State. The war is a political difference in our country. From that you cannot get away. In addition, the two sides are almost equally strong. The one side is now incidentally in power, and now we find that the State funds are used to issue a newspaper in the North, a newspaper that presents only one side of the matter. Not a single word appears in it that is said by this side of the House. If the hon. Minister does not want to agree to stop this newspaper, I will be very disappointed, because he, just like other members, has certain ethical principles. But if he does not want to do it at all, to stop this newspaper, then he must at least leave an opening in that newspaper so that the other side can also be presented. Then he must allow something from the Opposition side to be published in that newspaper. All the soldiers are not Government supporters. It is said that great numbers of them are Nationalists. Those Nationalists are now being served at the expense of the State with a newspaper that gives only one side of the picture. With our political differences that are so sharp, we must be very careful that we do not create the impression that we are using State funds for political propaganda. To me this impression has been created, because that newspaper must give a very strong political colour.

I just want to deal with a few points that have already been raised earlier in the debate and which have also been mentioned by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux). I want to ask what precautions are taken in places where there are coloured camps. At Mossel Bay we have now already twice had unpleasantness with coloured troops in the short time that they have been there. What special steps does the Minister take to safeguard the people, or to prevent such things from happening again. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister knows that places were broken into, that doors were smashed in and window panes broken, not even to mention the assults. I would like however to draw the attention of the Minister to something else. Whilst we are against war expenditure, we are naturally more against wastage. And there I want to put a question to the Prime Minister about something about which we desire more information. We have asked whether any arrangements have been made with certain hotels at the Strand and Gordon’s Bay whereby the Government pays certain amounts to the hotels. I would like to go through the question point by point with the hon. Minister, I asked—

The Prime Minister answered—

Then I asked what arrangements have been made with the hotels and his reply was—

You see the Prime Minister does not say what the monthly tariff is. Then I asked—

The Prime Minister’s answer was—

In other words no more people were accommodated than had been arranged for. But then the Prime Minister gave me in an answer to another question the particulars of what had already been paid out to the hotels: Marine £3,615 and the White House £1,925, and the Gordon’s Bay Hotel £1,093 11s. In other words, the two first-mentioned hotels received from the Government in this period £3,615 and £1,925 for people who did not go there, because the Prime Minister replied to me that up to February 1943 no people were accommodated by the hotels. Then we come to the Gordon’s Bay Hotel. No arrangement was made for persons to go and live there, but if people go there, the Government pays only 1s. a night. The people have their meals in the camp. If we now calculate to see what it amounts to, what do we get then? One shilling per person per night is paid and a total of £1,093 11s. has already been paid. Then a tremendous number of people at 1s. a day must have slept in the hotel, or otherwise there is something wrong with the account. It it almost impossible to accept that such a sum was paid out at a rate of 1s. a night. I may say that in that area there are many of the Prime Minister’s supporters who say that it is scandal that is going on there, who think that the arrangements have been made not so much for the convenience of the people, but for other reasons, whatever they may be. They say it is not right that the hotels should be assisted in this way. I do not want to go into the question of who the owners of the hotels are, that we will leave alone, but I just want to point out the sums of money that are paid out there, and I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think that it is an impossible situation. Then there is something else to which I want to draw attention. We are pleased to hear that the Prime Minister now says that a small number of soldiers will perhaps have to be sent overseas. That is the impression which he has given us. He will also not really exercise pressure. Because only a small number will go, it is not necessary to exercise pressure. We are very glad about that. A lot has been said here about the labour of prisoners-of-war, but there are certain farms where the farmers have not the accommodation for the people. Then they cannot get the prisoners-of-war. In Mossey Bay there, in that area, the Farmers’ Associations passed a resolution asking the Government not to recruit any more people in Mossel Bay. I can give you the assurance that the situation is critical. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he also intends to send coloured troops overseas. If not, then it will no longer be necessary to recruit coloureds. In any case it is necessary to cease the recruiting in our area. Another matter. We on this side of the House, although we feel that it is a squandering of the lives of people, have said that we have respect for those who voluntarily go and sacrifice their lives, not under pressure. We have said that we disapprove that there are people, thousands, who sit at home and draw a double salary from the Defence Force. I have put the question to the Minister of Defence, how many officers and civil servants in the Department of Defence, doing administrative work, receive £700 a year or more in salary and allowances. I had expected that it would not be a great number, but the Minister has replied that the information is not available, that it would involve considerable work to get the information. The Prime Minister therefore admits that there are a large number who draw £700 or more for administrative work. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he really believes that such a large number is necessary in the Department to do administrative work at such large salaries. Is it necessary to spend those large sums of money? Further I would also like to know why these large sums are paid to hotels. I understand that it is not limited to Somerset Strand, but that there are other places where the hotels receive large sums. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) was very worried about the Springbok newspaper, and in his opinion the Herenigde Nasionale Party should also have an opportunity to set out their point of view for the soldiers. Several issues of the newspapers have been sent to me from the North, and I must say that so far as I have read them, I have found no politics in them. Only the war effort and various activities in connection with it are mentioned and then social activities that are of interest to soldiers are dealt with.

The war effort is a political question.

For the soldiers it is a question of life and I hope that the Prime Minister will not accede to the request to stop the publication. I would like to say a few words about Italian prisoners-of-war in the service of the farmers. I also have some of them in my service, and I must say that they give great satisfaction. You can see that they are decent, obedient, civil and polite and they are peace-loving. They are just out to give satisfaction. And I do not think that the Prime Minister or the Department of Defence will be taking any risk by placing them with farmers on the coast. With the changed conditions, it appears that we no longer require so many soldiers, and I want to ask the Minister of Defence that where requests are made for exemption, from service, that he should accede to them, rather than dismiss men who are over the age limit who are keen on remaining in the service. If the younger men are needed for farming or other essential work, I hope the Prime Minister will, as far as possible, leave them free.

The Right Hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon in reply to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) in connection with the soldiers who will be sent overseas, that no compulsion will be brought to bear on them. I just want to point out that when war was declared on the 4th September, 1939, the case was put in the same way. It was said that only volunteers would be used, but that did not happen. I should like to return for a moment to a case to which I have previously referred in this House, namely, that of the young minor boy in my constituency whose parents are very keen on his returning, and who joined the army without the permission of his parents. They instituted a case against the Government, and the court gave judgment against the Government. If it is true that volunteers only are asked to go overseas, I want to ask that they must not be the type of volunteer of which we have a fairly large number here. I want to ask the Prime Minister to comply with the wishes of the parents and to release this boy. There are not many of these cases: and why should the Government try to keep this boy in the army? It really seems to me that here we have a reasonable case, and we shall be glad if the Prime Minister will comply with the wishes of the parents. These people are poor and in need, and if they have to take the matter any further, now that appeal has been noted by the Government, it will involve them in extra costs. If the Government were to lose the case it would mean further expense for the State, that is to say, for the taxpayers. But otherwise these poor people will have to pay. I hope that the Prime Minister will consider the question of releasing this boy in accordance with the wishes of his parents. Then there is just this further point. I remember that last year when we urged upon the Prime Minister to give us details of the large sum which was being devoted to defence, he said that military circumstances rendered it impossible to specify the amount. We can understand that it is perhaps not possible to specify everything, but we cannot believe that everything constitutes a military secret. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) received certain information in reply to questions concerning expenditure by the Department of Defence, and those details can be given to us. Surely we cannot believe that the whole of this £48,000,000 represents expenditure in connection with military secrets. Why cannot the taxpayers know how that portion which does not concern military secrets is being spent?

I want to refer to another case in connection with censorship, a very serious case which I want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister and of this House. In the Transvaal we have a movement known as the Youth Bond. It is the junior branch of the Re-United Nationalist Party, and this movement had its own journal “Stryd,” which is registered at the main post office as an ordinary newspaper. Last year it suddenly happened that two numbers of this journal were not delivered. This resulted in a considerable loss, to such an extent that the Youth Bond had to discontinue the publication. Not knowing precisely what the position was, I put a question in the House to the Minister of Posts, and the reply which I received from him was to the effect that the Minister, as Minister of Posts, had no knowledge of the matter, and that nothing was held back by the post office. That was the reply which I received from the Minister of Posts when I asked him why these numbers of “Stryd” had not been delivered. Thereafter I received information that the censor was responsible. At that time the censor was Mr. Lenton, who was also Postmaster-General. In his one capacity he fell under the Minister of Posts, and in his capacity as censor he apparently fell under the Minister of Defence. After a long struggle and lengthy correspondence, I eventually received a reply from the censor. Although my correspondence was in Afrikaans, the reply was in English. I am sorry that Mr. Lenton has now been discharged.

He is still the chief censor.

Then I want to settle an account with him. On the 27th June, 1942, I eventually received the following reply—

The reason why the first number of November, 1940, was detained, was that it contained a passage from a book which has since been banned. Do you know which book it is? It is the biography of Jopie Fourie. The chief censor says that his book was banned. That is not true. It has not been banned. The censor writes an official letter, saying that the reason for the confiscation of that number of “Stryd,” is that it re-printed a passage from the biography of Jopie Fourie, which book has been banned. There is not a word of truth in that, and an untruth is used in order to kill this journal. With regard to the confiscation of the other number, the reason given was that exception was taken to paragraphs 3 and 16. Objection is made to that. I have the relevant number in front of me. There are no paragraphs at all. How the censor can object to paragraphs when there are no numbered paragraphs in the whole journal, goodness only knows. The censor apparently took action here with having read the relevant issue of “Stryd”. If perhaps he referred to “pages”, here with having read the relevant issue to hand it over to the Prime Minister, and he can tell me whether there is anything on those pages, or in the whole journal, which gives the censor the right to confiscate it. There is nothing in the whole journal which does not appear daily in the Nationalist papers of South Africa. This is an unfounded statement, and it is clear that Mr. Lenton took this step with a complete lack of responsibility. He does not know what he is talking about, because what he says here is untrue and incorrect. It is either lack of a sense of responsibility, or otherwise political victimisation. If it is not lack of a sense of responsibility, then the censorship is being abused in order to exercise political victimisation against an organ of the Re-United Nationalist Party. I believe that this will not meet with the approval of the Minister of Defence. He will surely not approve of measures which can only te regarded as vindictiveness. If Mr. Lenton is still in the service, then I want to say to the Prime Minister in all fairness and politeness, that if this is an example of how Mr. Lenton performs his duties as censor, then he should not be tolerated as censor for one day longer, for in that case he is a man whom the Minister of Defence should immediately relieve of this post. He does not possess the mentality, the sense of fairness and the sense of responsibility which such a post demands. The Minister of Defence may think that I am using strong language, but if a responsible official or an official who should possess a sense of responsibility, writes to a member of Parliament, in English, after lengthy correspondence and after questions had appeared in this House on the Order Paper, that the number was confiscated because it contained extracts from a book which was banned—although the book has not been banned—that cannot be tolerated. This book can be obtained at any time at the bookstalls. This official, as a result of his action, has caused so much harm to a journal of our youth movement, that it has been killed. Such a person should not only not be allowed to occupy such a post, but he should be punished for his actions. I want to ask the Prime Minister kindly to give his attention to this matter, and to tell us what right Mr. Lenton had to act in this way.

There is a small matter here but nevertheless a serious matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister, and in that connection I want to put a few questions. This war has created various problems as far as we are concerned, and the actions of the Government, or its policy in arming natives and coloureds has particularly created new problems and accentuated the existing problems. We have heard of the disturbances created by natives and coloured people at various places. We know that in Cape Town, for example, large mass meetings are held under the leadership of Communists, of local Communistic agitators who incite the coloured and native community not only to demand arms to use against the enemy, but also to demand the removal of all barriers between white and black in South Africa. That is their most important demand. They want equality in every sphere. This policy which is being pursued by our Government, and the manner in which the native and coloured soldiers have been treated, has inevitably resulted in their making increased demands for equality, and moreover they are incited to demand it. In the first place we think, and we feel as Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners, that as far as possible there should be differentiation in every respect between Europeans and non-Europeans; as far as uniforms, for instance, are concerned. It has been said that the uniform of the non-European is somewhat cheaper, but outwardly it looks the same. The orange flash is the same, and everything is the same. When these non-European soldiers return on leave, we find that in the platteland they take exception to being treated as non-Europeans, and not being allowed in places to which only Europeans have had access in the past. They want equality in every sphere. It was announced in the Government Gazette which was recently published, that in future native chaplains when travelling on free passes, would be permitted to travel second class. Who are the people who travel second class today and not first class? They are Europeans who cannot afford to travel first class. They are poor people, especially from the platteland, where we have so much poverty. The position is bad enough as it is in Cape Town, and in the Cape Peninsula in the trams, buses and on the suburban trains. It is not only serious enough, but it is absolutely unbearable, and this is a state of affairs which cries out to heaven to be remedied. We cannot sit still until such time as we have persuaded the Government to realise that that type of thing must come to an end—and the sooner the better. But the Government is now going further. The Minister of Railways told us that the Railways were getting so many passengers that they cannot cope with the traffic. He says that too many people travel by train, and the Minister of Finance has found it necessary to levy a tax on railway tickets. The object of the tax is to curtail the passenger traffic on the Railways. And now the Government comes forward—I think that in this case we should blame the Minister of Defence—and says: “I am going to remove those native chaplains, when they travel, from the people to whose religious needs they must minister.” He puts them amongst the poor Europeans. When those native chaplains travel second class, it may be argued that they will get a coupé or a big compartment. Well, that will be a privilege which the Europeans cannot get. That is a privilege which does not fall to the lot of a second class passenger at any time. Assuming there is not a coupé available, must those native chaplains then travel in the company of Europeans? Nowadays we get six people, or even more, in a second class compartment. I can imagine what this will lead to. As far as I am concerned, if a native gets into my compartment, whether he is a minister or not—because that does not make him a European, and he wants to sleep in my compartment—well, I shall have to be critically ill if I do not do something about it. I shall not sleep in the same compartment. I would sooner throw him out of the window, and then stand the consequences. We all feel the same about it, and I am convinced that members on the other side would feel as we do, if they were to reflect upon the matter seriously.

The hon. member is getting away from the Vote.

No, Mr. Chairman, it falls under this Vote. We are dealing here with native chaplains, and I would just like to know from the Prime Minister why there is a special concession to these people to travel second class. Apart from the practical difficulties, we must not overlook the fact that a thing like this will have a demoralising and humiliating effect on the people, and it must have that effect, when there are people who are compelled by circumstances to travel with native chaplains in the same compartment.

I want to add a few words to what has been said in regard to this serious matter. I take as my main text: “We are,” and in doing so the Defence Forces will look up to me and say: “We are”. I should like to enlarge on what was said by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens), since we feel that in these abnormal times in which we live money is being wasted, and that there is something wrong with our Defence system, namely the system of fortifications. I want to support the hon. member in the proposition he advanced, as I have already supported him previously. When we started building the national roads, with what object did we do so? It was with no other object than to assist in carrying out our defence system. The national roads were defence roads. In the future we shall build more of them. I support the hon. member as an ex-military official, as someone who in the old days became the colleague of the Minister of Defence himself. We fought together in the Republics, and I think he will agree with us that we are pursuing the wrong policy with regard to our defence.

Will the Prime Minister reply to this debate now? I should like to meet him, but there are matters here which must be replied to.

I shall reply to some of these points when the Estimates are dealt with.

I do think that the Minister of Defence should reply at this stage.

Will this Vote be completed tomorrow then?

Yes.

Unfortunately I cannot be here tomorrow, and my time at the moment is very limited. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has asked me whether there was a prosecution. I have not the reply available at the moment, but I shall ask justice to go into the matter. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) again referred to “The Springbok”. I am sorry that this question has arisen. The matter has been arranged in that way and I cannot alter it. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) discussed the question of the arrangements with hotels, when troops arrived here. I have no particulars in connection with that before me. If the hon. member is not satisfied with the reply which I gave him on a previous occasion, let him submit to me the points in connection with which he is dissatisfied, and I shall do my best to give satisfaction.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 28th January, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 18th March.