Yesterday I moved an amendment to provide that such private training schools and institutions will be able to carry on, but that the courses given there shall be subject to the conditions and terms laid down by the board which is called into being by this Bill. The Minister’s attitude is that this type of institution should not give instruction; that they receive money from pupils, while the latter do not complete their course, and that in this way the institutions are not actually rendering a service to the country. This is, however, a far-reaching provision. We adopt the attitude that there has never been any restriction on any educational instiution in our country. We have state institutions, state schools, and our own universities, etc. But there is nothing to prevent anyone from starting a correspondence school and qualifying students for state examinations; if they comply with the requirements of the examinations, they go into the world as qualified persons. We feel that an injustice is being done here. There may have been malpractices in the past in connection with this matter, but the Minister is in a position to exercise control. The Minister also knows that there are certain institutions which send men out into the country as qualified workers. The Minister’s main standpoint is that the employers decide whom they will employ. That was the attitude which the Minister adopted yesterday. The Minister adopted that attitude in connection with my amendment to Clause 22, and I want to tell them that many of these people were accepted by the employers and even by the state during the crisis period as properly trained men, and they are also doing war work. The Minister objected, for example, to the Progress College, where various facilities are provided. One is surprised to find who the employers are of the men who were trained by this college. The South African Railways, Dorman Long, Hume Pipes, British Airways, Hubert Davies, Alex. Murray, and other leading firms in the country. The Minister gave us this information, but not the full information in connection with these men. I am not concerned about the colleges; but I am concerned about the people who take courses in those colleges and who are to-day employed as fully trained men. I have here a large number of testimonials of men who are to-day working as artisans and who attended those colleges. I can read them to the House.

I also received copies of those letters. I have got them all.

These are the testimonials of men who are to-day employed in the various trades and who are doing well. I also have copies of the pay sheets of these men. Here is the pay sheet of a certain D. Green, an artisan who was trained in the college, and his pay for one week is £10 3s. 6d. Then I have here the pay sheet of B. Steinberg, £20 5s. 3d. I have other certified pay sheets, one of £21 1s. 3d., one of £13 6s. 4d. of A. Strauss, one of £10 3s. 8d., also of a certain Steinberg. Then I have other pay sheets of £18 7s. 7d.; another one of £9 1s. 3d., etc., all certified pay sheets. If there are malpractices in connection with these institutions, the Minister has the power to control or to eliminate those malpractices. He has a board which exercises general supervision of the requirements with which students must comply. Before anyone can practise a trade he has to comply with certain requirements. We think it is altogether a wrong policy to suppress these institutions entirely. The Minister must remember that thousands of pounds were spent in connection with these institutions. They have vested rights. Did the Minister, before introducing this Bill, inform the interested parties that he proposed to introduce this legislation? I feel that this is a very dangerous precedent, and a precendent which suppresses private initiative. In other countries, in America, for example, there are institutions of this nature, and where does one find any country which trains better artisans than America? The Minister also knows for which trades these people are trained, and if the training given to the people by these institutions is poor, the employers will refuse to engage them. I have already mentioned a large number of the bigger firms which employ these people and there are many more, and when looking for trained people, they approach those institutions. I have here the case of a youngster who comes from the platteland. He could not comply with the requirements for admission to the trade because he was too old. He went to the college and received his training there; he passed, and today he is the engineer of the Umfolozi Sugar Mill in Natal, where he occupies an important position. This youngster could not otherwise have obtained his training, because he was excluded on account of his age. Now the Minister proposes to close the doors of those institutions. I do think that the Minister in his fear that too many people will be trained as artisans, wants to close the door, and by so doing deprive a certain class of person, who can only be trained by these institutions, of training facilities. Some of these institutions provide thorough training, and that is proved by the fact that the most important employers in this country employ them; their pay sheets show that they have proved their value. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

By grace of the Minister I should like to say a word or two about Section 1.

Did he give you written permission?

I gave him oral warning. The section reads as follows—

I want to suggest to the Minister a way in which, possibly, he can utilise correspondence schools to the advantage of all concerned; and I especially wish to do this because I think some misgiving has been aroused in the country by reason of some of the remarks made on the Second Reading. These correspondence courses and colleges, like padres, are divisible into two classes— good, and not quite so good.

Like the curate’s egg.

I suggest that, as easily here as anywhere else, the sheep can be separated from the goats, and I shall show means how that could most effectively be done. One point I want to emphasise is that such institutions as these are found in most civilised countries, which would surely indicate that they can give good service to any efficiently organised community. I have detailed knowledge of several of them in this country, and I assert that at the head of some of the South African correspondence colleges and schools are men of the highest scientific knowledge and general educational standing. Now, I am strongly interested in the development of adult education, and that apprenticeship is a form of adult education I venture to submit. These well-directed institutions not only are capable of doing, they have already done, and are continuing to do, excellent service in that particular respect. I know one correspondence schools which has handled over 40,000 students in the past few years, and documents exist showing that the work was done to the entire satisfaction of the students themselves. Moreover, I would remind the Minister that thousands of soldiers at present are diligently preparing for their post-war careers through the institutions named or referred to here. I maintain that for the good of the great towns it is essential that we should set up active rural industries, thus creating a prosperous hinterland upon which the cities can draw, and it seems to me that correspondence tuition may offer an ideal part-training for lads in such industrial villages, for example, as Mooi River. This clause allows technical colleges to conduct correspondence courses. If these private schools are equally proficient, where is the logic of preventing them from doing the same thing?

It does not. You have all misread this clause.

If I have misread it I am sorry. If the Minister is prepared in the case of a rural township like Mooi River to allow the boy to do his practical work at the bench, supplementing it with theoretical instruction from such institutions as we are now discussing, I am satisfied and have little more to say. There is, however another important point, and that is with regard to commercial art and the necessity for industrial designers in the Union. I do not know exactly where an art or craft finishes and a trade begins, but I do know that behind the manufacture of any product sits an artist at his desk. The paper-weight, ash-try, ink-well, clock, any object or implement which we have on our work-table, took its first shape in a drawing by an artist. We need to produce industrial designers, and in this direction much can be done for the nation by efficient correspondence schools. We talk a lot about industrial expansion which will come, and must come. I want to tell the Minister that other countries have prepared already for the future. They have encouraged training in commercial art and design, and have reaped an early harvest. From Europe and America we are receiving catalogues in South Africa, with after-war prices for attractive manufactures of many types, particularly articles in plastics, such as bakerlite. Overseas artists are trained and are doing their part for competitive industry. The same thing applies to shoes of the luxury type, which, modernly styled and produced, are waiting at the doors of our home market. If we are to build up industry in this country we must foster design and commercial art, and cannot afford to reject any legitimate means of spreading knowledge and skill. I just want to submit this, that the National Apprenticeship Board, or some other body appointed by the Government, might very well make enquiries into all these institutions which offer training by post, receive and weigh evidence, and make an authoritative classification.

That is our proposal.

It is also mine. And I propose further that all approved institutions should thereupon be licensed, placed under a system of inspection, and made use of to the fullest possible extent.

I think I can shorten the discussion a little. Just precisely what the hon. member has indicated is what we seek to secure in this clause. It might help the hon. member who raised this if I agreed to an amendment where I have to consult—but I cannot agree to cut out my power of licensing. That is what the first amendment means. I am prepared to insert the words, after the Minister of Education, “the Board”, then it will read “before deciding any application for his consent; … the Minister shall consult the Minister of Education, the Board and any Committee which in his opinion….”

You still have the power.

Yes, I insist on having the power.

Why?

Because I have to be the final judge. Don’t you want that concession of the Board?

Yes, but it doesn’t give us what we want.

Then why bother about anything else? The fact is— I know and nobody knows better than I— that there are good correspondence schools, good training schools which are operating for gain. There are a great many in America, but they are supervised. That is what I want to do. I want to make perfectly certain that they are playing the game to the pupils and not just pouching their funds.

But this section does not give you power of supervision; it only gives you the right of veto.

Precisely; but the concession which I have made to you—and with which I heartily agree—is that I shall consult the board in addition to the Minister of Education and anyone who might have an interest in the matter. Let me reinforce—in fact, the impression was first made upon me not by a communication to me from elsewhere but from the Industrial Council, which drew attention to the correspondence schools.

We want supervision, but we do not want supervision under this clause.

I want the right to be able to veto the licence.

Under subsection (3) you can impose conditions which will include supervision.

Yes, I had overlooked that. I cannot accept the first amendment, where you desire to cut out the power of the Minister to do the vetoing, but I will put in an amendment and I hope it will meet the point you raised.

The argument of the Minister of Labour amounts to this, that half an egg is better than an empty shell. He is prepared to meet us to a certain extent, and we are therefore expected to be so satisfied that we will go to the length of accepting everything. I want to say for the information of the Minister that for hatching purposes half an egg is worth as little as an empty shell.

As long as it is not rotten.

A serious principle is involved in this matter, namely, that power is being placed in the hands of the Minister in connection with vocational training which would not be given to any person in any other sphere under any circumstances. I want to draw a comparison between general training and vocational training. As far as general training in the coutry is concerned, we also have two systems. We have our schools and university institutions which are State institutions. Those State schools and State universities provide academic training. But apart from those institutions the right has been left to people, if they are not in, a position to attend those institutions, to study privately on their own initiative, and to qualify themselves, subject to a system of State examinations and tests. That is the position in connection with academic training. The Minister now asks us in connection with vocational training to give him the right to say who will be allowed to receive training, and who will not be allowed to do so. He is to be allowed to say who can give the training and who may not give it. If the Minister of Education or one of the Administrators of the provinces had asked us to pass legislation to allow them to say who will be allowed to write the matriculation examination, and who will not be allowed to do so, and which institutions will be allowed to prepare candidates for matriculation and which institutions will not be so allowed, I wonder what the Minister of Labour would have said, and whether he and his party would have approved of it. Every sober-thinking person will describe anything of that kind as sheer nonsense. Nevertheless that is the power which the Minister of Labour wants to assume. He told us very clearly that he wants the right of veto, and it seems to me that there is another secret behind this whole affair. During the second reading debate a certain proposition was very clearly laid down by this side, namely, that admission to vocational training should not be confined to one category of persons. We said that the door should be thrown wide open, so that every one who wants to be trained, will be able to receive that training.

I want to ensure that the right training is given.

Strong arguments were advanced by this side. But what is the Minister doing under this clause? He narrows down the portal at his discretion. He wants to have the right of veto. What we suggest in our amendment is this. The Minister is the chairman of the National Board which lays down everything—the syllabus, the period of apprenticeship, the test, the examinations and everything else—but nevertheless he wants the right of veto so that he will be able to say where the candidate should receive his training. Does the Minister want to apply the closed shop principle throughout the country by means of this provision which he has inserted? I just want to put this question to the Minister. He directed a special attack against the Progress College.

I did.

It is not for me to defend the Progress College, but what we are pleading for is freedom for every institution to provide training facilities subject to the conditions and general tests which are laid down by a board which is under the control of the State, and of which tne Minister is the chairman. Why does the Minister refuse to allow that? He has an action against the Progress College, and I think the reason for that is that during the last election those people opposed his candidate. I have a pamphlet in that connection.

That is news to me.

It may be news to the Minister, but it is nevertheless a fact. The Minister will still hear more news. I have here a pamphlet which was issued during the last election. It is the official Labour Party manifesto. Here is a heading which reads as follows— (Retranslation.)

Completely free and compulsory education for the whole population of South Africa.

Then the pamphlet goes on to say—

Briefly, it is held out that if the Labour Party obtained control in this country, they would have a panacea for everything. But what do they do? As against that, the Progress College stated that the official Labour Party did not give effect to its manifesto, but that it was engaged in breaking down the opportunity which existed to provide training facilities to the people. The Progress College stated—(Retranslation.)

The Progress College has clearly shown that the five year apprenticeship is a lot of nonsense, and its trained students have proved that in South Africa.

They went on to say—

That is the origin of the action which the Minister has against this college. I may say that we have numerous testimonials here of persons who were trained by this college. I have here a number of testimonials from people who attended this particular institution, and who were qualified by the institution in such a way that today they are employed by leading firms throughout the whole country. Here, for example, I have a list of persons who are employed as qualified electricians. They belong to the trade unions; they passed the prescribed examinations of the Government. They are members of the South African Electrical Workers’ Association, and they were trained by this particular institution. Then there are numbers of persons, who were trained by them, in the employ of Iscor, Jones Ltd., the South African Railways, Hepburn Ltd., and a long list of leading firms which I could enumerate. Is that perhaps the cause of the Minister’s action, namely, what took place during the election. If they had issued a pamphlet in which they had stated: “Vote for the official Labour Party candidate,” would the Minister still have had this action against them? I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister of Labour. We ask him to accept this amendment and not to create a new principle in South Africa which does not exist under any circumstances in any other country. The Minister wants to assume a power under this clause which will give him the right of veto, and he wants nothing less than that. That simply means that the Minister wants to carry in his own pocket the key to the portal of vocational training in South Africa, and I say that if we give that key to the Minister, we shall be creating a dangerous precedent in South Africa. I do not think the Minister has the moral right to expect us to do so. I say again, as I said in connection with the other clause, that we are already giving very great powers to the Minister, which would not have been given to any Minister under any other circumstances; namely, that he will be the chairman of the National Board, and that that board will only be an advisory board. We ask the Minister to accept this amendment, because it is not a far-reaching amendment. If it is accepted it will only perpetuate vocational training which already exists in every other sphere in connection with academic training. Why does the Minister seek to introduce another principle in connection with vocational training? I think the Minister will do well at a later stage if he rises and tells the House that he will accept this amendment. On another occasion I told the Minister that if he wanted to be stubborn and to assume dictorial powers as far as the interests of the public are concerned, he will in the future be known in history as “Walter, the worstelheld,” (grappling hero,) but the tragedy will be that the “grappling hero” will go under. I therefore ask the Minister for the sake of his own future and for the sake of the interests of those people who would like to be trained as artisans, to accept this reasonable amendment.

I shall try to speak in English so that the Minister will not require an interpreter.

You don’t believe in the interpreter?

I have been watching him all the time and he seems to be saying too little. Do I interprete the Minister’s reasons for this section correctly? Is it that he wants to control schools where children and adults are taught trades, or is it, as I think, for no other purpose than to keep as many young people as possible out of the trades?

I want to make sure they are taught properly.

If the hon. Minister is anxious that these schools should continue to produce tradesmen, then he should accept the amendment which has been moved by this side of the House; in other words that the question of these schools be left to the National Board and not to the Minister. In putting my case I want to say that he must not think that he will have no say; the Government has got a say and will be able to bring matters before this Board. He himself is the chairman of the Board. My reason for being suspicious is this. If you read this clause correctly you will find that he only wants to give a permit or his written consent for the conducting of these schools in or by which manual or practical training is provided in any designated trade. That is the only time he has to give his written consent. If I wanted to start a correspondence school, or if anyone else who happened to be a rogue wanted to start a correspondence school he can do so without the Minister’s consent. It is only when they give manual or practical training that they require the Minister’s consent. But if anybody, no matter how big a rogue he is, wants to set up a correspondence school and teach people by correspondence, he is at liberty to do so.

But you know that you cannot make a tradesman by correspondence.

My mind goes back to a few days ago when the Minister most dramatically held up a pamphlet from the Progress College ….

I have it here now.

… and said that he would not like to give it to this side, that he was afraid it might be lost. Well, I have a dozen of them here; I can give the Minister some more. He said most dramatically that these people were dishonest, that they were promising something which they could not carry out and he brought us all under the impression that he was making this proposal because of the purity in himself and the cleanliness that he wanted in these schools. Correspondence schools nowadays advertise to teach you anything. They can do that and be as dishonest as they like, as long as they do not give their students practical training. They can only give the practical training if the men who train the students are well-trained people. I do not say that they succeed but they are trying to get things done. One must be fair, and I think this attack on the part of the Minister was unreasonable. These people, of course, are not represented in Parliament. They have no redress. They have to go to someone and they came to us to put their case. I think it was very unfair on the part of the Minister in view of this very clause. You can argue until you are blue in the face but the position is that as long as you can produce tradesmen who have served their apprenticeship, who can compete with other tradesmen, then you must have the consent of the Minister, if practical training is given. I make bold to say that the present Minister of Labour will not give his written consent to any school no matter how good it is. These people write to us and they tell us that they have £10,000 worth of machinery, that they have the best trained mechanics, both from the theoretical and the practical point of view who are teaching these students. The Minister brought us under the impression that these people can never become members of the trade union.

Not as tradesmen.

He mentioned operatives.

Operatives; that is the word he used, I just want to tell him that innumerable engineering firms, leading firms in this country, are using the services of these people. They are in the employ of leading firms like S.A. Forge (Pty.), Ltd., Dunswart Iron & Steel, Dorman Long (S.A.), Ltd., Couzin & Attwood, British Mining Supplies, Main Tin, Duncan Andrew, Carrier Engineers, Fabricated Steel, Gilbert Hamer, Union Whaling, Inspan Products, Reliance Foundry, Gratus & Gratus, Metal Containers, Fraser & Chalmers, Metal Industries, Switchgear Erection, Ussher’s Inventions, Premier Metal Company, Central Welding Works, Super Concrete Pipes, Natal Steel & Cast, Alpheus Williams & bowse, Volcana Engineering, Klip Power Station, S.A.R. & Harbours, Reynolds Son & Partner, W. James, Alex. Murray, H. Incledon, R. Scott & Co., Stewarts & Lloyds, F. G. Raw, Newcombe Bond, S. S. Slipper, Iscor, Wire Industries, British Airwarys, C.M.R. Goldmining Industries, etc. These are all engineering firms which are only too thankful to get men who were trained by this college. It seems so unfair, because if a man comes from the country and he happens to be over the age limit, the only way in which he can get training is by going to schools of this sort. It seems to me so unfair to attack this school, beceuse these people have been carrying on their business for 9 years, and I cannot believe that people can carry on a swindle for 9 years. They must have been able to produce the goods or they would not have been able to carry on for nine years. Apart from that they have people who are not only members of the trade unions but who are members of the Council. Take a man like Mr. Cantor. He was a taxi-driver in Johannesburg; but the Secretary of the Welders Branch of the South African Boiler Makers and Shipbuilders Society is a Mr. Canter. Take a young South African who comes in from the country. He cannot receive training because he cannot get an employer to train him. He may be over the age limit, and the only thing he can do is to go to a school of this sort and have himself trained there. This school has trained 1,700 men who otherwise might have been walking the streets today—people who were cab drivers and ordinary pick and shovel workers. The only way in which they could get into a trade was by going to this college for training. The college has tradesmen who are able to teach the pupils, and on the completion of their training they have been able to compete with other tradesmen in the open market. The Minister said yesterday that no matter how well a tradesman has been trained, if he is not able to do the work properly, the employer may refuse to engage him; the employer has the last say. But these men who have been trained by the college are actually in the employ of leading engineering firms in the country today. The Minister may say that that may be so as far as welders are concerned. But here these people write: “on the electrical side….” [Time limit.]

I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that if it were not for the fact that we are prosecuting a war, a war to which my hon. friends on my right are opposed, they would have had no foundation for their argument that these firms have been able to employ 1,700 people who were trained by the Progress College, because these jobs would not have existed. We on these benches have from time to time made an attack on what we call a close preserve, and I think rightly so, but these gentlemen are not making an attack on a close preserve. I want to say unequivocally that the apprenticeship system in any country, not only in South Africa but in Great Britain and in America, is open to curtailment rather than to expansion. The tendency is rather that you get more people than that you get too few.

That is not the case in South Africa.

It has been the case in South Africa. I say that without fear of contradiction. It does not avail in normal times merely to claim that people should have the right of training. What is important is that when they are trained, there will be jobs available for them. And I want to emphasise again that if there had hot been a war, which our friends do not want, there would not have been these jobs available.

How do you know?

The hon. member also stated that this college had functioned for nine years. I want to say that this situation has not gone on for nine years. I can say from my practical experience that the danger prior to the war was this, that there would be mechanics walking the streets rather than a shortage of mechanics, and that is not only the experience of South Africa, but as I have said before it is the experience of Great Britain, the experience of America and the experience of any country which has had anything to do with what we may call the rise of industry. These are the facts. We are not any of us against the idea of training. But I want to tell the House this in connection with our trade schools. Our trade schools are perfectly well managed institutions under the care of the State. In the trade schools, until the war broke out, and even after the war broke out, we have been training boys for two years in one kind of trade, only to find at the end of that period that that kind of trade was not available to the boys; and you have numerous examples where a boy has been trained for two years in the training school as a boiler-maker, for example, and then becomes a fitter. You have the example on the other hand of a boy training to be a carpenter who had to be a boiler-maker. We cannot be sure that we can give the boy a trade that suits his training. I want to say again that it is only the war that has enabled us in South Africa to employ these people who have had this kind of extra training that is given by the Progress College. There was never a shortage of mechanics in South Africa until the war came on the scene.

Nonsense.

Why did you import them then.

If the war had not broken out, we should not at this stage be deploring the fact that men could not get training. We should be deploring the fact that they had had the training and that they could not get work. I make that statement without fear of contradiction. We appreciate that the trained man is the man who should be able to get the job. We should appreciate too that a college which sets out in its indications to the public to bring into being a fully fledged mechanic, and only succeeds in bringing into being an operative—that is what they do—is not putting the position correctly. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) read out the names of a number of firms with whom these men are employed. That is worth no more than the paper it is written on. Not so long ago when Dorman Long were faced with a complaint from Defence that a certain article was no longer being produced because there was difficulty in design, what happened was that hundreds of people who had been trained and who had been given a smattering of welding knowledge, had to be taken on. We had hundreds of them on the Reef, men who had received a smattering of training. These are the facts. I want to say that it is not sufficient to quote a long list of names of engineering firms with which these men are employed; obviously you must quote it if you are going to have any case at all, but they cannot hold down their jobs in competition with fully trained men. Supposing we get this kind of testimonial. “I have to place on record …

What are you reading from?

I am simply reading the sort of thing which might eventuate.

I suppose it is something you have imagined yourself.

It is the sort of thing you may expect. “I have to place on record with deep gratitude …. [Time limit.]

I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne).

Do you know anything about it?

I should like to remind some hon. members opposite that if God had meant us to talk more than we listen He would have given us two mouths and one ear, instead of one mouth and two ears.

I wonder what he gave you a mouth for at all?

My reply to the hon. member is that conceit is God’s gift to little men. I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Germiston that this habit, this practice of placing unqualified men in the engineering industry has not been going on for the last nine years.

And why is that?

And talking about this Progress College …

Do you know anything at all about it?

These sort of interruptions are uncalled for especially when an engineer gets up and talks about his own trade—which he knows much more about than briefless barristers who get up here and have a lot to say about things about which they know nothing. Well, this is the true postion, these men have been brought in during the war just because there has been a terrific shortage of mechanics; men have been brought in with a little bit of training in drilling and special grinding. They are not mechanics at all. They are paid up to 1s. 9d. per hour, which is excellent pay indeed, but these men by no stretch of imagination whatever can claim to be craftsmen. They are on repetition work and they could never claim to be mechanics even if they served on that repetition job for years. Now I want to ask hon. members opposite that presuming this Progress College started a farming course …

We wouldn’t stop them.

They might even have a garden in their backyard and say that they give their students practical work also. I would ask the Opposition whether they would be prepared to allow that. The hon. member for Germiston said that these men were brought into the country because there was such a terrific shortage, and I heard the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth)— he said it sotto voce, and I hope Hansard heard it—“why don’t you import mechanics?”

He said “Why did you import …”

He said: Why did you not. The hon. member for Germiston said that there was such a shortage.

On a point of explanation, what the hon. member for Germiston said was that there had never been a shortage of trained craftsmen and I asked: “Why did you import them?”

I’m sorry. I’m not prepared to accept that at all.

Order. The hon. member must accept it.

I have two ears and the hon. member for Germiston can tell us what he did say.

The hon. member must accept the word of another hon. member.

Oh, very well, I accept it, but I certainly was hoping that that was the forerunner of a policy which we might expect after the war when we shall need skilled men, and I was hoping that we might get the assistance of hon. members opposite in the promotion of an immigration policy.

I think my hon. friends with all their anxiety to get training for the lads of the country are not doing those lads a service in the line of country they are pursuing. Let us take this question of the Progress College, who advertised, and have delivered into the hands of the hon. members, correspondence of which I have received quite a number of copies. Let me say in the first place that these letters were canvassed— asked for.

They are genuine, though.

I am not saying that they are not.

What difference does it make so long as they are genuine?

Now please don’t interrupt and let me say what I want to say.

You won’t be doing justice to yourself if you get angry.

I have also in my possession letters—but these letters were not canvassed. What I want to draw attention to is, that in the main, with one or two possible exceptions, these letters are from welders, people who went through the Welding Course in the Progress College. Now those welders have been able to obtain employment as welders, because owing to the exigencies of the war, employers have been prepared to take on anyone who has only a smattering of the knowledge of welding. But if and when we reach normality in the engineering industry, or if we should be faced with a depression, these will be the people who will be walking the streets.

Someone will be walking the streets in any case then.

You are not referring to the Minister, are you?

If I do I shall meet the hon. member face to face. He will be the solicitor not I.

Soliciting alms.

These will be the first people to be discharged. Indeed they were the first to be discharged when Dorman, Long as the hon. member for Germiston pointed out, closed certain parts of their works. Well I have a letter here from someone who started that course to which hon. members have referred. It reads like this—

This was not canvassed for.

What course was that?

Most of it is welding. In every other case they are only taken up in the Trades Unions as operatives and not as skilled workmen. There is not an engineer here who would subscribe to the idea that they would take these people on as skilled mechanics.

Nor is there anyone out of the House who would do it.

They would take them on as operatives, and that is how these people are being deceived, and all I want is the right to supervise these people? To lay down the necessary conditions and if the Progress College reaches the standard which I want to impose upon them, they will get their licence.

Do you want to close them down?

No, not if they give the training which we require. And that is all this House should demand of me, that I should see to it that if they reach the standard laid down, if they turn out properly skilled mechanics in the various branches, they shall have the licence but not otherwise, because otherwise the people going there will be woefully deceived and the people who will be deceived most of all will be the sons of the countryside, just as their fathers were deceived by the glowing prospectuses from this, that, and the other financial undertaking; and just so will their children be deceived, if there are any at the moment—though I doubt it very much because they are mostly getting the children from the towns—just so will they be deceived if they go and start in colleges of these various kinds. Now the letter I was quoting from goes on to say this—

Now how can anyone imagine that a man can be trained and be taught a trade in 2½ months, in 6 months, in 12 months or even in two years.

It is a five years’ course.

Could he not be trained as an operative.

Oh, yes, but let them advertise that then. I have no objection to that. But they claim to train them as trained mechanics and any engineering member of this House will bear me out that it cannot be done. And the letter goes on then—

I also found out that wherever I started as a welder, I was put off as soon as the Industrial Council found out that I was a Progress College man.

Also I wish to stress the fact that once the course is paid for, more especially in my case as I paid cash, once the papers were signed and I was there about three weeks, they seemed to lose all interest in us, we just had to pick up what we could and teach ourselves with inferior materials.

Now I have a number of other letters and I have not asked for a single one of them. Here is another letter from Pretoria—

Very little equipment and insufficient tools are provided and the instruction is pathetic. Courses in Electricity, Armature Winding, Diesel Mechanics, etc., are offered too, but I have not seen any equipment which could have even remotely suggested tuition in the above-mentioned subjects. The majority of their students are engaged on welding courses, and it appears that no matter how bad or indifferent one is at that trade, there is sure to be a well-paid job waiting. Naturally, these students do not see that this is only for the duration of the emergency, and that they will be the first among the unemployed.

Is it quite fair to read exparte statements in this House.

They are all ex-parte statements with the exception that the other letters were canvassed for and this is not.

This is a testimonial, not an ex-parte statement.

So is this. I don’t want to stress that, but I want to make it clear that if the Progress College or any other college can come up to scratch and meet the qualifications, they will get their licence. And I concede to my hon. friends that in granting that licence my consent will be subject to consultation with the Board.

Why don’t you give the Board the powers?

No, I shall keep the powers in my own hands. Now all these cases which hon. members have testimonials for are in respect of repetition work. All these are merely operatives put on machines and the work can by no means be called skilled in the sense that a mechanic is skilled; and nearly all of these refer to welders. The engineering industry in the past few years has been only too glad to get people with a smattering of welding knowledge. Very well. I now move this amendment which I have told the Committee I would insert, namely—

I’m sorry that I have to get up again because we don’t want to continue the discussion. But I feel I must in fairness to this college say this: I don’t know the people and I don’t want to advertise them, but seeing that the Minister has now read these so-called testimonials which he calls unsolicited, whereas he says the others have been asked for—although I don’t know what actually took place—I want him to understand what we have been advised the position to be and it is only fair that it should be reported in Hansard. We have a letter here which reads as follows—

Order, the hon. member cannot read a letter relating to a debate during the current session.

I didn’t say they were not in Trade Unions.

No, but the Minister said they were there as operatives. They deny that and they say it is unfounded and they give the names of the people who are in Trade Unions, and some of them are chairmen and secretaries and full members.

That is also true, they are all members.

Are operatives also members?

Yes.

But these men are not there as operatives, they are there as journeymen.

That is not true.

They say so.

That is untrue.

Well, you cannot expect me to accept an ex-parte statement.

I also make a statement.

I don’t say I don’t believe your statement; I say I believe you are misinformed.

I don’t say I don’t believe you; I simply say that as a lawyer you are wrongly instructed.

I submit the Minister is wrongly instructed and I say that what he says is not correct, and I say that they are real journeymen and that they are members of the Trade Union.

Find out their rate of pay.

The rate of pay varies. You can have a look at their pay envelopes. It varies from £10 to £20 per week. Now the hon. member for Germiston said that they wanted to have methods of limiting the number of people coming into the trades. The Minister of course doesn’t agree to that. He says we have never had too few tradesmen in this country, but does he think a man will come 6,000 miles with his family to settle here if he didn’t know that he was coming here as a tradesman. Can he tell me of one of these men who has had to go hat in hand to a society to ask for bread—which South Africans have had to do—and I can tell him that from 1934 to 1938, 5,200 apprentices finished their agreement, and 4,723 tradesmen were imported into this country in the same period. For him to tell the House that there has always been a surplus of tradesmen in face of these figures seems so ridiculous that it is unnecessary to answer it. Our whole case is founded on this that young South Africans have not been able to become tradesmen because they imported these thousands of people from overseas, and all we ask for is that the Labour Party in the House should first of all make provision for our own people before thousands are imported from overseas,

These people were imported for the steelworks.

I am not talking about that. What I say is that young South Africans to the number of at least 4,700 have been kept out of the trade to supply work for men imported from overseas. You cannot argue away these figures, and I want to say again, because the Minister and hon. members over there do not appreciate the fact, that everyone of those 4,700 have displaced a South African who today is digging with pick and shovel because his parents cannot afford to educate him further, and if they do not get into a trade they are doomed to that sort of work. I hope that hon. members will get that into their brain, and particularly the hon. member for Germiston—I hope he has the intelligence to realise it. There should be no necessity for me in my own country to stand up and plead for my own people. And we say we are not going to give the Minister, who is the nominee of these Trade Unions …

You haven’t got the right to say that.

Oh, yet I have; we are not going to give the Minister the right to limit the South Africans entering into these trades. We are prepared to give this to the National Council, which is a Council which we consider will look after the interests of this country, before looking after the interests of other countries, and that is why we say : give that right of veto to that Board of which the Minister is the Chairman. That Board is comprised of men to be selected by the Minister. Why make such a fight about it? If a member of the Minister’s party can make a statement such as he has made, that these rules and regulations are there to limit the number of tradesmen …

On a point of order, I cannot allow another member …

That is not a point of order.

I did not say that we were in favour of limiting the numbers. I said that the circumstances limit the numbers and that is a fact because …

The hon. member cannot argue the point now.

I don’t know what my hon. friend intends to convey, but what he did convey was that there had never been a shortage of tradesmen and for that reason the interjection was made by the hon. member for George: “Why did you import these men?”

On a point of order, I did not import these men.

Perhaps you, yourself were imported.

I am very glad to learn that my hon. friend has never imported anyone and I only hope he’ll never be able to dp so either. In any case it is quite plain to me sitting here and listening to the Labour members and knowing the Minister as their Leader, and knowing that he is dictated to by the Labour movement, that I cannot possibly agree to place this right in the hands of the Minister or of any other Minister, when he has this National Board there, comprised of men who are taken out of the different walks of life and representing all the different spheres of life. He himself is Chairman of the Board. Why cannot you leave the right of vetoing these colleges to that Board? If you break down that type of school it means that you are building an ever rising wall around these skilled labourers. The Minister says he doesn’t want the young boys to be humbugged, but the fact is that for nine years this particular college has been in existence, it has trained over 1,700 men whom you would have had to import. Now the Minister can by a stroke of the pen or by refusing to sign his name, simply close up this college, and I cannot possibly agree to leave this power in his hands. I say again it should be in the hands of the National Board.

On some points I am inclined to agree with the Minister. I do not think it is possible for any college, as a college, to train what we call a journeyman. At the same time there are different kinds of operatives—we know that. A man may be an operative, performing the work of a journeyman in one particular sphere, and it may be possible to pay him a journeyman’s wage on that particular job, or perhaps a halfpenny or a penny less per hour

It’s a good deal less.

Now that is Grade I. And then we come to Grade II. A turret lathe turning job, for instance, would be done by a man in Grade II. And then you have Grade III and Grade IV—drilling for instance. And then you have rough grinding which is unskilled work—that comes under Grade VII and is usually done by natives. Anyhow there is a great deal more in this than hon. members are aware of. I might just say that this type of college to my mind—the type of college which is causing all the trouble here in this discussion—is probably the result of wartime conditions. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) when he says that there was, in the ordinary course of events, before the war a tendency for industry to become oversupplied with skilled men; but when war broke out and special conditions arose, that position was reversed and we found that we had not got the necessary skilled men to undertake all the necessary production which was required—again as a result of war conditions. Therefore these colleges perform a special function, but I am inclined to think that when these special circumstances disappear, that is, after the war, probably the colleges—and I am afraid in many cases the demand for the men they train—will disappear with them. Still I “do not quite like the right of veto being placed in the hands of the Minister. He may, for example, limit the type of training offered by regulation under the War Emergency Measures. But this Act is an Apprenticeship Act and should deal with skilled men only, and not with the operative class. He may for example by regulation, say that they shall not advertise that they can turn out journeymen, but only operatives in any particular grade. I certainly think he has a case for saying that no purely educational institution is capable of turning out a journeyman as we understand the term. I think every hon. member of the House will agree that training given by a correspon dence college or the type of institution known as the Progress College cannot possibly turn out a fully qualified journeyman. I think the Minister should seriously consider whether he cannot get over the difficulty by limiting the training given by these colleges to operatives.

If ever a cat has been let out of the bag in connection with the policy of the Labour Party, it was done by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne). I always thought the Labour Party existed to look after the interests of the labourers, but according to the explanation of the hon. member it is very clear that what the Minister is contemplating here is to close the door to the training of artisans. It is the duty of the Labour Party to see to it that our people are trained in the most efficient manner, and that they are given an opportunity to do skilled work; but they now seek to prevent that by closing the door to training. They want to confine training to a handful of people, notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of our youths leave school without having had an opportunity of receiving vocational training. The same hon. member stated that too many artisans were being trained. I wonder whether he realises that our country is still in the initial stages of industrial development, and that we will require artisans in every sphere. It is therefore necessary to train as many as possible so that the needs of industry can be met. By doing that we can provide work for many of our people, and give them an opportunity to do work for which other people would have had to be imported. We should, in this matter, train a large section of the labouring classes, and in doing so we can also assist in solving our poor white problem. They are opposing it. The Minister objects to giving the National Board the right to decide. He is the chairman of the board; they deliberate together; what can be wrong with that? If the Minister, as the chairman, cannot exercise his influence to such an extent that it will not be necessary for him at a later date to exercise his right of veto as far as the actions of the board are concerned, he cannot have any confidence in himself. We shall now get this position, that the board will come to a decision and the Minister will then proceed to exercise his right of veto as far as that decision is concerned. The request of this side is very reasonable, and I hope the Minister will accede to it, so that this alteration may be brought about. The Minister mentioned the case of a few students who were of opinion that they had not been fairly treated by the institution in question. I quite believe that those few students are exceptions to the 1,700 who completed the course, and in regard to whom evidence was given here. There are always students who do not do their duty; and if they do not get the attention of the teachers, it is not the fault of the teachers. The cause of the failure of these students may be their own lack of interest. I want to ask the Minister to leave the matter with the Board of which he is the chairman, and to abandon the right of exercising the veto as far as decisions taken by the Board are concerned.

Is it perhaps fortuitous that the Leader of the Labour Party in South Africa is doing precisely what the Leader of the Labour Party in England is doing? We know that Mr. Attlee recently addressed a congress of 1,300 delegates of technicians. There he pointed out the great progress which would be expected in the industrial sphere. He specially referred to South Africa, and he may have had in mind the developments at Vereeniging. If there were 1,300 delegates, we can take it that they represented a very large community. On the one hand we find that Mr. Attlee advocates emigration to South Africa from England, and on the other hand we find that the Leader of the Labour Party in South Africa wants to apply the closed shop principle; that he is opposed to the recognition of trade schools and that he does not want to have institutions like the Progress College. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) very clearly indicated that they want to restrict the number of youths who are trained. Our youths will then be kept out of employment, and after the war immigrants from overseas will be brought to this country. The meaning of it all is very clear. I can only say that there are hundreds of youngsters on the platteland who are anxious to learn a trade. There are no facilities for them, however. They have not got the money, and there are no bursaries or hostels which will enable them to do so. I also want to say that admission to factories and industries is confined principally to the sons of labourers. That is their preserve, and for the rest it is practically a closed door. I want to say very clearly that the platteland youngsters are not afforded any opportunity. It is always said that there is no room, and that there are no prospects of employment for them. But the urban children, and especially the children of members of trade unions, always find room. I want to ask the Minister once again to create more facilities. Let the State take the initiative instead of introducing restrictive measures of this nature. We should rather have too many of these artisans than too few. Take the position in Cape Town. A few days ago a man wanted to have the roof of his house repaired. He got in touch with a certain firm but they could not do it before the end of the month, and this was the work of an ordinary plumber. That shows that there is a shortage of plumbers in Cape Town; why then should we refuse to allow facilities for training? As a plattelander who has had a great deal to do with platteland youths, to whom the door was closed in the past, I want to make this serious appeal to the Minister.

Question put: That the words “without the written consent of the Minister”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause:

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—62:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson,’ H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—26 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie negatived.

The second amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie was put and negatived.

With leave of the Committee, the remaining amendments proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie were withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided :

Ayes—62:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Bowker, T. B.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock. P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sutter, G. J.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—26:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 36, On the motion of the Minister of Labour an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 37,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 40,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 41,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 44,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 45,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to, HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 6th May.

We would just like to have clarity in connection with this matter. The vote which is now under discussion is demobilisation and social welfare. I believe it is desired that we should first discuss demobilisation and later social welfare. If that is so, I think the House should know that the first discussion will be on demobilisation. As you know, there is not a single item on the estimates for demobilisation. We therefore have this extraordinary postion that we have to discuss a vote which does not appear on the estimates at all, it then only remains to discuss the policy of the Minister in the light of the statement which he made, and it is necessary that we should know from you to what extent members who take part in this debate will only be allowed to discuss policy without discussing any vote on the estimates. I think it would be desirable if some sort of guidance were given in this matter.

This vote affords hon. members the opportunity to discuss demobilisation and I understand that it has been arranged first to discuss demobilisation.

And not social welfare?

There is nothing to prevent the hon. member from discussing social welfare as well.

The position then is that we are discussing a vote for which no provision is made on the estimates. In that case we can only discuss policy.

Yes.

And not a particular vote on the estimates?

There is a small item for discharged soldiers. On page 419 there is a temporary maintenance allowance. The general policy may also be discussed.

Very well. Then we shall discuss it under that heading. The Minister of Finance explained in his budget speech that apart from this small amount no specific provision could be made. His words were—

The statement which the Minister of Demobilisation made is a statement which, I think, will be welcomed not only by the soldiers but throughout the country, and which will be welcomed even more by those who are interested in the security of our people, those who are interested in seeing that we do not create post-war conditions in this country which may lead to a terrible catastrophe in the country—a condition of unemployment and a condition of chaos which may have fatal results in this country. Everyone who is interested in law and order and in the rehabilitation of the whole population, must take an interest in the rehabilitation of the returned soldier, and his re-employment as well as his social security. There we are on common ground, where we understand each other well. Let us understand one another well, that everything should be done to make the path as smooth as possible for those people who gave up their employment for years, and who will now return to take up their former places in the community. Unfortunately no provision has as yet been made on the estimates. The Minister has in his possession all the data in connection with the number of men and women who have already been discharged from the army. I do not know what the figure is, but I think reference has already been made to 30,000. It is probably much higher. Some of those people are in receipt of pensions for some reason or other, but the vast majority of them have already returned to their former occupations. I take it there are numbers of those people who may want to make use of the provision which has been made by the Minister. If the Minister is really going to take steps in the near future—he told us that the people should be patient, that they should not expect immediate action—but I inferred from what the Minister said that he would be in a position within the next few months to make a start with the scheme which he suggested. I take it then that it is not only a scheme for the people who will be discharged from the army, that it is not a scheme which will only be applicable at the end of the war. I take it it will not only be applicable after the war. As I understood the Minister, it will come into effect only when general demobilisation takes place.

No, as soon as the machinery has been created.

The Minister proposes to go on with it as soon as the machinery has been created. I am of opinion, therefore, that we should have made provision on the estimates even at this stage. Surely the Minister knows that the soldiers who have already been discharged are entitled to £1 10s. in respect of every month of their period of service; he also knows that they are entitled to certain other allowances. I think some of these allowances have already been given to demobilised soldiers. I also know that there are other schemes, loan schemes, which are already in operation, and I take it those schemes will be withdrawn when the full schemes comes into operation. I feel strongly therefore that provision should be made on these estimates. It would have involved a considerable amount if the Minister had made provision only for those soldiers who have already been discharged. He could then have told the House what the costs would be in respect of those soldiers who have already been discharged from the army, and we would then have been in a better position to estimate the costs of the whole scheme; and we would have had more clarity in regard to this matter. Provision is made for the payment of a globular sum of £250 to certain returned soldiers, with the further possibility of a loan of £1,250, I think, without interest for five years. I just want to point out that it will be particularly difficult to apply that in practice. [Time limit].

I think if there is any matter which is very close to the heart of everyone in this House, it should be—even including hon. members of the Opposition—the welfare and the future of our returned soldiers. At the outset I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister on his statement in the House which is today regarded as the Soldiers’ Charter. I think the proof that this statement was well-received throughout the country, is illustrated by the fact that one of the newspapers on the Witwatersrand described the scheme as a magnificent one; and one is pleased to know that the Government is honouring its obligations towards these men. There is one aspect of the Minister’s statement which I want to emphasise rather than criticise and that is that the provisions in that charter are not embodied in legislation. We know that this country’s politics is something like a volcano. One knows what the country has today but one does not know what the country will have tomorrow, and I think that is one thing which causes a certain amount of uneasiness, the fact that the soldiers’ charter is not being translated into an Act of Parliament. One would like to express the hope that certain specific provisions in that statement will at some future date be translated into legislation. The second important aspect—and it was raised by way of interjection during the course of the hon. Minister’s statement—is the question of the soldiers who have already been discharged. We have amongst those men, men who have rendered important services up North and men who have rendered valuable services in the Union of South Africa. There seems to be a tendency—and I am pleased that the hon. Minister did not reveal that tendency—to regard the man who has seen service up North as more important than the man who has served in the Union. That may be so or it may not be so, but we cannot generalise for the simple reason that many of the men who were very keen indeed to go up North were compelled to stay in the Union owing to the exigencies of the service. The demands of the Department of Defence were such that their services were required in the Union. In other words, they were making a better contribution towards the war effort by remaining in the Union than they would have done if they had gone up North. I hope therefore that no distinction will be drawn between the soldier who has seen service up North and the soldier who served only in the Union. The same applies also to our women soldiers in the various organisations which they have joined. It has sometimes been said that these women are wasting their time and the Government’s money. But it is not realised that they have occupied and are occupying important positions and that they have enabled men to go up North. We hope that all the provisions of the Charter will be equally applicable to the women, and may I say that their services to South Africa have been outstanding both in the Union of South Africa and at the front. In regard to the soldiers who have already been discharged there are many of them who find it difficult to get fixed employment, and one expresses the hope that the Director of Demobilisation will, as far as possible, trace these men and see whether they are in fixed employment. A number of the provisions in that Charter cover immediate benefits to these men. But the security of the men is not going to lie in the pensions so much, or in the grants which will be paid to them; the real security is security in employment. That is the most important thing, and I venture to suggest that the success of this scheme as set out in the Minister’s statement will depend upon the goodwill of the people in commerce and industries in South Africa. I think I asked the hon. Minister on one occasion whether a survey has been made as to the number of men who have already been discharged and will be discharged, and what their positions were prior to the outbreak of war.

If my memory serves me correctly, the Minister replied in the affirmative. But I think it is imperative that a survey should also be made of the possible avenues of employment which may be available after the war in housing schemes, municipal roads, alterations to parks, etc. It is important to find out what industries are today producing for the war effort, and whether they are in a position to switch over to peace time production; to what extent can industrial plans which are available in the country, be improved and extended. I think a circular might be sent even to the ordinary citizens in order to ascertain what work can be done immediately at the end of hostilities. One would then be in a position to direct the labour at the disposal of the Directorate to those avenues where their services are in demand. Then there is also the question of State undertakings. State undertakings will form an important feature in the postwar period, and as far as demobilisation is concerned, I think it may be necessary to have certain State undertakings to provide for the employment of these men. I want to emphasise that the employment part is the important part of demobilisation. I regard it as the most essential part of our demobilisation machinery. One type of soldier will be able to go back to his pre-war job, but then you have the man who will not be able to go back to his pre-war job because it will not pay him. Take the case of the young man who was employed as a messenger before the war. During the war he has become considerably older and that position would no longer be suitable for him. Since the outbreak of the war many of these young men have got married, and they cannot return to their former employment. The question is whether we are going to pay a subsidy to the employers to enable them to pay a salary to these men which will be compatible with the standard of living to which they are accustomed and with the status they have reached. [Time limit.]

When my time expired I was pointing out that certain groups would be entitled to an amount of £250 with the possibility of a loan of £1,250 without interest for five years. I think it is very important in the interests of those people who expect to benefit under this scheme that the Minister should state more definitely and clearly which groups will be entitled to what seems to me to be the higher gratuities under this scheme. It is clear to me that thousands or tens of thousands will feel that they should try to obtain the higher gratuity. I am thinking of those who ocupied lowly-paid positions before they joined the army. Amongst them there are numbers of people whose ambition is to acquire some sort of business, or to take up some trade or other, where it will be possible for them to make a livelihood with such a capital sum. I am afraid the people will have very high hopes. If I were to give advice to the thousands of workers who lived below the bread line before they joined up, I would advise every one of them to try to qualify for a particular career, or a particular trade where they will be able to earn a better living than they did previously. I am afraid the applications of these people will be refused as a general rule, because it will be said that before the war they did work of some sort or other where their pay was low. These are the people whom we have always felt should be given an opportunity of improving their positions and increasing their standard of living. I think it is necessary that the Minister should make a clear statement in order to explain which groups will be encouraged to make use of this form of gratuity. As far as the students are concerned, I think the provision which is being made to enable them to continue their studies, largely on loans provided by the Treasury, is a very good provision. I am not so optimistic about the repayment of those sums in the future, but it depends on the economic conditions of the country to what extent those repayments will be made. Then I want to point out that the schemes which are proposed here in order to give the people an opportunity to begin life on a higher standard of living, should be applicable not only to returned soldiers but also to others. We have constantly fought for an opportunity to be given to unskilled people to become skilled labourers, and since we are introducing a scheme for a certain group of the population, a group which has the right to be rehabilitated, we must not lose sight of the fact that these schemes should apply to all sections of the population which should be enabled to make a living. We must guard against one thing, and that is that the steps which are to be taken will not simply mean that thousands and tens of thousands of people will be thrown out of employment to make room for the returned soldiers. These people must of course be given back their pre-war employment, but we also expect that they will be given an opportunity to obtain better work at a better salary. But we would be neglecting our duty if we did not point out the danger that thousands of people might lose their employment, and that it will then be said that it is not the concern of the State. We want to emphasise that part of the scheme should be that the Government will make provision for everyone who will necessarily be thrown out of employment as a result of the fact that these schemes come into operation. I want to point out this danger. We might already have made a beginning with this scheme while it is not so comprehensive, because there is still no general demobilisation, in order to test the position. We could have made the experiment at this stage, which ought to be made when the greater difficulty presents itself, namely, to deal scientifically with every person who is thrown out of employment in order to make room for the returned soldier. There ought to be a national board to go into the position of those who leave their employment, and to determine to what extent the position of those people can be secured. We must not allow ourselves to be drowned in the sentimental aspect of this matter. You will notice that it is always emphasised that we ought to have a great deal of sympathy for the soldiers. I fully agree with that. I hope not a single soldier after this war will find himself in the position, on his discharge from the army, that he is ill with a temperature of 103, and that he is not allowed to receive treatment in a military hospital, but that it will be said that he only wants to make money out of the Government. You may ask me to whom that happened. It happened to me. When I was discharged I had a temperature of 103. The only notification which came from headquarters was that that officer had no right to be in the military hospital; that he should be in a civil hospital. I hope that experience will not befall any of the soldiers after this war, and I hope the Minister will see to it that it does not happen again. We emphasise that provision should be made for everyone who is rendered unemployed. It is no use providing for the employment of one section and throwing the other section out of employment. I should like to hear from the Minister that by means of this scheme he will, as far as possible, ensure that the rest of the people are placed in employment.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

First of all I wish to congratulate the Minister and the Committee that so ably assisted him in bringing out the scheme which the Minister explained last week. The scheme has been accepted by the country as a very good scheme indeed. Naturally, we will want to hear more about the details on the whole; the general outline has been accepted as very sound and very generous. Everything however depends on the practical application of the scheme, and it is this point which I feel we should stress, namely, that what has been suggested and what has been given forth is going to be actually carried out. We all know and we all feel our obligations and thankfulness to those who have done so much for us, and we all feel at the present moment at all events that we want to do all we can to allow these men and women, who have done so much for us, what they are entitled to— namely, the normal privileges of free human beings, of being able to work and earn a proper livelihood. This scheme involves however a tremendous amount of work to put it into practical effect. I feel it will be necessary at the earliest possible stage for the Minister to give us more detailed plans of each particular item, how these plans are going to be worked out in the whole of the scheme. We would like to know details about things like agricultural training and we would like these details at the earliest possible moment. And when we come to a most important thing and that is the staff who are going to handle these schemes. I feel that if we could have ex-soldiers with the proper outlook, the psychological outlook, if we could have a staff composed of people like that, we could get the best work done through these people who know the troubles, these people who have the same sort of feelings as the man who has just been discharged—because they are the sort of people who know what their fellowmen want and they are the people whom we should have to carry out these plans. The plans are difficult enough and if we want to accomplish what every one in this country feels that we should accomplish, then we must have the right sort of person doing the job and carrying out the scheme. There is one danger, I can forsee, one particular one which I wish just to mention at this moment. There will be different departments dealing with different aspects and I sincerely hope that there will be no deparmental or professional jealousy between one department and another and that our returned soldiers in that way might fall between two stools. I want to impress once more the essential point that all departments should forget their own professional pride. Every one should have one object in view only and that is to see that the men get the very best that we can possibly give them and get the full advantage of these schemes which have been worked out and of the schemes which will still be worked out for their good. I should like to be assured that we are going to have complete collaboration between the Department of Labour and the Department of Demobilisation, that the Department of Labour will carry out everything which is visualised by the Department of Demobilisation. I should like to see that we set up committees, which will mean that Labour and those working on the demobilisation plans can jointly work out the practical outcome of the idea that is being presented and the idea which we all wish to see carried out. We understand that the present Liaison Committees will be continuing with the good work they have done, after the war. But I feel that they should be strengthened, because in some instances we will find that the Liaison Committees will not have quite the same interest in the men as they have had in the war effort. I am not belittling anything the Liaison Committees have done or are likely to do, but I do feel that all right-minded people should be prepared to join in in this work and I feel that the hands of the Liaison Committees should be considerably strengthened so that we can carry out these programmes. There is a tremendous responsibility. The public and the returned soldiers have a tremendous responsibility towards the State and towards themselves. We cannot hope to get the best out of life for our soldiers and ourselves unless we co-operate. I have been very keen on our having a large number of local Demobilisation Committees throughout the country. I am very pleased to see that the Minister is having such Demobilisation Committees. There is all sorts of work for these committees to do. They can get busy on things like classifying all the jobs available in the different areas; they can go into the financial aspects involved in the plans for post-war training wherever such training should be necessary. There is another big thing where these committees can help, and that is in the conversion of war-time industries to peace-time industries. All these jobs will have to be done, and if we are to carry out our pledges to these men who went to defend our rights then it will be necessary for each one of us to put our shoulders to the wheel and contribute the work of the heart as well as the work of the head, and that is what I hope we all are prepared to do and will do.

Mr. Chairman, like Oliver Twist I am not satisfied, and I ask for more. Sir, quite definitely this time, according to promises, there were to be no forgotten men, but in this plan there are forgotten men. I listened to the Minister’s speech with the greatest interest, respect and hope, and thereafter I read a complete newspaper-page of a full report of the same, and I do not think I do the hon. gentlemen any injustice when I say that there is not a word from start to finish about the men of the mercantile marine. There was a good bit about the relative risks run by various branches of the war services, and I submit with all deference to the brave men in the naval forces and in the army, that none has run a greater risk than the men serving in the engine-room of the steamship Dahlia, now known as His Majesty’s Troopship Dahlia. Sir, these men as they make their way from port to port, in their big, slow, and lumbering ships, are running the greatest risk of all. Wherever there are dangers to face and dirty jobs to do, the merchant seaman has never by any chance been overlooked, but when it comes to recognition and reward, then too frequently he is forgotten. He has been so far forgotten here. I see no just or excusable reason for this, more particularly as I took care to plead this cause earlier in the session; and I ask the Minister first of all to include these South African men of the sea at least under the heading of gratuities, and secondly under the rehabilitation schemes with regard to training for another means of livelihood if they so desire. These forgotten people are the men who go down to the sea in ships, without a red diamond on their sleeves, without glamour or thought of glory, but with death to port and starboard, waiting for’ard and following aft. There is another branch of forgotten folk which is being brought to my notice by one or two of the soldiers and comrades’ organisations. This is composed of the parents and widows of men who have been killed during this war. Some very pathetic and dreadful cases have already appeared of men and women whose sons have suddenly become casualties either by sea or land. These are people who have in consequence suffered suddenly and very seriously. I know instances where the future lives of these people require as much re-planning as that of any soldier who will return after the war. I want the Minister to bear this in mind. I do not precisely know what can be done, but there is a feeling in South Africa that these cases should be recognised, not perhaps in terms of money but certainly or other in some way. There have been cases where the mother of a boy who is reported killed has suffered shock, and been in the doctor’s hands, involving an expenditure of £200 or £300 to restore her. And the soldier’s young widow is surely entitled to be trained and set up in business, if she desires it. Now, sir, I want to protest once more against the discrimination against women soldiers. I suggest there is no just reason why the gratuity for a male soldier should be at the rate of £18 a year, and that of a woman just half as much. I object to that. This discrimination is carried out in three or four other instances. If a girl, for example, has not received back some portion of the money with which she purchased her discharge from the army, she cannot get any gratuity at all. Many of these women joined up at great inconvenience to themselves and their families, they made a bigger sacrifice than some of the men did when they joined, and domestic circumstances have compelled them to leave the army before the war is over. Surely, sir, that is not a just reason for taking away their gratuities. The same applies to the £15 civilian dress allowance. They should never have been obliged to buy their way out of the army; but if they did obtain their freedom by purchase, because of some home troubles, under the Minister’s plan they are not qualified for any dress allowance at all. Surely that is unfair. When it comes to getting a suitable job—I should like to have heard a debate in this House on who is to decide what job is suitable, because a great deal of trouble will arise over that—when a woman soldier has been found a suitable job, according to whatever authority has to provide it, she has to be content with it, and she can have no second choise.

Where do you get that from?

I got it from your speech.

Then you have not studied it, because you will see that provision regarding the reduced allowances are applicable to women as well.

All volunteers.

With respect, my study was a careful one. According to the report of the Minister’s speech, if a man is put into a certain post and he finds that situation unsuitable, he can return to the dispersal camp and stand by at a reduced rate of pay in order to get a second job. A woman has no such chance to go back to the dispersal camp, if her “suitable” appointment proves to be unsuitable. I should have been very much more content if, while the spirit of gratitude is still apparent in this nation, and while there is still willingness to accept responsibility, the Government had had the courage to sign a promissory note in favour of our soldier people, and guarantee them what is now promised, guarantee that our debt to these soldiers’ should be paid so far as money can possibly repay it. That, Sir, I submit can only be done by an Act of Parliament, and I wish very much that the Minister had followed, and I hope still that he will follow, the example of the United States of America, the Government of which has given a definite charter in the form of a legislative Act. I wish that had been done here in South Africa, and I still hope that it can be arranged. We have an example of the need for this in the history of the last war. Mr. Lloyd George towards the end of that great conflict quite sincerely made huge promises. He calmed trouble in the factories, he kept up the courage of the troops and the morale of the people by picturing a better world, conditions of life worthy of heroes. He meant to carry out 100 per cent. justice to the soldiers of Great Britain at the end of that war. But he did not set up a definite instrument, so that his plans could be implemented, he neglected to get a charter through the House of Com mons. Later he sought to obtain the powers and the money that were needed. He failed, and he fell. [Time limit.]

I want to congratulate the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation heartily on his exposition of the demobilisation scheme. I am also glad that this Directorate of Demobilisation will now have the opportunity of having the right contact with the Cabinet, because I feel the Directorate of Demobilisation will probably be the most important department during the next few years. If we do not all co-operate, if we do not support this directorate, if we do not strengthen this department, there will be difficulties. I have already been told that there are certain departments close to this House, which are not prepared to release personnel in order to assist this directorate. I think in this connection we want to establish the best possible department; we must not therefore take up that attitude. We must get rid of red tape, and We must release the best people for such a department, if their services are required to take part in the activities of the Directorate of Demobilisation. I should like to put one or two points to the Minister to which I should like to have a reply. The first is this. When are we going to get details in regard to the part which other departments will play in this important matter of the rehabilitation of our soldiers? I want to mention this matter, for example. I think the Minister promised that he would publish a booklet for the information of the soldiers so that they could know under which schemes they would fall. No such publication will be effective unless the soldiers can see at a glance in the booklet under which schemes they will fall and where they can obtain assistance. The Minister of Lands and Irrigation is in the House at the moment. What about his schemes? I want to know when his schemes will be put into operation; and when he is going to tell us what part his department will play in demobilisation schemes as a whole.

What could he do?

The Minister can do more than any member of the Opposition can do. In connection with this question of land which I raised, I want an assurance from the Minister that wherever the soldiers are settled under these schemes they will be represented on the local bodies. When dealing with the soldiers, we must think of the hardships which these people experienced in the struggle in which they took part. We must investigate that thoroughly, and we must take into consideration the fact that we cannot treat them on the same basis as other persons in this country. They took part in this struggle and we must take that into consideration. I should therefore like to have an assurance from the Minister that where committees and bodies of that nature exist— not only committees under the directorate, but any committees and bodies on these schemes—those soldiers will be represented. We insist on representation for them. Then I should like to know whether the schemes of the Minister of Lands and of his department will be made known to the soldiers, and when it will be done. I know what promises were made by the Minister of Lands in connection with the subdivision of land, but in my turn I say that apart from the big plans which will be undertaken something can be done even at this stage for the soldiers who have returned to the country. If the Minister of Lands and his department cannot do it, I want to urge that the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation should personally be given the right to buy land to make available for those soldiers.

That would result in a mess.

It can be done in consultation with the Department of Lands. There should be schemes whereby the soldiers who have already been discharged from the army, can be placed on the land. I do not say that farms should be distributed on a large scale. It must be a sound scheme. I know that the Minister of Lands promised to hold back land for distribution at a later date, but I think that land should be made available to the people at the present time. These soldiers could then be properly trained, and the Department of Agriculture could lend a hand in that direction. They could be taught and trained properly, and they need not be driven to the cities where they have no desire to live. It is difficult for a man who has been forced to settle in the cities subsequently to return to the land where he really ought to be. I certainly think something ought to be done in that direction. I am certain there will be many farmers who have a spare piece of land on their farms, and who will be prepared to give a servitude to the Department for ten or fifteen years, to enable a soldier to be placed on that land. Take the soldier, for example, who is physically defective and who is in receipt of a pension, which may not be enough to enable him to make a decent living. Such a soldier could be placed on this piece of land, perhaps open a shop, or start chicken farming in order to enable him to make a decent living. There are many such places on farms, and if the Department of Demobilisation makes enquiries it will probably find that there are numerous people who will be prepared to give a servitude on a spare piece of land: If the Minister of Lands cannot immediately start with the major plan of granting holdings, he can, in my opinion, make a start with the smaller items. For example, he could make a start training the people in the agricultural colleges so that those to whom holdings will be given may be selected. They could start on a small scale: and the sooner that is done the better. The Department of Lands will play a big role. The Minister is also Minister of Irrigation, and in that capacity I would like him to explain what schemes he has in mind, and what part he will play in providing employment to the people on those schemes under acceptable conditions. Then I also want to ask how far the Department of Welfare has progressed with its schemes. What are the Railways going to do? I should also like to hear what the Defence Force is going to do?

Inspan them all.

Yes, they must all do their share, and I hope hon. members on the other side will also do their share, and that they will not only pay lip service to the soldiers.

No; it is the other side which is paying lip service.

I want to know what the plans of the Defence Department are in connection with the post-war scheme. I also want to know what the position will be of our seamen, of whom the hon. member on the other side (Rev. Miles-Cadman) spoke a moment ago. Then we come to the Minister of Economic Development. He has a scheme in connection with fisheries; and we would like to know what he proposes to do to assist the people in that direction so that they can become independent workers. Hon. members on the other side are not concerned about the fate of our soldiers, but I want to know what is going to become of them.

We are more concerned about them than you are.

I want to know from the Minister of Demobilisation what he is going to do under these schemes, not only in so far as they relate to the soldiers who fought up North and their dependants; but I also want to know what concessions will be made to the soldiers who remained in this country and their dependants, if they died in this country through some cause or other. I also want to know whether we will have to wait until after the war for schemes such as the scheme which was announced in connection with Pollsmoor, and whether arrangements cannot be made in the case of soldiers who cannot obtain houses today, whereby they will be able to make use of those schemes to a certain extent. I want to know whether we cannot at this stage let the soldiers know that they will obtain preference in connection with all these schemes. Schemes to provide housing for the people will be undertaken, and those people will require various items of furniture in their homes. They will need chairs and items of that description. Cannot we use the services of the soldiers at the present moment in order to manufacture more cheaply those goods which they will require in their homes? [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, when we listened to the speech of the hon. Minister on demobilisation I think most of us were impressed that it was the most momentous statement that had been made in this House for many years. I think, however, that there are many Oliver Twists in this House, and many of us will ask for other benefits and an extension of the benefits promised. Those who joined the South African forces and were seconded to other forces, come under the benefits of this scheme, but there are other South Africans who for reasons of environment, proximity or other causes joined the Imperial and Dominion units or the Royal Navy, and did not join the South African forces, who remain outside the benefits of this scheme. It is for these people that I plead with the Minister. Those who joined the Imperial and Dominion forces, either naval or land forces, will be entitled to certain benefits laid down by the Imperial and the Dominion Governments, but in many cases those benefits fall short of the provisions in the plan proposed by the Union Government, and I ask that where such benefits fall short of the Union standard, this Government shall assume responsibility for the difference. Also, I would ask that these men shall also be allowed to benefit by our rehabilitation and training schemes, and participate in the assistance which will be forthcoming by way of grants and loans where they are proved to be desirable and necessary. I would ask that the same magnanimity as is extended to men of the South African forces should be extended to these men who are fighting the common enemy, though they may not have served in South African units.

Mr. Chairman, I was one of the members who criticised the Government to some extent for forming a Ministry of Demobilisation while the war was in progress, and I felt that talk of demobilisation would give the impression that so far as the Government was concerned it considered the war practically at an end. I thought this creating of a feeling of complacency would have very definitely the effect of retarding recruiting. But now that the Minister has announced the benefits to be derived from his demobilisation plans, I think recruiting will definitely be stimulated—at any rate, I hope so. A point I wish to make is that I have always felt that all matters affecting soldiers including demobilisation should be administered by one department. I would like to have seen all these schemes affecting returned soldiers administered by one Minister and one department. I am rather afraid that our soldiers will be in the same difficulty as they were after the last war, that is to say they may be pushed about from pillar to post. The Minister is, to a certain extent, safeguarding that position however, by allowing the Director of Demobilisation to contact the Cabinet when necessary. One thing I cannot understand is the differential rates of gratuity which the Government proposes to have for the various categories of soldiers who are serving. I do not know by what stretch of imagination the Government came to the conclusion that a woman soldier is only half as good as a man soldier, that a coloured soldier is only one-third as good, and a native soldier only one-sixth as good. That is what the differential rates imply. Surely there is something wrong about that. I do feel, whatever gratuity is given, it should be equal for every one, European male and female, coloured and native, because each and every one who has joined the army was prepared to make an equal sacrifice, no matter whether serving at the front or at home. They all joined with one object, to give their best for South Africa and South Africa should show its appreciation by giving the same gratuity to all. Another thing not mentioned here in regard to demobilisation, is what is going to be the order of priority of such demobilisation. The soldiers would like to know this. Is a system to be introduced whereby those who have served the longest will be released first. That is a point which should be cleared up as far as possible. I know there is considerable difficulty in regard to this, but if it were known that these men were going to get their release in the order of length of service, then I think all will be satisfied.

Would that stimulate recruiting?

I do not think it would have any effect on recruiting. New recruits will recognise the claims of those serving longest to first release. Another point is this question of getting these various liaison committees throughout the country to advise and assist returned soldiers. I feel that these committees who are purely voluntary and have done excellent work during the war, are definitely not going to have the same enthusiasm when the war is over. After a short period when war enthusiasm no longer exists, that enthusiasm will wane, and I feel that what the soldiers’ organisations have been asked for should be considered, that is, a paid Soldiers’ Friend in each district. If a Soldiers’ Friend, a paid official, is appointed in each district, the soldier will know where to go and he will be certain that his case will receive every consideration. There is one other point I wish to raise—to a certain extent it bears on demobilisation—I should like to see that before a soldier leaves the army he is medically examined. I feel that is essential if we are to protect not only the soldier but the taxpayer in South Africa. It happens that sometimes years after a man has been discharged he applies for a pension or some other assistance for some latent defect which has developed, and he has nothing to show that his illness or disability is due to his war service. But if he has undergone a final medical examination, the papers will be attached to his file and will show what his medical category was, not only on enlistment, but on discharge. And if men are found to have sustained some injury through war service, they would at once get their pension, and any man who subsequently finds—and there are people who try to get pensions out of the Government on false grounds—any man who subsequently finds that he wants to apply for a pension will have his medical certificate to show what his condition was at the time of discharge. I hope the Minister will not think that I am merely critical. The country realises, and I realise, that hard work has been done to implement Government premises on behalf of the soldier to be demobilised, and what has been done and is being done will give the soldier confidence for the future.

My first reaction to the demobilisation scheme is that of a father who has children serving in the forces. When I listened to the Minister unfolding his demobilisation schemes I wondered what the warriors who had fought in wars of the yester year thought of it. I should like to add my humble tribute to the Minister and to the ad hoc Committee for the attention they have given to this very difficult matter, and I think that there is no doubt that with regard to this question of providing for our returned soldiers, they have put South Africa in the very forefront and have given a lead to the world. That is my own reaction as a parent of children who are fighting. As representative of the native I also have some pleasant reactions, I am glad to say. Nothing stood more in the way of the recruitment of native people than the bitter memories of their fathers who fought in the last war, who, although they suffered together with their European comrades in arms, and died in doing so have no medals, or gratuities or pensions, and their widows today are still suffering. I think the people who have joined up now have set a good example and have a right to claim consideration from the people of this country. In dealing with the outlines of the schemes which the Minister has put before us, I want to refer to it in no carping spirit but in a spirit of appreciation, but I want to refer to other aspects too. First of all there is the gratuity to be paid to the native soldier. The gratuity to be paid to the European soldier will be pocket money to him, but to the African soldier it will mean a great deal more, and therefore I want to ask the Minister to reconsider the ratio of the gratuity to be paid to the native in relation to that to be paid to the others. I would hope that the gratuities for all soldiers would be on the same basis, but I have lived long enough in this country to realise that at the moment that is not possible. Still, in the past we have fixed the ratio as between European, coloured and native on the basis of three-fifths, and two-fifths as far as coloureds and natives are concerned, and in fact your previous cash payments on demobilisation were fixed on that basis. You gave £5 to the European, £3 to the coloured man and £2 to the native. And I want to make an appeal to the Minister to consider the same ratio in making these allotments now so that the European soldier will get the ratio of £1 10s. for each month of his service; increase the European woman to £1; and give the coloured and native people a ratio of three-fifths and two-fifths of £1 10s.; the coloured man would then get 18s. and the native 12s. After all, this is not a continuing payment. There is only one payment and it should be in recognition of services rendered. I think we can afford to be generous. I do not want to weary the House. I am simply putting these suggestions forward on the basis of simple justice. We have paid a tribute to the native soldiers, and therefore I am asking the Government to recognise the situation and recognise the right they have to be treated on a better basis that was the case after the last War. It is a great thing if a man who has served his country can have recollection of happiness. You can never value that in £ s. d. There is one final suggestion I want to put forward. Cannot the Minister consider including the African people in some sort of Land Settlement Scheme.

As an old soldier I naturally have great interest in the soldiers of today. I know that some of my friends opposite may think differently. I have had many years’ experience. No country can exist without the soldier and I am very interested in their future. I know many of my friends have tried to make political capital out of the soldier. I am not going to try it. I genuinely mean what I say. I do not wear a “rooi lussie” this time but I have nothing against the man who has the courage of his convictions, who puts on his “rooi lussie” and fights for what he thinks fit. I abhor this idea of always dragging the “rooi lussie” into the arena. What I stand for is not this temporary pay which you give the soldier, but I want to make him a good citizen. I want to give him something he can exist on. In the past we have learned that wars have always made the rich man richer and the poor man poorer. You take a great chunk out of a man’s life between the ages of 18 and 23. He is called upon to sacrifice that part of his life. Now I feel we must be fair to these people who have gone forth to fight—whether I agree with the issue or not. But when we talk about these mushroom committees springing up I say: God help the soldier. And I am afraid that the Minister of Socail Welfare is going to become a dictator. He is going to put up Committees which know nothing about the question. He is swallowing the Minister of Lands. The Minister of Lands knows something about Land Settlement, but let me tell him it is useless putting a soldier on land if he knows nothing about land. And if you take away the handling of this thing from the Minister of Lands you’ll make a fiasco of it. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) says it ought to be put in the hands of the Minister of Social Welfare—even the acquiring of land.

I didn’t say that.

I say: God save South Africa if that should happen. You have your Department which knows its works. You have the Boerebystandsraad who know how to deal with people who are poor and who have come down in the world and I say these are the institutions which the Minister should make use of. He should not appoint new committees but use the machinery at his disposal. If you are going to allow him to involve all the different departments you have a very serious condition. You have the old story: “Onward Christian soldiers, fighting for the Jews.” As an old soldier myself I have a right to speak on behalf of soldiers. I say: Do something for them but do something permanent. Don’t do something which is not permanent. We hear about the opening of Agricultural Colleges, I agree they should be opened, but only to students who are capable of becoming farmers. It is useless putting people there who can never become farmers. You will only make them dissatisfied. Now these people have been told that they will be looked after when the war is over. I know of cases where an ordinary man who was a cabdriver, has risen to the rank of Major, drawing as much as £60 per month and now he has to go back to £15 per month. I wish you to consider all these things. You are going to have a lot of dissatisfaction. It is no use telling these people that they are going to get the moon and then give them nothing. Be honest and straight with these people—don’t promise them these wonderful things which you can’t give them. I can tell you this, if you do that sort of thing you will have the same position you had after the last war. You will have the same position as you had in 1922, when the man who fought in the War wanted to shoot the Government.

I suppose you blame the Capitalists.

I don’t look at Capitalism from the point of view that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) does. I am not a capitalist like that man. We know that the hon. member has belonged to all parties and we know what his promises mean.

Yesterday you called me a Communist.

He vanishes like the morning mist. He has done nothing but promise but he has carried out none of his promises and if the war is over tomorrow, the hon. member for Hospital will stab his party in the back and send them to the devil. He is out to do it today. It is all very well for him to blackguard us and call us names, but we at any rate try to do things. Has the hon. member ever been honest?

Is that why you say you like the British Wool Agreement?

The hon. member must not say that another member is not honest.

Then perhaps he is not as honest as I thought he was. The Minister speaks about the wool agreement. He is in a very awkward position and he should not try and bluff the soldier as he tries to bluff everybody else. He talks about schemes. He has no schemes. They are only on paper. He cannot place these men on land. He can only do it if he approaches his technical men. If he has to be made the dictator, he will be the first one to be hanged—and I really believe he will be. He talks about the wool agreement. I tell him his scheme is nothing but camouflage and he means nothing of what he says.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Well, I say almost nothing.

No the hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that. What has the Government done as far as industries are concerned? Industries are one of the things that can absorb the returned soldier. What is their policy? They have no policy. When the war is over war industries will go and many of those industrialists who have to put their money in can go to the devil. I say, unless you develop your industries and assure your industries that they will have protection, you will have nothing for your soldiers. They will be chucked on the streets as they have been in the past. Let the Government be honest and say that we are going to protect these industries after the war. They have never made such a statement and I defy them to make one. Let them say that when the war is over we are going to protect our industries. Then there will be lots of money forthcoming to create industries and give work to the returned soldiers. But their whole idea is this—the big commercial people are the capitalists of the country, and they want to indent. They don’t want industries, they want to make money by indenting, that is all.

I think perhaps if I intervened at this stage I might deal with one of the points raised. I want to say at once that I very much appreciate the interest of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). He speaks as an old soldier and we all know that old soldiers never die! I am glad to see the example he is setting to his party. The hon. member and his party are solicitous of the interests of the returned soldier.

Are you glad about it?

The leader of the Opposition has told Wakkerstroom—and I am glad to know that, and the Government and the country are glad to know that—that we shall get his support and the support of hon. members opposite in trying to meet the needs of the soldiers. Hon. members opposite tell us that their attitude is quite logical. They say: “We are opposed to the war; we have stood consistently by an attitude of neutrality, but we want to help the soldiers; we have no grouse against the soldiers; we want to see them treated properly.”

It is the duty of the State.

Well, if that is so, I only wish that some hon. friends opposite and their friends would occasionally go to the Newlands ground when rugby is played there. Why do they not go there? Because part of the proceeds go to the National War Fund, the Governor-General’s Fund. Hon. members opposite boycott Newlands because the proceeds go to the war funds. If you go to Newlands you do not necessarily associate yourself with the war. But hon. members do not go there because they do not want their money to go to war funds, to funds which will help our serving men and women.

That is irrelevant.

It is relevant, because hon. members opposite attack me and the Government and say that we do not mean what we say. Those same hon. members two years ago told us that the war was lost and that we were on the wrong wicket.

I never said so.

Only 18 months ago the Leader of the Opposition said that Stalingrad would fall in the next fortnight, and Britain in the next month. The hon. member has accused me and the Government of insincerity and I want to take up that challenge and fling it back. I remember hon. members opposite coining the word “gedunkirk” by which they implied “to run away.” That was the word they used in 1940-’41 when we were up against it. We did not get these nice sentiments about the soldiers in those days.

We never spoke about skunks in uniform.

The hon. member knows perfectly well what the explanation of that expression was.

Why did members of the Opposition refuse to serve on the Select Committee on soldiers’ pay?

Yes, the hon. members opposite refused to serve on that Committee which two years ago recommended the increased pay scale for soldiers.

We were in favour of it.

Tell that to the Wakkerstroom people—tell it to the platteland horse marines; and tell them too that you are in favour of winning the war and wanting to help the soldiers. If my hon. friend from Cradock tells me that I am insincere, and that the Government is insincere, then it is time that I stood up for a moment to tell the House these things.

I am very pleased indeed to follow the Minister, because when the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) got up to speak, I felt I was going to be in agreement with everything he said. When he got up in his pious way and said he was speaking as an old soldier, I thought I could put my arms round him and kiss him. I felt that possibly knowing the hon. member as I do that there was sincerity in him and that he was not speaking with an eye to Wakkerstroom.

I am an old soldier.

Yes, a very old one—and the next thing his speech developed into a personal attack, first on the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), then on the Minister, and then on the Government itself. And I thought to myself: is that the little move which the Opposition has put up so as to be able to pull a few more herrings across the trail as far as Wakkerstroom is concerned. Well, well. I want to associate myself with everything the Minister has said. The House agrees with him and so does the country. I want to say that anything which comes from this side of the House in the way of criticism or in the way of suggestion is made in the sincere hope of being able to help the Minister in his efforts to do something for the returned soldiers. And might I now correct the hon. member for Cradock in what he said about the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe). The hon. member declared that the hon. member for Potchefstroom wanted to take the purchase of ground out of the hands of the Minister of Lands.

Well, didn’t he say so?

Certainly not. What he did suggest was that the Director of Demobilisation and the Minister should consider the question of buying land at the present time to be able to provide for soldiers who are being discharged, and who have been discharged. The Lands Department are not prepared to let their land out until such time as every soldier who has joined up, has returned. There are soldiers who are away at the present moment and why should land be given out now to the detriment of those who cannot put in their claims. But the hon. member for Potchefstroom suggested that land should be bought up at present. Now I want to direct a plea to the Minister, on behalf of the youths who have joined the services, who have joined the U.D.F. immediately after leaving school or university; youths possibly who have matriculated or have gone through a university course and have then joined the army—these boys were quite prepared to sacrifice their future careers because their country was in danger, and they were prepared to save their country. These youths joined the Air Force; others joined the Tank Corps; you find them in the Signals, the S.A.M.C. and in the Navy too. A lot of these youths are between 18 and 21 years of age and their future careers have been sacrificed. Is it not time now for the Minister to decide in co-operation with the Minister of Defence on the establishment of a permanent Defence Force? It is said that we are to be the guardians of the whole of the Southern Hemisphere, let alone the Union. If we are to be the guardians of Southern Africa, we shall need a much larger permanent force than we had before the war. I feel that the time has come before we discharge these men, that the Minister in cooperation with the Minister of Defence, should circularise the whole U.D.F., because it is self-evident that we shall need at least 20,000 to 30,000 men as a permanent force if we are going to accept responsibility for the guardianship of Southern Africa. We have got trained pilots, we have a trained ground staff for our Air Force, we have our mechanics and also our Met section. We shall need a large Air Force to carry on the patrols of our big coast line and also for our internal fortifications. A large number of men of our Met, section and pilots will be required. The time has arrived when you should circularise the U.D.F. because a lot of these youths who left school decided to go straight into these sections. Today they are highly qualified and I trust that we are not going to do the same thing as happened after the last war, that is, that we shall not first of all discharge everyone; go to all the trouble of discharging these men, and then circularise the whole country again and ask them to rejoin. Many of these lads have spent four years in the army, and I think the time is ripe that we should circularise the whole of the U.D.F. and call for volunteers who are desirous of carrying on a military career after the war. Take your Tank Corps. What did we have at the start of the war? Today we have highly qualified men in armoured cars and tanks. The only qualified men we had at the outbreak of this war were highly qualified as far as bush carts were concerned. We have bush cart experts. Today we have the real Mackay, men who know their jobs, and many of these men would be only too pleased to remain on as expert gunners and as expert artillerymen, and I put that suggestion on to the Minister. In conclusion I again want to thank my hon. friend on the other side for reminding me of the South African Naval Forces. I want to say this to hon. members opposite who may not know it, that 75 per cent. of the South African Naval Forces who are being recruited today are Afrikaans-speaking. There seems to be something in the blood of the Afrikaner which attracts him to the sea. The sea seems to be in his blood. I want to say this to the Minister, that he should urgently get hold of the Minister of Railways and Harbours to see whether we can not come to some agreement to purchase ships. Today we have a number of highly trained naval men in the South African Naval Forces. If we are not going to absorb them in our Mercantile Marine, they will be lost to South Africa; other countries will absorb them. We must provide positions for these men, and I want to suggest to the Minister that he should suggest to the Minister of Railways and Harbours that he should provide ships for them, whether they be battleships, whether they be tugs, whether they be destroyers or merchant ships. But for goodness’ sake let us make an effort to retain those men whom we trained at the expense of the State and who are highly qualified men today.

I have had a chance of looking through the demobilisation arrangements as laid down by the New Zealand government and by the Australian government, and I have no doubt that hon. members have been able to read President Roosevelt’s message to Congress in November last; having had that information I want to pay a compliment to the hon. Minister and to the Director of Demobilisation, General Brink, for this very comprehensive and courageous scheme which they have placed before the country. I am interested mainly at the moment in the fate of self-employed men who are in the army. By self-employed men I mean farmers, professional men and business men. I am not quite clear from the Minister’s statement as to whether he is satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made for the absorption of these men into civilian life. We know that the Minister of Lands has had some 2,500 applications from men now serving who want to go on to the land. There must be many thousands of young men who wish to continue or begin a professional career, and others who would like to go into business. I feel that it is necessary as an essential part of our Re-settlement plans that something specific in the way of categories and amounts for grants and loans should be given to the country in regard to the settlement of men on the land, and in regard to the settlement of men in professions and businesses. Arrangements for the settlement of returned men on the land is an urgent one, and I only hope the House will persuade the Minister of Lands, in co-operation with the Minister of Demobilisation, to declare their plans to the country without delay; and if possible to make arrangements now for the men who are waiting and ready to go on the land as soon as the Minister announces his policy. I am also deeply interested in the question of vocational education in connection with our war veterans. I believe that this is of vastly more importance than the payment of gratuities and some of the other arrangements set out by the Minister. It is proposed, I take it, to use the existing facilities for education in order to promote the rehabilitation and resettlement of large numbers of our men. There are large numbers. The hon. Minister himself stated last November that no less than 89,000 men and women in the forces had applied to the Government to be placed in employment after the war—55,000 European men, 8,000 European women and 26,000 Coloureds. These were the figures that he gave to the country. Now he proposes in this plan to take up that challenge which he has made to this House and to the people. I am therefore deeply interested—as I know he is and as we all are—in the question of training facilities for large numbers of that total number of 89,000. If we are going to place them in the existing colleges, universities or technical colleges or other vocational schools, I am doubtful as to whether we shall achieve our object. If there is a depression after the war—and as we are going today I am afraid we are moving in that direction—the universities and the colleges are going to be full. They are already full today. It is always characteristic of a depression that there is a congestion in educational institutions, particularly those that are of the post primary and vocational type. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider doing what New Zealand is doing. In New Zealand a building costing something like £100,000 has been erected in order to avoid the necessity to put returned men to training with others with whom they are not readily assimilable. I think a suggestion coming from the Minister that something definite on these lines, will be undertaken, will be welcome to the country. I put a question to the Minister on these lines this morning. I would like to suggest that he should consider using the Assegai camp at Durban for that purpose. There we have a camp with an adequate area, with excellent buildings, with a good geographical position, with all the possibilities of a first rate vocational institution for our men and women when they come back; and I would like to have a definite statement from the Minister this afternoon as to whether he is prepared to use a camp like that or other similar camps when the war is over for the training of demobilised men, in whom he has displayed a most commendable interest. In conclusion I want to appeal for a further inclusion in the Minister’s plans of provision for the dependants of the men who have been in service. I would like to see young widows being given the same chances of training as would have accrued to her husband if he had returned to his country; and I would like that also to apply to the children of deceased and disabled offices, in order to make more adequate facilities available for their training.

Why officers?

I should not have said officers; I meant soldiers. I feel that in giving our support to this document of the Minister we should at the same time urge him to crystallise all these plans into a specific Act of Parliament, so that the men themselves will have legal claims and rights even to the extent of forcing the Government itself to carry out its obligations.

I would like to add my remarks this afternoon to the remarks of hon. members who have expressed their sense of gratitude at the Minister’s statement. Last week-end I was up north and I had an opportunity of meeting many civilians and many soldiers, and I found that there was widespread gratification at the bold steps and the measures which the Minister proposes to take. I found that there was a certain amount of criticism with regard to certain matters, but that criticism rather resolved itself into the question of what administrative machinery would be created to deal with this organisation. It was felt that you would want a very expert and a very sympathetic staff to deal with the many problems. While it is fully realised what valuable work has been done by the Director-General of Demobilisation in drawing up these plans, there was a feeling that a very expert and a very large staff would be required to deal with these problems after the war. The suggestion is that the personnel of this organisation should be recruited mainly from the army, but it was pointed out that probably some of your best administrative people in the army would desire to get back to civil life as soon as they can, and it may not be easy to get these men to stay on and to deal with these problems. One also welcomes the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). I know that one may perhaps find fault with certain remarks, but I look at it this way, that if the scheme is to be a success, it can only be a success if it has the sympathetic support and the co-operation of the whole of the people of this country. It cannot possibly be a success if one section is going to try and outbid a particular section in getting greater benefits for any particular group of soldiers, and I would wholeheartedly accept assurances given by one section that they will support the measures which the Government is going to take in carrying out this demobilisation programme. Of course, one would welcome sound criticism, but I want to say that after all the proof of all this is not going to be in lip-service paid to the scheme in this House or in the country; the proof will be the actual service that is given and the actual assistance which the different sections give in carrying out this scheme. I realise that one of the main responsibilities of carrying out this scheme successfully, as far as employment is concerned, must fall on commerce and industry, and also to a limited extent—to a very much lesser extent—on the farming sections. Industries must certainly be developed and I would remind the Committee that there is another committee also dealing with that problem of the creation of industries to absorb the unemployed people after the war. It is on that committee that the main responsibility will fall, it is not only the soldiers which you require on these committees, you also require practical business people who have a sympathetic mind and the experience to deal with these problems—to solve these problems. There are many men in the army who are first class soldiers, but they may not be first class administrators. Certain criticism has been offered. The differentiation in the gratuities to be paid to men and women has been strongly criticised. It was said that the difference was too great, and I think it is possibly too great. I cannot support the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) in his plea. One has to recognise that there was a differentiation in the army in the rates of pay of men and women, and I think that you would create a far greater sense of hardship and injustice if you were to make one scale of gratuity payable to every discharged soldier. With regard to the remarks made by the hon. member opposite in connection with the mercantile marine, I want to say this. It seems to me that there is some cause for complaint, more particularly if you take the Soldiers and War Workers Employment Bill. I do not know what the difference may be, but it seems to me that the point raised by the hon. member opposite is one which should be looked into and investigated in view of the definition of military service in that Bill. There is another matter which I would like to have cleared up, and that is in regard to the question of the proposed grant of £250 or assistance to the extent of £1,250 for soldiers if they need it after the war for training or in order to establish themselves in business. I think it was stressed by the hon. Minister in his broadcast that that was not a matter of right. He said that it would only be given in certain cases. I am afraid there is going to be a certain amount of difficulty about that. I think there should be no question of its being permissive. If it is really needed and if a good case is made out, the soldier should have the right to claim that assistance.

It is not given to everyone as a matter of right; it is given where there is a need.

Let me put this position. Today you have certain returned soldiers who have gone out and started to build. They have purchased land and started to build; they have already made arrangements for the payment of their loans. Many of them have already got loans from Building Societies. Obviously if they have the right to claim this grant of £250 from the Minister, it is an additional gift to them on their discharge. It is an additional bonus over and above the gratuity which they get. I think the position ought to be made clear. With regard to the lads at university, they will have the right to get this grant from the Government. What I should like to know is this. What will be the position when they leave the university on the completion of their studies? Will they be assisted to find employment? Will a further grant then be given to them to extend over the further period of training? I raise this question because one may have the greatest difficulty in finding suitable employment for the young university lad. As I said at the outset, the whole problem of successfully carrying out this scheme, is going to depend on the measure of public support it receives, and I do want to make this final appeal to the House, that when this scheme goes through, as it will go through, we will get the full support of all sections of the country; because on the bona fides and the goodwill of this country depends the successful carrying out of this scheme, and it is useless paying lip-service to this scheme if we do not get full co-operation afterwards.

I would like to say a few words in connection with the settlement of soldiers on the land. It seems to me that the Government has not gone far enough in this respect. I hope the Government will consider the question of introducing special legislation as far as soldiers are concerned, so as to enable them to settle on the land on more favourable terms than an ordinary settler.

The hon. member cannot advocate legislation.

I want to appeal to the Minister to consider whether more favourable terms should not be given to soldier settlers. Under the law as it stands at present, the soldier will have to buy his land on the same terms as any other person, and if an excessive price has been paid for that land and it is sold to the soldier at the price at which it was acquired by the Government, it seems to me that the soldier-settler is placed under a distinct disadvantage. It seems to me that the American system is a far better system. In America returned soldier-settlers are given a farm and the equivalent of £300 in addition, and after having kept themselves on the farm without the assistance of the Government for a period of seven years, the farm becomes theirs. It was also suggested that they should receive a jeep in addition, to start them off well, but I do not know whether that has been agreed to. But it seems to me that it is not fair to put a man on the land to say to him: “You can start and if you can keep yourself for a certain number of years, the farm will become yours without any additional liability on your part.” The man is unable to keep himself on the farm, you may have to take him off because he would then appear to be unsuitable. Then there is another matter which the Government should consider. That is, that before any soldier is required to take up farming, he should be given an opportunity of testing his capacity of farming and of finding out the type of farming for which he is best suited. It is no use telling him that a farm is available unless he is able to judge for himself whether it is a suitable farm for the type of farming which he wants to undertake. And in order to do that it means that he must have an opportunity of attending an agricultural college for a certain period in order to be able to judge his farming capacity. I feel that if this farming question is suitably solved by the Government, it is calculated to produce the best type of man and the most satisfied soldier after the conclusion of the war. There is another matter which I feel that the Minister should consider and I wish to associate myself there with other speakers who have suggested that the gratuity scale is too low. I think the 15s. for a woman should be increased to £1, and I suggest that the 10s. for coloured people should be increased to £1 and the 5s. for natives to 10s. I also feel that the Government should give special consideration to the position of professional men and that after the war men who have served in the army, should get preference in the allocation of any work which the Government is able to distribute, particularly in the case of architects, advocates, attorneys, surveyors and people of that kind, and I feel that a special effort should be made to consider their claims as being superior to those of the ordinary practitioner. Cases have recently come to my notice where men who are in the employ of the civil service and who are on active service have not received their increments in the civil service, and I think that is a matter which I think the Minister should go into so that when they come back they will not be penalised in any way in consequence of their military service.

The hon. member knows that cases of that type should be taken up at once as a matter of policy.

I have already taken up several cases of this nature.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) made an appeal to members that we should not try to outbid one another. The hon. member who has just sat down suggested that we should give a land settlement farm to the returned soldier, and then tell him that the farm will become his own after a certain period. I think there again we have a case of outbidding. I want to make an appeal to the Minister when placing demobilised soldiers on land settlements, to select only people who will be able to make a success of it. I want to refer to what happened after the last war. Returned soldiers were placed on the Pongola settlement, and they made a hopeless failure of their farms. If we are going to place these people on land settlement or irrigation schemes, we must see to it that they have a knowledge of farming, that they have had the necessary training. I want to associate myself with what the hon. Minister of Lands said in this House the other day, namely, that we cannot have too many settlers in this country, because in that event they would become a danger to the ordinary farmer. The attitude which I adopt is the attitude which was adopted by the South African Agricultural Union. The South African Agricultural Union pointed out the danger of placing people who have had no training on settlements and irrigation schemes, and that they will make a failure of it. The Agricultural Union points out that they will become a danger to the agricultural community generally. If too many settlements and irrigation schemes are established, they may become a source of danger to the agricultural community in general. Then there is just one other matter with which I want to deal in connection with demobilisation. We notice that the Australian Government has already demobilised more than 60,000 soldiers to return to the labour market. South Africa is already suffering from a shortage of labour. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think a start should be made with his demobilisation scheme at the present moment, especially since there is a shortage of labour in the country. If Australia has already demobilised 60,000 soldiers, the time is ripe for the Government to commence its demobilisation plans forthwith. That will solve the labour problem to a large extent; it will enable the country to produce the necessary foodstuffs for which the country and the Government are asking.

What would become of the war?

The hon. member asks what would become of the war? I want to remind the hon. member that Australia is also taking part in the war. Australia, too, has to contribute her share towards the war effort, but Australia is discharging large numbers of soldiers. According to this statement they are going to discharge nearly 100,000 people; and it will be seen from this morning’s press messages that the Acting Prime Minister stated that 60,000 had already been discharged.

That is not a matter which falls within my province. It is a matter for the Prime Minister or the Department of Defence.

I want to ask the hon. Minister to use his influence so that we can immediately start to demobilise these people who are not being sent to the front.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset may I say that as far as I and my constituents are concerned, we congratulate the Government on the great amount of work that has been put in on this demobilisation plan. I think the Minister and the Committee have done very good work indeed. While I think the whole country appreciates what the Government has done, I would say that a demobilisation plan on paper is one thing and the carrying out of it quite another, and I want to say this quite emphatically, and I am saying it on behalf of the returned soldier whom we are trying to help, that unless the administrative machinery is put on a fair and efficacious basis, the plan, however good, will not be effective. That I feel quite certain of. I want to say furthermore that I am perfectly convinced that the Minister is determined that the administrative machinery which he is going to set up is going to be effective. The Minister in his remarks, paid a tribute to the liaison committees which have been working throughout South Africa, and I also want to pay a tribute to those committees. If they are given the status which they should be given, they will go a long way to make the administrative machinery effective. I have had quite a lot of experience of these committees, and although they have been voluntary bodies sitting in the rural areas and although their work has been carried out very carefully, they have been disappointed because while they have scrutinised every case with meticulous care and their recommendations have been backed up by their magistrates, they have very often been turned down at Pretoria. I want to say that these committees will continue to work willingly, and they will help the Minister, but I sincerely hope that if they are given any power to make recommendations, some cognisance will be taken of their recommendations. I want to say that the recommendations of the committee have been turned down, and that has resulted in the soldier applicant resorting to his member of Parliament. From my point of view I think this entirely wrong. It is distasteful to me to have to go to the Minister’s Department, or any other Department, to get justice for a man who should never have had any necessity to go to his member of Parliament. I sincerely hope that whatever power these committees are endowed with, the Government will have enough confidence in them to say that whatever recommendations they do make shall be given some cognisance. If the committee themselves or the Government are in doubt, by all means let the Government call on the local member of Parliament to make an enquiry, but do not let it become necessary for the committee or the soldier to have to run to the member of Parliament to see that the man gets justice. I want to assure the Minister as far as I am concerned, that I will do everything I possibly can to assist the Government and these committees and to see that the demobilisation plan is made a success.

There seems to be a natural expectation that those of us who are associated in the prosecution of the war, should spontaneously and enthusiastically accept the Minister’s statements which have been described as “momentous” both in relation to social security for civilians and rehabilitation of soldiers. In the almost electric atmosphere in which such pronouncements are made, we tend to feel jubilant at such statements, but as it becomes subject to the cold light of day, then we get our feet more on the ground and more away from the heavens in which we first received the statements. In the cold light of day we see manifest weaknesses in this scheme, and I want to associate myself and my party with the statement made by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman), when he makes what is almost a demand that the merchant seamen should be included in the provisions of this scheme.

Who has ever said the merchant seamen will not be included?

Well, we have not had any indication that the merchant seamen are covered by these proposals. There are definite indications that all sections of the armed forces will be covered.

It is not necessary to demand if you have not even enquired.

I did not say it was a demand, I said it almost amounted to a demand, because we are particularly concerned to see that the merchant service is covered by these provisions, and we cannot overlook the fact that there is almost a public outcry in various parts of the country to ensure that the merchant seamen shall be recognised as an essential portion of the armed forces. There is no slogan better known than: “Don’t talk about ships.” No section of our war effort has been given more publicity than the sea service. We get it on the films both from the British Ministry of Information and local films, all of which confirm the essential danger in which merchant seamen are placed when they travel the high seas, and we on these benches recognise that these men are in the very front line of trenches, and are entitled to the same protection and the same security as every other member of the military or naval forces. I am glad to hear from the Minister that he is prepared to consider, if he has not already considered, the need for seeing that the merchant servicemen are covered in this respect. When this scheme is examined in the cold light of day and when you assess it at its minimum value, one is compelled to accept this—this is probably the standpoint of all members of the Labour Party—that the provision so made is the best that can be offered by the Government under our present system of society. We are critical of the provisions made both for civilians and for the armed forces, but at the same time we recognise that the Government is well-intentioned and has done the best that it could, and has gone almost as far as it could in the proposals which it makes. Those proposals are very far from the aspirations of serving soldiers, who have fought and are fighting to make a better world. They can hardly remain satisfied with these plans as they exist at the present moment, and we are compelled to examine them in a critical light. So examined, we are forced to come to the conclusion, taking the proposals in conjunction with the Soldiers Employment Bill, that the security which is offered to our soldiers is something which will cover them for a period of eighteen months after they are demobilised. Then they are in the lap of the gods or a benevolent government. And remember, that the Government, eighteen months after our soldiers are demobilised, may not be the same Government that we have today. As a matter of fact, it is commonly expected by all political observers in the country, that in the postwar period we will not have the same government as we have today. Perhaps the Opposition claim that they will be in power.

They will never get into power.

I am merely repeating what their claim is, that in the post-war period we shall not have the same Government as we have today, and, it being an axiom of government that succeeding ministeries must not necessarily undertake the obligations of their predecessor, it is essential that, as has been done in America and in New Zealand, promises shall be embodied in a charter which will take the form of an Act of Parliament. That will ensure that promises are not merely promises. Promises are made and they can be broken, but there should be something on the statute book which will ensure the fulfilment of those promises. Finally, when you examine those proposals and when you realise that the minimum assessment is a gratuity and employment lasting over a period of eighteen months, we get back to the same point in which we find ourselves in regard to the promise to the civilian population, a promise of social security, and that is that the security will be conditioned in the post-war period by the volume of employment which is available. If it is at all possible that the Nationalist Party may be in power in the post-war period, their statement today carries with it some sense of satisfaction that they are prepared to bind themselves to see that the promises which have been made to the soldiers will be fulfilled. Finally I come back to the merchant service. We do not want the merchant seamen to be the forgotten soldiers of this war, because while they may not be in uniform they have certainly played an important part and have made it possible for us to broadcast throughout the world that Britain delivers the goods, and delivers the goods in her merchant ships. Within our own knowledge during the course of this war, there has been necessity for a continual agitation to ensure that merchant seamen are recognised as an essential and stable part of our armed forces. I am emphasising that by quoting an incident which happened in Durban. In the Durban Amphitheatre they arranged Saturday afternoon dances for the armed forces, dances at which the municipal orchestra furnished the music. Much to the horror of the people of Durban it was found that the merchant seamen were debarred from going on to the dance floor because they did not wear a uniform. That is an experience that probably may have been multiplied all over the country. It is for these and other reasons that we want to stress the fact that the merchant seamen must not be the forgotten men in our country, that they must be suitably provided for, and that both soldiers and other members of the armed forces can only be suitably provided for if it is the intention of the Government to follow the United States of America and Australia, and embody promises in the form of an Act.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to hear the statement from hon. friends opposite that this demobilisation scheme is the best that can be devised under our present system. I think all the country feels that the ad hoc committee which assisted the Minister in this matter has on the whole really done a very good job; they have done it carefully and thoroughly; but in my view there is one very bad blot on the scheme, and that is the differentiation in gratuities. I have listened with some attention to the voices that have been raised on the differential gratuity between men and women. I was very glad to hear from many who have spoken on this matter that they deprecate this differentiation. For whatever may be the justification for the differentiation in pay as between men and women volunteers serving in the army, a differentiation that has some small justification in the present general economic outlook of the country towards the services of men and women, whatever justification I say there may be for that economic attitude, a differentiation which I may say I do not agree with, I consider that it is an intolerable thing that when it comes to a gratuity the Ministry of Demobilisation should still preserve a differentiation, should take up the attitude in fact that the country is only half as grateful to the women volunteers as it is to the men, and therefore the country is only willing to pay half as much to the women as to the men. That, Sir, seems to me to be an outrageous and intolerable state of affairs. It was bad enough to have the differentiation in pay, it is worse to have it in pensions, but when it comes to the gratuity then it is time that very strong protests should be made on this differentiation. Members on both sides of the House have already called attention to this, and have suggested that the differentiation should be as a 30s. to 20s. basis rather than 30s. and 15s. But I do not accept that. I go further, and I insist that there should be no differentiation at all, because a gratuity in its very name means a gift given by the country in gratitude, and thankfulness to the men and women of this country who came forward in her time of need. And may I remind the Minister, no less than the permanent head of his department, that the recent increase in our war effort up North is due to the fact that women have increasingly taken over men’s duties in the Air Force. I have it e.g. on the highest authority that we have been able to increase our air squadrons up North from 17 to 27 in the last year, and that has been due entirely to the fact that women have taken over the work of men, and thereby enabled the authorities to increase the number of squadrons. Am I to understand that despite all that has been said about the splendid work of the women’s army, the Minister of Demobilisation and the Director of Demobilisation are calmly going to say that although women have released men, have in fact taken the place of men and are doing the work of men, that nevertheless the country will only be half as grateful to them as it is to the men. Because that’s what it means, and I think, and say again it is an intolerable blot on this good scheme, and I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter. The amount involved is infinitesimal, having regard to the whole cost and the circumstances. I beg the Minister will reconsider his attitude, so that the women may feel that the Government does appreciate the war effort that they have made. I also want the Minister to reassure the House in regard to the training schemes for women volunteers, that he will include in the trainees with the girls, also the widows and the wives of men who are living apart from their husbands, for one reason or another. But to revert to this question of differentiation in gratuity let me draw the attention of the Minister to the report of the Economic and Planning Council No. 3 which said—

Also this comment—

That is the advice of a first-class body. Let the Minister heed it and not make the women volunteers feel that it is the Ministry of Demobilisation that is the “Past stronghold of irrational prejudice.” The women of our country have done a good job in this war, and let the Minister and the country acknowledge that by giving them equal gratuities and equal facilities for training. And let not only the unmarried women volunteers but also widows and women living apart from their husbands be trained if they want it. There is one other point. The blue print of these plans is one thing, and the actual carrying out of the plans quite another. The Minister is very well aware that the attitude of any soldier, men and women alike, towards the Demobilisation Department and the Minister, will depend upon the handling that the soldier gets in his application. If the soldier is handled in a dilatory fashion, casually or indifferently, that soldier will damn the department and the Minister, and he will be right. Because it is important not only to draw up good plans but to carry them out well, and to do that the Minister must take particular heed in seeing that his department is adequately staffed with the right people. There should be no unnecessary delay, and the people who apply to the department should be handled sympathetically. I lay stress on the word “sympathetically,” because on the sympathetic handling of the applicants by his department, the whole scheme will depend. If this department in the execution of that plan falls behind, the plan itself will fail, and it is once more of the utmost importance that the people who apply should be handled expeditiously and sympathetically. Finally, I think there is a good deal of substance in the plea that has been made that this plan should be embodied in an Act of Parliament. Governments come and government go. Also let me remind the Minister that there are such things as depressions, and while we are all hopings that the Governments plans are such that there will be no depressions there is nevertheless no reason why the Minister should not embody these very excellent plans in a Bill to be passed by this Parliament and so make the whole country, and certainly the whole of our serving soldiers feel safer and better satisfied with the plan.

I do not want to cover the same ground which was covered by other hon. members, but I cannot help partially supporting the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon). I cannot appreciate why the gratuities were not fixed in relation to the pay which the soldiers receive, men or women. If that had been done, it would not have been necessary for her to make the plea which she made in this House, and I want to suggest that the Minister should take this into consideration and see whether he cannot alter his plan in that respect. But I want to confine myself more particularly to the rehabilitation of the soldiers of this country. As a farmer I take a great deal of interest in land settlement, of course, and I cannot help sounding a note of warning in connection with land settlement schemes which are carried out injudiciously. We gained so much experience after the last war that we should act very cautiously after this war. After the war there will be many agriculturists. In the first place we have the farmer’s son who enlisted; then we get the bywoner who enlisted, and lastly the urban youth. It stands to reason that the majority of farmers’ sons will want to return to the platteland; and there is no danger as far as they are concerned. We should assist them now or as soon as possible. Then we have the bywoner whom we should also enable to settle on the land. Then we come to the urban youth, and that is where we come up against this problem. We can understand that the urban youth, after four years on the battlefield will not want to go back to a shop or to an office, but that he will want to live in the open where he can work and get away from the strict discipline to which he was subjected, and where he can take care of himself and act independently. There we are dealing with the biggest problem. I do not want to keep those youngsters away from the land, but I want to issue a warning that we should give them an opportunity to find out whether they are able to adapt themselves to farming. The youngsters should not be disillusioned when it is too late. We must give him an opportunity of finding out whether he can adapt himself to farming conditions. We know our country. One year we have excessive rains and the next year we have a drought, and these are circumstances which not only break the man’s neck, but also break his courage. He should be given an opportunity to come into contract with actual farming conditions so that he can decide for himself whether he wants to become an agriculturist. As I have already said, there are three types of persons who would want to go and farm. There is more than one way in which effect can be given to what we have suggested. In the first place there are our agricultural schools. It would be a good thing to afford these youngsters an opportunity of attending the agricultural schools in order that they may receive proper training. We have not got room for all of them; we realise that. But apart from that they could also become settlers on experimental farms. There the youth will have an opportunity of being trained in the science of farming and of learning the practical side of farming; and we know that it is an excellent school to train prospective farmers. Then there is a further method, and I am convinced that the farmers in our country will be prepared to contribute their share. We have progressive farmers who would be prepared to take those young men, who want to become farmers, on their farms. And, in my opinion, that is the best experience which such a young man could gain. He would come into contact with the practical side of farming. He will see the advantages of farming, and at the same time he will learn that farming may be a failure. I want to urge the Minister very strongly to consider this and to submit it to his colleagues. Today we are faced with the problem of placing the soldier who has already been discharged. It is a very serious matter. Farmers’ sons have been discharged on medical grounds, as well as bywoners and the sons of bywoners who are anxious to settle on the land. We cannot alter the policy which the Minister of Lands has laid down, namely not to grant any land until after the war. I would be the last person to vote against that. If he were to do so now, it would not be fair towards the soldiers who are still on active service and who may still be on active service for a considerable time. I bow to that policy which the Minister of Lands has announced, but in order to solve the problem which faces us at the present time, there is only one means which can be adopted. Assistance should be given either through the Farmers’ Assistance Board or under the other scheme which is proposed here. In this connection I should like to put a question to the Minister in regard to the provision which has been made for a loan up to £1,250 for five years without interest or a gift of £250. I understood a moment ago from a remark which was passed here that it will only be given to men who are in need of it, whether they put up a business or whether they start farming. I want to warn against that. Do not let us discriminate again. Today forty years after the Second War of Independence, we are still faced with the fruits of discrimination as far as the Oudstryders are concerned. We must not make the same mistake again. We were prepared to take part in the war. We should also be prepared to carry out the promises which were made. The country will have to pay for it, whatever it may cost. We should give this concession to every European soldier who wants to avail himself of it—or whoever the person may be. If we take this step, we would be able to solve the difficulty in regard to farmers who want to settle on the land and who have no avenue of employment today. Let us make this money available under Section 11 and afford these young men an opportunity of buying land under this section. Then I just want to put one further question. I want to ask the Minister whether preference will be given in the Civil Service and in the Railway Service to returned soldiers who apply for employment?

I have been one of those who has from the very outset welcomed the statement of the Minister in its relationship to the demobilisation of the returned soldier. I feel that the success of this scheme depends very largely on the personnel of those who will deal with it and for that reason I welcome the Minister as the head of the organisation which is being set up. I feel he has that faculty for devoting himself to a good cause, and for bringing the matter to a successful end. That is why I am confident that in choice of the personnel, which we all regard as a matter of first importance, the Minister will see that no mistakes are made and that the men who are called to this task will be men who are capable of devoting themselves to the good cause for the sake of that cause. I think those of us who are familiar with the homes from which these men have come and the difficulties under which these homes have been sustained in their absence, will realise how welcome the provisions made by the Minister will be to the large class of people affected. In regard to the personnel, as I have said, I have supported the choice of competent soldiers for knowing best how to handle the discharged soldier. And when I speak of competent soldiers I speak of those who throughout the period of war have shown themselves devoted to the interests of the men under their care or command. Then in regard to the women soldiers too, there is a great deal of discussion as to the necessity of making provision such as will provide for those who no longer wish to return to the role which they performed before joining up. There are many young women who have realised that their career in future probably lies in some active work in the more populous centres of the Union, and I think some provision should be made for these girls. Then there are quite a number of people, widows and other dependants, who will come within the scheme of things and although not specifically mentioned, I hope that this scheme is wide enough to bring them in and to provide for them suitably. When I say that, I don’t mean provision by the dole, but I mean make them capable of leading useful lives and contributing to the progress and industry of the country, and I am sure most of them desire nothing better than that. They feel that they have an opportunity of making their homes and their future, and I hope everything will be done to promote a spirit of progress, and if you like, call it adventure, on the part of the women who have rallied to the cause in such large numbers and who on the whole have been a very great success in the numerous roles which they have performed in the army. In that connection I am sorry that we have lost the services of one of the women soldiers who showed while she was in the force, a great devotion to the interests of the women—I refer to Col. Mrs. Dunning, and I should like the Minister to make it possible for her services to be used in connection with demobilisation. I have been trying to find out the underlying cause for her resignation and I feel that she stands high in the estimation of those who served under her, and if it were possible to restore her to some useful place in connection with the demobilisation scheme it would be widely welcomed in the ranks of the women. Then in connection with the farmer-soldier, I feel that there is special work to be done and I am glad to realise that the Minister is receptive to all suggestions making for the satisfaction of the farmer-soldier here, whose wants are not very great but who would be tremendously appreciative of help which would restore him to the position in which he stood when he left for the front. There has been considerable deterioration in farms—unavoidably so—through the absence of farmers, and I feel that whatever can be done to expedite the recovery of the farmersoldier, would be widely appreciated in an industry which has suffered very considerably through the absence of some of its best members at the front. I want to say that I range myself entirely oh the side of the Minister’s new department as one who is willing to do everything possible to promote the success and the progress of the work of his Department. I feel, however, that there will be a tremendous responsibility on all sections of the community which are affected by this scheme, and what section is not affected? In every centre, in every town and village throughout the whole countryside, someone or other is closely identified with what the Minister has recently had to say to us. And I welcome wholeheartedly whatever portions of the scheme the Minister has outlined and I hope that we shall have a further elaboration of the matters which have been touched upon and the adaptation of that scheme to instances which may be brought out in the course of this debate.

I think it can be said that the Government is maintaining its high record in looking after the serving men and women in our forces. We in South Africa are naturally proud of what they have done for this country. I think it is agreed that our pension scheme is second to none, that our army pay when compared with the cost of living is as good as that paid by other countries, and now we have before us this Demobilisation plan which I am sure will not be beaten by any other nation. I would therefore like to join with other hon. members in congratulating the Minister, General Brink and the ad hoc Committee on the splendid plan they have put before this House and the country. To my mind one of the advantages of the plan is that in it there is flexibility. Various members have commented on certain points which they feel should be elaborated and have stated that they would like to see something done for the man who to enlist sold his business— others have spoken of the farmer who, owing to his absence from his farm finds on his return that his stock has deteriorated or that he has not the funds to put his farm into proper running order. I feel that the financial facilities granted in this Demobilisation plan namely the grant of £250, or the loan of £1,250 free of interest for five years, will apply to such cages, but I would like to have the assurance from the Minister that such is the case. I do however find some difficulty in understanding how the section dealing with the financial facilities will operate. For example I understand that if an ex-service man desires to build a house, he can borrow £1,250 free of interest for five years for that purpose, but what I want to ascertain is if a man who leaves the army finds it necessary to get furniture for his house will he be able to obtain a grant for that purpose? I should be obliged if the Minister would enlighten me on this point. I would also ask the Minister to include in the Advisory Council of the Directorate of Demobilisation representatives of the B.E.S.L. and of the MOTHS organisation. These two organisations have been carrying out wonderful work for men who have already been discharged in this war and for ex-service men of the last war. I feel their experience and their knowledge of that type of work would be of great assistance to the directorate. I am also very pleased to note that the Minister has agreed that the Subcommittees, which are to assist the Liaison Committees, will include representatives of the B.E.S.L. and the MOTHS, and also those wonderful women the S.A.W.A.S. I feel that with such people working on the Committees we need have no fear of slackness occurring in the future in matters dealing with ex-service men. I do not wish to weary the House by repeating many of the statements which have been made this afternoon, but there is one point which does not seem to be covered by the Demobilisation Plan and that is medical and dental assistance for discharged men and women. I feel that some provision should be made for soldiers when they are demobilised to have medical and dental assistance for a certain period, and therefore I agree with the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) that it will be necessary to have members of the U.D.F. medically examined before they leave the services so that we shall know exactly their state of health and what medical assistance they will need after discharge. I put the suggestion before the Minister for his consideration and I hope he may see his way to do something in the matter. In conclusion I was surprised earlier this afternoon to notice that while we were debating this important question the interest of the Opposition was shown by the presence here of only two members.

Weeks before the Minister made his statement, there was a certain amount of uneasiness as to what he was going to do for the returned soldiers. So it is only natural that there should be a certain amount of inquisitiveness on the part of members as to how the schemes will work out. I would remind hon. members that Rome was not built in a day and notwithstanding the statement of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) I am sure the country, the soldiers and most members in this House congratulate the Minister on his sincerity in tackling this scheme. I am certain that the scheme as outlined will serve as the soldiers’ charter and a solid foundation and structure and, with the ability and sympathy shown by him and his officials, I am satisfied that the details will work out well in practice. The very fact that the various organisations representing the soldiers are well satisfied, and in close touch with the Minister and his department, will help the Minister, with the big heart he has for the soldiers, to give them a square deal. I want however to refer to one matter which was not included in the Minister’s statement and I feel it is deserving of very sympathetic consideration. I had a petition sent to me on behalf of 300 individuals who were employed at Iscor. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall just read an extract from it—

I understand that at Iscor alone over 300 men were engaged and they have now been dismissed. I put this matter to the authorities at Iscor and I am given to understand that the Police and later the E.S.P.C. provided a certain measure of guarding at Iscor Works. Let me quote from the reply—

This statement I have read is from the Secretary of Iscor, Mr. Tucker. I do feel that the work these individuals were doing was equal to that performed by the E.S.P.C. men guarding bridges and so on. Iscor is a very important war plant and if they had not taken on these men, the Government or the Military would have had to supply the necessary guards, and I therefore appeal to the Minister to see to it that these 300 men are favourably considered.

I think it is gratifying to notice that all sections of the House approve and have spoken appreciatively of the scheme put forward by the Minister and the Director of Demobilisation.

You would think so.

But we feel that nothing that can be done financially can in any way compensate our soldiers for the services they have rendered and for the sacrifices they have made, and I think we all agree, that however liberal this scheme is it is by no means too generous. I rise to follow up a point made by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) in order to get some clarification. I refer to the provision of a grant of £250 or a loan of £1,250 for volunteers who have either passed their matriculation before they joined up and had intended going to the university, or for those who have actually done half their course and have perhaps taken a degree and then joined up, and who now, when they return will want to go back to the university in order to qualify for whatever position or profession they desire.

They should fight and not go to the universities, especially the Jews.

Apparently the hon. member hasn’t listened to me, but I don’t think he means a word of what he says there—knowing him as I do. He knows that over 10,000 Jews have joined up and there is not a Jewish family which has not got someone at the front. It is no use the hon. member making these cheap jibes—he is not doing justice to himself. I know the hon. member for Cradock was sincere in the scheme he put forward. I say that the volunteer who has volunteered before he had completed his course, or just after he has passed his matric is in a worse position than the young fellow who has remained behind and therefore he deserves special consideration and I feel that it is our duty to see that not only his financial but also his professional future is not prejudiced.

Do you want to give them the lot?

It seems a rather foolish interruption. Now let me point this out. Many of those young fellows who have joined up would, if they had remained at the university, have been qualified now for their profession. Those who have done so have an advantage over the fellows who joined up, and I think it should be made perfectly clear to those volunteers who have given up their studies to serve their country, that they will not be called upon to make any financial sacrifice. We should remember that the great majority of these young fellows coming back from the front have no means of their own and there should be no question of cavilling at their needs for a grant—unless it be the intention of the Minister or the Committee that where they can get financial support from other sources they should not get it from the Government. I don’t think that is in the Minister’s mind however. The average boy who comes back from the front, will in most cases have attained his majority and he will not like the idea of calling on his friends to assist him or on his parents to enable him to go through the university, and I think it should be made clear by the Minister that in those cases the question of a means test will not be considered. I think the Minister will agree that where a volunteer has broken up his studies and wants to continue them he should be assisted; he should be given the £250 or whatever else it is to continue his studies and I do not think this is the kind of case where we should apply the test of only making this grant if the man is in dire need for assistance. Unless the Minister clarifies that I am sure that a large number of the young men who are in the position to which I have referred would be very worried as to what their position will be when the war is over.

I am second to none in my appreciation of the scheme in general, and of the great imaginative powers of the Minister. He is young, and good-tempered, and he is able and energetic. For the Director of Demobilisation I have not merely admiration, but, I would add, a very great trust. My worry is not with the personnel, but I have a worry with regard to the machinery which they will have to administer over a number of years. With the utmost personal ability, and the best of good will, if the machine breaks down we shall be in the position in which Great Britain was 25 years ago, and from which she had not properly recovered when this war followed the other. Mr. Lloyd George had every intention in Great Britain of securing the future of the millions of soldiers who returned—the same percentage of the total population as are returning to South Africa now. But I repeat that he was unable to do so because the machinery wasn’t there. I don’t want to quibble about details; it is not a detail when I ask: what is the financial machinery behind this vast scheme? Mr. Lloyd George did not ask for money soon enough. When at length he asked, it was refused. At present we could get all the money required to give the soldier a real charter and a guarantee of rehabilitation. But is there any certainty that we shall be able to get that money as the years pass by? They were not able to obtain it in Great Britain. We must be certain of being able to do it here. And that is the basis of my suggestion that this charter should be incorporated in an Act of Parliament, so that there shall be definiteness and finality with regard to finance. If we act now we will be able to get all the money that is needed. In England after the last war, as the years passed public enthusiasm cooled, men on the dole produced no new wealth, and ex-soldiers became a nuisance. History can repeat itself. In this case, we must ensure that it does not. We can finance our soldiers’ future. Since 1939, although we have had, shall we say, 200,000 of our youngest, strongest and ablest men producing nothing whatever, my information is that the national income has doubled. With these men working and producing goods, South Africa’s income can be trebled. If the war went on for another three years, we should somehow find the money to pay for it, and why cannot we still find the money and make this noble ship seaworthy once and for all? It is not very often that we on these benches stand up and stress the value of money, but these plans are in the nature of promises—I don’t call them empty promises because I know that the intention of the Government is good, and the Government stands honestly behind these promises. Promises, however, are not the same thing as performance. I promised my wife a farm, and that was not an empty promise, I meant to give her a farm ; but I have never achieved enough money to pay for an acre and a cottage, and she has no chance at all of a thousand acres. Now that failure to realise intentions is what we want to avoid.

If you had put that into your ante-nuptial contract, would she still have got the farm?

It is risky to promise to give what you do not possess. We believe in this scheme so much that we insist that the money shall be found. It will be a good thing if that money is now set aside. It will be a good thing, not only for our soldiers, but also for the manufacturers at present working in our country. It will be a good thing to use this money not in a war against Germany but in a war against fear and want, a war on poverty. Production of many forms of manufacture has increased, and unless we spend money and spend it generously, who is going to take up the tenfold greater output of the shoe manufacturing industry, for instance, and other manufactured goods? We of the Labour Party will help in every way to make this scheme a success, but we are not able to help much in regard to the main weakness the scheme has, which is that these promises are not secured, the money is not behind the plan. I ask that the money shall be placed behind it forthwith, and not piecemeal. There are one or two other points, and one is in regard to housing. When the soldier comes home his greatest need will be a house, and in that connection I do not like this expression “special circumstances” with regard to Government loans. I do not know who decides the “special circumstances.” It seems to me that when you have talk of special circumstances there is a chance of something like charity coming into the picture after all. If I understand the proposal, the man who wants to build a house can borrow money up to £1,250 for three years free of interest; thereafter he will have to pay 4 per cent. and I suggest that that is a higher percentage than will generally be got for money, after another three or four years. I do not ask the Minister for very much in this respect, but I suggest that he might very well borrow money at 3 per cent. and lend it, not to selected soldiers, but to any soldier who wishes to build his own house. The money should be lent at the same rate of interest as the Government itself pays, 3 per cent. or even less. Unless this is made a universal right, of course there will be differentiation. The cases will come before different committees and there will be different standards. Another doubt I have is in reference to land settlement for soldiers. I was rather disturbed to see that the Minister only proposes to provide for 3,000 to 5,000 soldier settlers. Land is going to be a more essential feature than it ever has been in the past, and 2 per cent. out of 250,000 men is a very small proportion. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has land even for 5,000; and if he has, whether he is prepared to put the scheme into operation at once? If not, can he go as far as training men from the present moment in the profession of agriculture? Can he not at least start a farm training scheme for those already demobilised? That is a demand we have received today from Durban. There is one other matter—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) who is anxious to address the House—but the Minister is reported to have said in regard to vocational training, and I think he was correctly reported—

My question is: does this statement, and do these provisions, apply to those who enter upon preparation courses for the ministry, under the various Churches?

I think it may be well if I intervene in the debate at this stage to deal with some of the points which have been raised this afternoon. Let me at the outset say how very much I appreciate the constructive criticism and suggestions which have been put forward by members on this side of the House, and opposite from those supporting the Government. I also appreciate what the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) said, namely, that he would support us in carrying out our plans. The Government welcomes the support of every man and woman who wishes to assist us in rehabilitating and reinstating our service men and women into civilian life. I know that a number of hon. members, particularly those of the Soldiers Group of the Party to which I belong, and others, have devoted a great deal of time and attention to matters concerning both the serving soldier and the soldier already discharged, and it is in this spirit of co-operation and constructive suggestion that we can go forward. So far as the Directorate of Demobilisation is concerned, we shall always welcome criticism provided it is constructive; we shall not mind whatever things are said about us so long as they are said in a spirit of helpfulness. We want to get on with the job, we want to help these men and women, and the Government is only too glad to receive suggestions from whatever quarter, suggestions of a constructive nature which will help us to carry out our plan. It is in this way we can get on with the job; it is no good living in a fool’s paradise, it is no good sitting in the Union Buildings not knowing what is happening in the camps, imagining that all is right with the world when a number of things may be wrong. And it is by having the information brought to us by those who are in a position to give us that information that the Directorate will be enabled to carry out its task. A point raised by quite a number of hon. members was whether we should not incorporate the provisions of the Government plan in a Bill. Well, Mr. Chairman, that may be necessary at a later stage, to have legislation regarding certain aspects of the plan.

Why not now?

The hon. member says why not now. The Government has stated its plans, and we must stand by them, we are bound by them. It would be a gross breach of faith if we attempted to depart from this general plan at a later stage. But, Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly clear that the statement I made last week in this House was an outline of the plan as a whole. That outline could not possibly sketch in all the details down to the minutest one in respect of the operation of the plan. There is much still to be worked out, we may find that we shall have to modify it in certain respects. If I am now to be confined to a Bill to be passed during the present session of Parliament, with all the rigidity of a Bill, we lose all the advantages of being able to deal with this matter in an administrative fashion and the elasticity that that brings. We are committed to certain principles. I do not know why the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) should worry. He said this afternoon that probably another government might be in power after this war. Well, Sir, if he is correct—I think he is considerably pessimistic—I can hardly think it is a case of wishful thinking, because if he considers the Labour Party may come into power, then he can have no fears about having a Bill passed, because they would naturally carry out the policy he desires. It seems to me he is unduly pessimistic. The Government must stand or fall by the plan it has publicly announced. To attempt to clutter ourselves up within the narrow confines of a Bill at this stage is unnecessary and premature. It may be advisable at a later stage to entrench certain provisions in legislation, and if that necessity arises we shall pass such legislation. In the meanwhile, the plan has to be worked out in greater detail. Hon. members this afternoon have asked me what are the details in regard to the land settlement scheme, what are the details in regard to the university scheme, and what are the details in regard to vocational training. Are we going to take a large building or establish a camp in order to provide for facilities for vocational training? These are matter which we are going into at the present time. If we had at the present moment to come forward with a Bill with all these details, we would be stultifying ourselves. It cannot be done. While I appreciate that hon. members wish to enshrine in some permanent form the scheme as it has been outlined on behalf of the Government, I can assure them there is no need for them to worry so far as the service men and women are concerned. We propose at the earliest possible date publishing a booklet setting out the details of the scheme, a booklet which will be the serviceman’s handbook, his text book which he may examine in order to see whether he or she fits into the present scheme as a whole. That is what we are going to do at the very earliest possible moment. We are having it prepared at the present time, and that handbook of the whole scheme will be circulated amongst servicemen and women both in the Union and outside. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) and other hon. members have pressed me for details. Well, in the statement I made in the House, one could only sketch the outline of the scheme; we are proceeding now to paint in the details. There is the question of land settlement, a very important matter indeed. There is no doubt that in the Sixth Division there is a large number of farmers. These are anxiously awaiting more specific details in regard to the Government’s proposals relating to land settlement. There are many ex-servicemen already discharged who are hoping to benefit by these proposals. The hon. member has pressed me to give him information as to the release of plots at the present time. The Minister of Lands and Irrigation has made the policy quite clear. He gave a definite undertaking shortly after the beginning of the war and subsequently to members of the Sixth Division before they left South Africa, that he would not allocate any of the special plots until the war was over. He wanted to ensure that every man would have a fair chance when the allocation took place. That was a solemn undertaking and the Minister feels that if he were to depart from that at the present time, it would be a breach of faith. I may add, Mr. Chairman, that that point of view has been put to a representative deputation of members of the South African Legion, and the M.O.T.H.S. and that combined deputation has now accepted the position as stated by the Minister of Lands, because they now appreciate the reasons which have actuated him in taking up that position. But if we are not going to make these plots available at the present time, there seems to be no reason why we should not at this stage take steps to train men who may, at a subsequent stage, occupy these plots. There is no reason, for instance, why one should not follow up the suggestion by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) that what I may call “apprentice farmers” might not undergo a preliminary course of training on the farms of established farmers. There seems to be a great deal in that. These are matters which have to be worked out. The Directorate has already decided that, in order to get the proper information, in order to co-ordinate schemes relating to land settlement, it should appoint a co-ordinating committee. That committee will commence its investigations within a few days, and we hope that within no more than a few weeks it will be in a position to advise the Directorate in regard to the last detail relating to these schemes. That committee will have as part of its personnel members of this House, representatives of the South African Agricultural Union, the Department of Lands, the Department of Agriculture, and a representative of serving soldiers. And it will go into such matters as reporting upon the various schemes under which it is proposed to allot land to ex-volunteers, in terms of the Land Settlement Act, and to make additional recommendations as are necessary with particular reference to matters such as—

1. (a) The adequacy of land available for settlement;
2. (b) the extent to which land to be allotted to ex-volunteers is being prepared for occupation, what additional steps are to be taken to expedite the preparation and to furnish details of the number of plots on settlements and farms that will be available for occupation;
3. (c) the suitability of such land for farming and closer settlement;
4. (d) the steps which should be taken to give ex-volunteers the necessary preliminary theoretical and practical training to fit them in the shortest time possible to settle on the land;
5. (e) the conditions under which ex-volunteers should be admitted to the schemes;
6. (f) what further steps, if any, should be initiated for the provision of (i) livestock and farm equipment; (ii) transport and transport facilities; (iii) social amenities on closer settlements; (iv) co-onerative marketing and trading facilities; (v) the living, storage and other accommodation necessary on closer settlements and on farms; (vi) building materials and other materials required for settlement purposes; (vii) essential furniture and utensils to enable settlers to settle down without inconvenience and loss of time;
7. (g) the adequacy of maintenance allowances payable under existing Land Settlement Acts;
8. (h) the availability of markets in relation to the products produced on settlements;
9. (i) the availability of trained staff for the directing and administration of settlements and the steps to be taken to obtain and train these.

Now the House will see from what I have read out that this committee, which will co-ordinate the activities of the Departments of Land and Agriculture in relation to farmer volunteers, will have the widest terms of reference and will be able to advise the Government on those very points on which hon. members have questioned me this afternoon. We hope that when we have the recommendations of that committee we shall be able to issue that pamphlet to which I made reference in my statement last week, setting out exactly what the conditions of the Land Settlement Scheme will be, and what facilities will be given to our ex-servicemen in order to qualify for this scheme. I think by these means we are approaching this question in a scientific manner, we are trying not to exclude anything which might be favourable towards such a scheme, and we are seeking the advice of those best qualified to assist the Directorate in this particular matter. Then take the question of education. The university scheme is one of the schemes which has been announced. Students who are permitted to benefit under that scheme will receive an allowance of £250, plus, if necessary, a loan of £600 free of interest until one year after the completion of the course. Thereafter it will run at 4 per cent. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) have asked me to clarify the position. The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to a statement I made last night when broadcasting that the financial assistance provisions of our plan will not be given to every man or woman as a right, in the sense that not every man or woman will be given a grant of £250 or a loan of £1,250, because it will depend upon whether a particular volunteer requires such assistance. That is perfectly true. I want to make it quite clear to the House, to the country and to serving men and women, that not every man and woman is going to get £250 or a loan of £1,250. It would be wrong if I were to create the contrary impression, if I were to create the impression that every man, irrespective of his circumstances, will receive that amount. There are thousands of men who are going to come back to pre-enlistment employment, who will not require any financial assistance, and they will not get it. They will get a gratuity and certain other items such as the clothing allowance, which are given as a right; but this financial assistance scheme is there to deal with the special circumstances of those persons who cannot be catered for under existing schemes. The man who comes back to pre-enlistment employment is already catered for under the general scheme, but the man who wants to have a university training is catered for under the university training scheme. If a young man wishes to embark on a university career or a profession, he will be examined to see whether he is fit fór that, whether he has passed the necessary preliminary examinations, and, if he has, there is a scheme available for him. There may be many men who are perhaps more suitable for training for a trade. A man may have passed Standard VII, but he cannot demand that he must now go to a university, for there is a special scheme available for that man to undergo training for whatever it may be, some form of artisanship, without a means test. There will be many young men who will come back and who will be looked after by their parents, who will cater for their needs. If a young man qualifies for a university course and in the opinion of the Directorate of Demobilisation is so qualified, then the financial assistance available under the university scheme will be available to him. The general financial assistance scheme is something separate from the university scheme. It comes into operation only when all the other schemes have proved to be inapplicable to the circumstances of a particular case. A man may be re-instated in his pre-war employment, but that pre-war employment may have been 8s. a day in a forestry settlement. He has now been earning £30 to £35 a month in the army, and his family have now known what it is to have regular, proper and nutritious food. It seems intolerable that he should have to go back to that rate of pay on the forestry job.

What about those still in the forestry?

Under a proper system of social security, we want to improve the lot of every one. But those still in the forestry settlement had their opportunity of giving special service to their country. Those persons who have shown that they were prepared to sacrifice everything for their country, must have preferential treatment. That is the view of the Government, and we shall have to come to the assistance of these people. The advantage of the financial assistance scheme is its elasticity. We cannot, in advance, conceive of every case that may arise, and we must await the event. That is my reply to the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) who asked me to particularise those cases which would be helped under the financial assistance scheme. My answer is that it is flexible and elastic, and we must wait till circumstances arise. The committee which will deal with the circumstances in any case is the Local Demobilisation Committee. I will come to its personnel in a moment, but one of the functions of these committees will be to go into the circumstances of an applicant who wishes financial assistance for a particular object. They will investigate cases, they will make their recommendations which will come to the Executive Board of the Directorate, which will make a final decision. Quite obviously the Executive Board is going to be guided very largely by the opinion of these local committees, composed as they will be of representatives of soldiers, both serving and ex-service organisations. These committees will know the needs of the men, and will examine the matter impartially and sympathetically. The hon. member for Stellenbosch has asked what this plan is going to cost, and has pointed out that there is no estimate before us to enable hon. members to concentrate upon certain items for the purposes of discussion.

Never mind what it costs.

My answer generally to the hon. member is the interjection just made by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) that when we entered the war we did not count the cost, we did not sit down and examine in detail what it was going to amount to. We went into the war for better or worse, and we paid our way and are paying our way. We must face the cost. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has told us that the cost will be heavy. But we must face that cost and I have no doubt that the House and the country will support the Government in finding money to meet that cost. But I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). He asked why there were no estimates before the House. There were no estimates because when these estimates were printed we were not in a position even to put token estimates before the House. So far as the current year is concerned, we anticipate that we shall be able to meet the cost of paying the gratuities, as well as the cost of the clothing allowances and any pay in lieu of leave, out of the Defence War Expenditure Account. In any event it will have to come out of that account. Payment in respect of gratuities, in respect of clothing and payment in lieu of leave will come out of the Defence Vote and not out of the Demobilisation Vote. Those are payments made to the soldier as such. On the other hand, payments in respect of grants or loans will be made out of the Demobilisation Vote, and it is the intention of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, at a later stage to present supplementary estimates to the House, and on those supplementary estimates there will be a token amount in respect of expenditure for the rest of the present year. It is extremely difficult to estimate what the cost of grants and gratuities will be for the rest of the year. Before we can put the scheme into operation at least two or three months or even four months will have elapsed, but we shall have a token amount on the estimates which will enable us to make a start and carry on and, if necessary, this token sum can be supplemented by means of additional estimates. A number of hon. members have emphasised the fact that whatever the nature of the plan, even though on paper it may appear to be a sound plan, it can never hope to succeed without proper administration. That is self-evident, and I would like to go further and say that even if we have the best administration in the world we can still not hope to have success unless we have co-operation between all concerned, including the returned volunteers. It has to be a partnership between those who have served and those wanting to help those who have served. It must be a partnership in the spirit of co-operation and helpful assistance. Hon. members have stressed that so far as the administrative side is concerned we should as far as possible have ex-volunteers in the Directorate. Well, the Director-General is attempting to carry out that policy. The question of staff is not an easy one at the present time. There are many persons whom we should like to have but whom we cannot have released from active service at the present time. But as things proceed, and certainly by the time general demobilisation comes into effect, we shall have large numbers of ex-servicemen available who can then be used in that direction by the Director-General if they are prepared to remain on and serve. The demobilisation committees have been criticised by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). He talked about them as being “mushroom committees,” and he rather suggested that I am going to be a dictator. I cannot understand how one can be a dictator if one appoints committees throughout the country, consisting of local people interested in the welfare of servicemen and women. I should have thought it was essentially democratic. I should have thought it was essentially democratic if those committees are constituted of local representatives, to enable them to deal with matters on the spot. My hon. friend says I am a dictator because I do that.

You want to take the work away from the existing bodies and give it to committees who do not know their work.

My hon. friend is misconstruing the position. The Directorate of Demobilisation is an autonomous department, but it is not taking away from the Department of Lands the work carried out by that Department at the present time. There has been a suggestion that the Demobilisation Department should usurp the functions of the Department of Lands as far as ex-volunteers are concerned; in other words, that the Demobilisation Department should take over the land settlement schemes under the Department of Lands for returned soldiers. I tried to make it clear in my original statement that we have attempted to have a set-up which would combine the advantages of a separate autonomous department with machinery which would enable the Directorate to use as its agent other Government departments and agencies which are peculiarly fitted to carry out certain functions. How can the Directorate of Demobilisation be expected to set up within itself a Department of Lands to deal with land settlement for the soldiers? Are we then to set up a special department?

Why not?

My hon. friend says why not? Does he want us to deal with land settlement schemes? Where are we going to get the technical experts to make up a land settlement staff in the Department of Demobilisation? Are we also to set up an Agricultural Department in the Department of Demobilisation? Why should we do it? We have these Government departments and agencies ready to our hands, and there is no reason why we should not use them. But it is not merely a question of handing over a scheme to another Department and saying that we wash our hands of it. The Director-General has an Executive Board, and he co-opts on that Board the head of the Department concerned whenever he thinks it necessary. The Director-General can never divest himself of his responsibility for seeing that volunteers are put on the land. That is his responsibility as Director-General. In order to carry out that responsibility, however, he uses the expert services of the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture. But he must know what is going on, and, if he thinks that the policy laid down by the Directorate of Demobilisation is not being carried out correctly, he calls a meeting of his Executive Board, and he co-opts, for the purpose of that meeting, the head of the Department of Lands or the head of the Department of Agriculture. They then thrash the matter out and they come to an agreement. If they do not come to an agreement, and the Director-General still thinks that the policy carried out by the other department is incorrect, he comes to me and I bring the matter before the Cabinet. Surely there is no dictatorship about that. But the department which is going to be held responsible by the public, the Directorate of Demobilisation, has an opportunity of getting a decision from the Cabinet. The soldiers are going to hold the Directorate responsible if anything goes wrong. The soldier wants to have one department which he can hold responsible if anything goes wrong. In order to exercise that responsibility we have created this machinery, through the Executive Board, of being able to know what is happening in other departments and of making our representations along proper constitutional lines.

But will there not be overlapping?

On the contrary, so far from overlapping there will be close collaboration and co-operation between the various departments. If we had set up separate departments, there would have been overlapping. Under the set-up we have arranged there will be no overlapping. The Demobilisation Committees will consist of representatives of serving men. They will also consist of representatives of the M.O.T.H.S., of the S.A. Legion, of S.A.W.A.S. and other bodies which are interested in the welfare of serving men and women. There will be representatives of commerce and industry; there will be representatives of the various trade unions. But let me give this word of warning. These Demobilisation Committees are going to be working committees. In the larger centres they will have a full-time Demobilisation Officer. The hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) asked me whether we were going to appoint a paid Soldiers’ Friend. Well, that is the answer to my hon. friend’s question. We are going to appoint a full-time Demobilisation Officer, an official of the Directorate of Demobilisation, a serviceman, in all the larger centres. We shall have these demobilisation officers in all the large centres of the Union. We shall probably have 300 or 400 of these Demobilisation Committees in the Union. We shall not appoint a full-time paid official to every committee. Indeed, it will not be necessary to appoint such an official for every committee. But we will appoint a full-time official in the larger centres. They will work with the Demobilisation Committees and co-ordinate their activities. But I want to emphasise again that these committees will have to get down and make investigations. They will not merely be arm-chair critics. They will have to get on with the job, and the directorate will hold them responsible for the welfare of the service men and women in their own areas. If anything goes wrong we will call upon these Committees for an explanation. We are going to say to them: “It is your job; we have given you the responsibility. If you are not able to carry it out, let us know what the trouble is and we will step in and assist you.” But we want this proper division of responsibility. Any person who wants to help will be able to help in a practical way by overt action. Certain hon. members have asked me whether merchant seamen will also be included in these benefits. May I say this, as a general statement, that the terms in which I announced the Government plan did not make specific reference to Union nationals serving either in the mercantile marine or in the forces of Great Britain, of the Commonwealth or of the United Nations. There are Union Nationals serving in the mercantile marine. There are Union Nationals in the Royal Navy who have joined up in this war for the purpose of serving the Royal Navy. There are Union Nationals serving in the British Army, and there perhaps are Union Nationals serving in the American Army. As a general principle we shall ensure that these Union Nationals are not prejudiced in any way, so far as gratuities and benefits are concerned, through service in any other force.

And pensions?

We shall ensure that Union Nationals are not prejudiced so far as gratuities and benefits are concerned, but we have to wait and see what gratuities Great Britain or the other United Nations may give. We do not propose to pay double gratuities. But if a South African serving, say, with the British Forces were to receive a lesser amount under the British scheme than he would receive under our scheme, we shall undoubtedly have to make up the difference. Why not? The Government has agreed to help those Hollanders in South Africa who joined the Netherlands Army. We are going to give them certain benefits—not gratuities— but we are going to make available facilities for them to reinstate themselves in civil life; and if we are prepared to do that for those loyal Netherlanders who are fighting in the cause of the United Nations, we shall certainly do the same for our Union Nationals who may be serving with other forces of the United Nations.

Will the Minister say in regard to the Merchant Navy that it will not be based on attestation?

I can tell the hon. member that so far as gratuities are concerned, if the man receives no gratuity from the British Administration, he will receive it from us. If he requires benefits he will come under our scheme, and I am informed that the Military Pensions Bill will make provision for pensions for merchant seamen. There are only two other matters to which I want to refer at this stage. A number of hon. members have raised the question of the differentiation in gratuities as between men and women and Europeans and coloureds. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has made a very eloquent appeal on behalf of women. She put the matter in this way. She asked whether the service of women represented 50 per cent. of the service of men.

On a point of explanation; what I did say was this: “Was the Government half as grateful to the women as it was to the men?”

I am glad that the hon. member corrected me.

Don’t embarrass the Minister.

There has been criticism in regard to the gratuity rates put forward for non-Europeans. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) put forward a very helpful and constructive suggestion. But let me make this quite clear to the House. The ad hoc Committee gave the most careful consideration to this question of gratuities. They had to regard it in the light of any possible financial assistance that would be given under the general Financial Assistance scheme. They had to try and keep two things together in a proper perspective and in a proper proportion. After debating this question of the gratuity which should be given to women at very considerable length, they decided to make this differentiation. They decided first of all that European men would receive 30s. for each month of service. They considered the fact that all males who volunteered, volunteered for service anywhere in Africa, and subsequently, under the general service oath, for service anywhere. A man who so volunteered may have been kept in the Union, but he certainly had no option. He had to go where he was sent. He took the oath to go wherever he was sent, and the majority of men, of course, have had to endure living conditions and undergo experiences which the vast bulk of the serving women never experienced.

It is not their fault.

It is certainly not their fault, but, on the other hand, you could not have the same number of women in the battle line as you have men. Then of course women have taken various forms of oath. Many women have agreed to serve only in the Union.

Many volunteered to serve only in their home towns.

As my hon. friend says, some have agreed to serve only in their home towns. So, after careful consideration of all these aspects of the position, the committee came to the conclusion that it could not differentiate between the various groups of women, between the various types of oaths and that it should give a general gratuity of 15s. in respect of all women. That was the reasoning. It was not done on the basis that the Government or the country is half as grateful to the women as to the men. That is a good debating point, I will admit; but when we consider these questions of gratuities, when we consider the question of grants and loans and benefits generally to reinstate persons into civil life, we have to consider the object; and when we consider the respective needs of men and women, one must not forget that it is the man who generally has to look after the woman. The man is generally married; he has to accept the responsibility of family life and his needs generally are greater than the needs of women, so there are grounds to justify the decision of the committee. When one considers the cases of the women who were in the front line, those gallant nurses who were in the front line, it may seem unfortunate that they do not get the same amount; but my feeling at the moment is this, that the Government has accepted these very far-reaching proposals of the ad hoc Committee not only in regard to gratuities but also in other respects. I feel if we start tampering with those proposals, in one respect, then we open the door to tampering in another respect; and in this instance, much as I appreciate the appeal of the hon. member and the way in which she made it, I cannot give any undertaking this afternoon that this will be changed. I know the hon. member will feel that she has to return to the attack. Let me just say this to these who advocate that I should introduce a Bill at the present time. The fact that I am not introducing a Bill gives those persons an opportunity to come back, if they wish to do so. The final point of which I want to make mention is that raised by an hon. member who asked me to lay down what the order of priority of demobilisation would be. It seems to me that that is somewhat premature. The hon. member for Cape Flats told us that he feared that the formation of a Demobilisation Directorate would have an adverse effect on recruiting. I think my hon. friend now realises that that is not correct. He now admits that the purpose of demobilisation is to be ready for general demobilisation, and to deal with those who have already been discharged. We are considering the question of priorities. That is a matter into which we have to go in conjunction with the Department of Defence. Steps have already been taken to that end, but I do not think it is wise at this particular stage to make any final announcement in regard to the order of priorities. In any event I am not in a position to do so this afternoon, but even if I were in a position to do so, I do not think it would be wise to make any announcement this afternoon, because that certainly might act as a deterrent to recruiting, it might create the idea that the war is over. Preparing in advance for general demobilisation in the sense that we are establishing the machinery for benefits to men coming out of the army, is quite a different matter. We are already having our discussions with Defence, and, at the right time, the priority arrangements will be announced. I think I have covered all the points raised by hon. members this afternoon. If I have not dealt with every point raised by various speakers, I can give them the assurance that the Director-General and his officials are making careful notes of all such points, and we shall see that every constructive suggestion which has been made will be suitably followed up, and, where that suggestion can be carried out, we shall give effect to it.

We have just listened to the new heaven on earth which will be created for the returned soldier. But we remember clearly what happened to the returned soldier after the last war. We also know what their position is today. The Minister held out the prospect of all these new schemes which the Government proposes to establish for those people; but he carefully refrained from telling us that he was going to extend these schemes further and that he was going to make these benefits available to the people who remained in this country, those people who kept the army going, who made available all the requirements of the army. The Minister did not say a word about those people. I contend that it makes no difference where the individual rendered service, whether it be in this country or up North or overseas. This scheme will have to be financed by the whole nation. The country will have to pay for it. Why exclude one section of the population?

They were not soldiers.

But they kept the soldiers in the field. It is no use saying that they were not soldiers. All those people who worked in factories in this country and who manufactured war material, rendered war services. I say that the man who took the oath, who wore the red tab, is not the only person who rendered service to the country. But I want to go further. Take agriculture. After 1918 a heaven on earth was also held out to these people. They were placed on farms. But I want to remind the Minister that a farmer cannot be made in twelve months. He is born. He grows up on a farm, and that is the only place where he can learn to become a farmer.

[Inaudible.]

One could never make a farmer of the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy). It is on the farm that one learns to farm. One cannot just take any person out of the army and tell him to become a farmer. I want to warn the Minister. He will make a failure of this scheme. He does not trust the Minister of Finance with his assistance boards. These boards consist of people who are experienced, people who are able to determine whether the man will be able to make a success of farming. The Minister now proposes to appoint other committees. I want to advise him to make use of the organisations which have already been established by the Minister of Finance. Let him make use of the Farmers’ Assistance Boards. The members of those boards are experienced people. Those new committees will be failures; and the people will have to pay for it. We who have farmed for years, we who have practical experience, are able to determine as farmers whether a man can make a living on a certain holding. We are able to determine whether he has sufficient knowledge, whether he has had the necessary training to be able to make a success of farming. It is no use putting people on farms who, after a few months, will run away from the land like kaffirs.

So they will run away like kaffirs!

I said they would run away like kaffirs from the land. The kaffirs often run away to the towns.

You are comparing them with kaffirs.

That is a misrepresentation of what I said.

You must not try to get out of it now.

That is not what I said.

I listened carefully.

Have you got ears?

We must put people on the land who will be able to make a success of farming, and if the Minister makes use of the Farmers’ Assistance Boards, together with those committees, his scheme will be a success. It is no use mincing matters. In the past we had people who were taken on in forestry, and who could not make a success of it. They were not able to acquire the necessary knowledge within a year. It is a trade which one has to learn, and it is no use mincing matters. I want to ask whether the Minister is not prepared to extend this scheme further. Is the Minister prepared to include under this scheme the ex-soldiers who fought in the war of 1914-’18 and whose positions are precarious today; is he prepared to bring Oudstryders who have to live on a meagre pension today, into this scheme? We cannot call into being a scheme for a certain group of the people only. The nation will have to pay for it. The Minister should make the scheme more comprehensive and make it a national scheme, so that it will also cover the people who are in needy circumstances and for whom provision should be made.

I think the Minister must be gratified at the way this scheme has been received by the soldiers’ organisations, and I think the Minister is right in paying a tribute to the ad hoc Committee which he constituted to assist him and to the Director-General of Demobilisation. I feel that the co-operation which has been shown in something of which the country and the Minister can be very proud. It is perfectly true, as the Minister says, that the success or failure of the scheme must hinge on the co-operation it receives. The two sections which have to co-operate are the soldiers and the soldiers’ organisations on the one hand and the public on the other. And I feel that that is the reason why the Minister has laid so much stress on the importance of retaining the Liaison Committees throughout the country in the hope that they will be able to play the same part in gaining the support and the co-operation of public opinion in this scheme of demobilisation, as they have gained with regard to the war effort. There are one or two aspects which the Minister has not stressed, but I am sure that the Director-General has not lost sight of them. I am pleased that the Minister has not allowed himself to be led into the temptation of formulating these schemes into a cut and dried Act of Parliament and I hope that for the time being at any rate, we shall not go beyond having a Directorate General of Demobilisation, and leave that Directorate a good deal of discretion in regard to the proper approach to the whole question of demobilisation. It may sound harsh and brutal to say this, but I feel that it is almost worthwhile having had the sacrifices and experience of the last war, to make us realise what we have to do now to prevent a recurrence of the conditions with which we were faced when thousands of our men returned after having so conspicuously rendered service to the great cause of freedom. I am sure that our experiences of the past make us realise the need for generosity and help. When one realises how at the end of the last war, the soldiers had to go cap in hand to receive the meagre amounts that were doled out to them, and when one realises that the Governor-General’s Fund was in a position where it could not do much for these men, unless they were in receipt of a Government Pension, one must also feel that the situation so far as that Fund now is concerned is almost a Utopian one. For the last 17 or 18 years I have said inside and outside this House that the position as far as the Governor-General’s Fund was concerned was most unsatisfactory. The Governor-General’s Fund had to make up for the deficiencies in the Government scheme to do justice to the soldier. No person was entitled to any help from the Fund unless the Government had already given him a pension. One could approach the Fund for help and get nothing. One could keep on knocking at the door until the Government gave a pension and then immediately the Governor-General’s Fund would turn round and almost come knocking at your door and tell you: “Now that you have received a pension we propose to supplement it.” The situation today is very different. I do not know what part the Governor-General’s Fund is going to play in regard to disabled and distressed soldiers and ex-servicemen of whom there are many—and let me say this to the House, there will be many men who will feel aggrieved at not getting what they think they are entitled to, and there I think the Gcvernor-General’s Fund will be able to play a much better part and do much more for the ex-servicemen of this war who fall outside the scheme of the Pensions Department than in the last war. The Minister, as well as members in this House, have laid great stress on the rehabilitation of the demobilised ex-serviceman. One feels that there should be openings for many of these young men to be absorbed in industry—technical training should be provided for them—and others should be allowed to return to the university and finish their studies. But there are two types of disabled ex-servicemen who are today leaving the army to whom the Department should give special consideration. A large percentage of our disabled ex-servicemen are leaving the army because of tuberculosis or other chest complaints. A large section of Nelspoort has been used as a sort of re-training centre for these men and I feel better provision might be made in the whole scheme of demobilisation under the guidance of Major Louis van Schalkwyk, in the direction of the re-absorption of these men in industry. We know that there are a number of men who have been blinded in this war—of those blinded approximately 20 to 23 are South Africans. No applications have been made to the Government or to the Department of Demobilisation for assistance for the rehabilitation of these men. The moment a man is certified by the Military Hospital as being totally blinded, he can be transferred to St. Dunstans, and the whole cost of his training and his rehabilitation becomes a charge on that organisation. Thus it will not cost the Governor-General’s Fund or the Department of Demobilisation a sixpence. I think this is a very important point and shows the excellent work being done by that institution. But what I want to emphasise is this—there has been considerable delay in the demobilisation and the granting of pensions to people who find themselves in those circumstances. In one particular instance it took nearly a year or over a year, after the medical board had declared the person to be totally blind, for him to be demobilised. There was the organisation waiting to absorb him and to re-train him, but he was kept hanging about, and even after he had been taken into the organisation the question was raised whether he should go on receiving his pension and his allowance, or what should be done for him, and it took nearly 12 months for the Department to make up its mind—greatly to the prejudice of the person of course.

Was that in this war?

Yes. Might I say this; I have said it before. You cannot compensate a man for being blinded in the War—no amount of financial benefit can compensate a man for losing his sight, but I do feel that the pension he receives today, with the allowances, is so much superior to what was the case in the past that the Government should consider whether it is not possible to do something more in the way of the practical rehabilitation of these people. I know that representations have been made to the Department of Pensions asking that a person who for just over 12 months was kept on the strength and received no more than his pay and allowances after being blinded, should receive special consideration and that these delays should if possible be avoided. [Time limit.]

I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice the position in which the farmers who have enlisted are finding themselves. I know of farmers who left here with a little debt; and I am afraid that unless special provision is made, those people will find on their return that they will not remain in possession of the £250 which they will get for more than a single afternoon, before it falls into the hands of their creditors. I make an appeal to the Minister to see to it that these people enjoy a certain measure of protection, when they receive assistance from the Government. There may be hundreds of them who owed a few pounds; in the meantime interest has accumulated, and as soon as they return to this country, and they are given financial assistance, they will have to hand over the money to their creditors straight away. I have every reason to believe that many people who were given a grant of £50 had to hand it over immediately to their creditors. Then there is another matter. The Minister tried to explain that it was necessary to assist the farmers. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to assist those people who have already been discharged from the army. Many of those who enlisted are the sons of farmers. They know what farming is. They joined up as youths; in the meantime they have grown into manhood. They may have been declared medically unfit and today they are dependent on their parents. They may have a wife and children. Today they do not know where to turn, and their parents have every right to say to the Government: “Your liaison officers got these children to enlist; why don’t you look after them? You promised to help them if they assist in defending the freedom of the country; today they have no means of livelihood, and they have no land.”

I want to support the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). We must not wait until the war is over. I do not want to interfere as far as the 3,000 or 3,500 holdings are concerned but I want to say that it is necessary to assist these people now. People who grew up in the Western Province should not expected to take up farming in the Transvaal; they should be afforded an opportunity of buying a piece of land in the Western Province under Section 11 so that they can make a start at once. If they have not got enough trek animals they will probably be assisted by a friend or by their parents, so that they can make a start in life. I want to ask the hon. Minister to insist that a start be made immediately under the Department of Lands. But if that is done, these people should not be required to pay the same rate of interest as the ordinary citizen. I am sorry the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) said that these people would desert like kaffirs.

I did not say so.

I do not think it is fitting to use the word “kaffir” in connection with soldiers.

On a point of explanation; that is a misrepresentation. I did not say that all the soldiers would desert like kaffirs. I warned the Minister that people who do not come from farming stock and who are not acquainted with farming conditions, should not be placed on the farms, otherwise the result will be that they will leave those farms sooner or later.

I do not want to hurt the feelings of the hon. member for Kroonstad. But I do not think it is right to use that word when referring to soldiers, because we as Afrikaners are hurt when the word “kaffir” is used.

On a point of order, is the hon. member not obliged to accept what another member says by way of explanation? He is still going on with it.

The hon. member may continue.

I only want to express the hope that the Minister will immediately come to the assistance of those people who have experience of farming. He should not let them wait, nor should he require them to pay 3¾ per cent. as in the case of private citizens. Those people were torn away from their traditions and customs, and I want to suggest that they should not be required to pay more than one per cent. or two per cent. for a period of 20 years, so as to enable them to rehabilitate themselves. These people did their duty towards the nation, and they should be assisted. I feel very strongly on this matter. In my district 1,000 voters out of 7,000 enlisted. Many of them are farmers’ sons whose ambition it is to have a piece of land so that they can start rehabilitating themselves. Give them an opportunity to start now while there is something to be made out of farming. It is very hard for them to look on while people who were against the war are filling their pockets, while they themselves are not enabled to make a living.

The special committee will have to investigate this as well.

I fully believe that the Committee will do its duty, but I ask that something be done immediately to help these people. We have made provision for officials, for mechanics, for those who enter the professions, but I say that the farmers who took part in the war can never be compensated for what they sacrificed. They may have lost everything. I can mention a case of one man who was awarded the Military Cross.

He had 800 head of cattle when he enlisted.

When he returned he had only 400. Out of his 600 sheep only 200 remained. We cannot compensate them for what they have done, but we can show them that we appreciate their services.

A case of that type would fall under this scheme.

I know, but I want to make sure that no one else will have a “finger in the pie”; that they will not straightaway lose the small sum of money which they are granted. There are certain people who, like vultures, are awaiting the return of the soldiers so that they can get hold of their money. I think the soldiers should be protected. Then there is something else to which the Minister should give his attention.

There is a certain group of coloureds who enlisted; and I think the Minister should bear them in mind and let them have what we in the Transvaal call trust farms, pieces of land on which they can settle, and then take up seasonal employment with the farmers. [Time limit.]

I want to discuss a different matter. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he is going to pay compensation to those persons who fell under the emergency regulations which were made in connection with hired houses. The previous Minister made a regulation to the effect that the owner of a house cannot get occupation, even though he wants it for his personal occupation, if the house is occupied by lessees. I referred to this on various occasions, but the Minister refused to withdraw or amend this regulation, with the result that many people suffered great damage while others made money out of this position. I want to know whether the Minister will consider claims for compensation. The regulation has now been altered. Let me mention a case which occurred in mv own constituency. A certain farmer had a small farm just outside the town. He became mentally defective but the authorities could not send him to a mental institution; his wife had to look after him. She tried to farm but found that it did not pay her and eventually they were compelled to sell the farm. She came to Somerset Strand and bought a house there. She deposited £1,000 which she had left. That was a month or two before this regulation was promulgated. She obtained transfer, however, a few days after the regulation had been promulgated. I should like the House to understand that she had a sick husband on her hands, an elderly sister-in-law who had retired on pension and who was not very strong, and she also had two sons. Fortunately one of her sons found employment at Somerset West; the other son was still at university. But because this regulation had been promulgated, she could not obtain possession of the house. She intended opening a boarding house. The house was occupied by a shopkeeper at Somerset West.

When she arrived there?

Yes; he was then in the house. He had no contract and he resigned himself to leaving the house when it was sold. He knew that this woman required the house in order to put up a boarding house. She did not have sufficient money to live on her interest. But when this regulation was made, he refused to vacate the house. She had a sick husband on her hands, her sister-in-law who could not work, and she had no means of livelihood. She could not go to an hotel with a sick husband suffering from mental disease. She tried to get the house; she wanted to buy the man off but she did not succeed; and since that time she has been roaming about. One week she lives with her sister-in-law at Hermanus and the next week with someone else. She suffered great hardships and was put to a great deal of expense; and the rental of the house was only £8. I think she paid £2,500 for it. She could not obtain an increase in the rent. Eventually the regulation was amended to read that on giving three months’ notice that you require the house for your personal occupation you can obtain occupation, provided the other person is not prejudiced. The occupier then went to the magistrate’s court; and this woman did not succeed in ejecting him. The magistrate gave as one of the reasons that this man could not go to an hotel because he was a Jew and could not get Jewish food at the hotel. They tried everything. They tried to get a house for him, but he would not take it because the rent was higher. The true position was that he himself sublet the house and made £60 or £70 a year out of it— sometimes more than he paid by way of rent. As soon as the regulation was amended he vacated the house. He had a place to which he could go. During the time she had to roam about, this woman suffered great damage, and she had no income. The house is in a terrible condition because it was not repaired. She suffered great damage. I think the Minister will agree that in this case the regulation operated unfairly, because he amended the regulation as soon as he took over. In the meantime these people have suffered great damage, and I want to know whether a claim for compensation on their part will be considered. Then I also want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister in connection with these regulations. When the owner wants his house he can now get it, but the lessee is entitled to remain in the house when his contract expires. What does the lessee do today? Where a man rents a house for a few years under a contract of lease, he refuses to enter into a new contract of lease when the old contract expires but continues to stay in the house. He is under no obligation now to keep the house in good repair, either outside or inside. He refuses to enter into a contract and only pays the rent. The owner subsequently suffers damage. There the regulations operate unfairly against the lessor. I readily admit that there are unreasonable lessors, but one also gets unreasonable lessees. The owners may suffer great damage as a result of this regulation.

A case is now being heard in Canada where the people refuse to vacate the houses.

It also happens here. But I am now speaking of the case where the lessees refuse to sign a contract. They pay the rent, but they do not accept any other conditions. The owners suffer damage because the houses are neglected. That is the position. I should like to bring those few points to the notice of the Minister, and I want to ask him, especially in the first case which I mentioned, whether he will pay compensation to these people because they suffered damage owing to an unreasonable regulation which was later amended. [Time Limit.]

I am proud of the fact that of all the platteland constituencies, almost without exception, Caledon produced more volunteers than any other platteland constituency. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to the Minister as well as the committee which dealt with this matter, and to give them the assurance that that effort is and will be appreciated, more particularly by the soldiers whom I represent here, and throughout the country generally. The question which I ask myself is what we are going to do in order to give practical effect to that beautiful scheme, which I think the Minister brought as far as it is today. For that reason I want to make a few suggestions to the Minister, and in doing so, I look at it from the point of view of an agriculturist and on the assumption that the sons of thousands of agriculturists who joined up, will want to settle on the land on their discharge. It is not only the sons of agriculturists who enlisted who would like to go back to the land and be given back the opportunity which they had—or which they would have liked to have—of becoming agriculturists; but there are many others who did not have that privilege because of circumstances; who did not succeed in obtaining a piece of land or becoming agriculturists, but to whom the war will now afford that opportunity, if we make the right use of this scheme in order to afford those people this opportunity. We know that through circumstances over which we had no control, the platteland became partially depopulated in the pre-war years, and I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to make use of this opportunity to re-settle on the land a large portion of the people who are today accustomed to open-air life and who have developed a predilection for the open spaces, in order to complement the population of those places which became depopulated in the pre-war depression years. It is a fact that the price of products generally speaking is fair, under the protection. Which we enjoy at the moment, and if we go by our experience, we can reasonably take it for granted that the prices of products will remain fairly high for the next twelve years. Our experience after the last war taught us that. The depression only came about twelve years after the war, and with the better control of prices during this war we hope there will not be such a depression after this war. But we must also remember that this war is more extensive in scope than the last war, and we shall probably have to wait to see what the reaction will be of the wider scope of the present war. But I understand that there is room for approximately 3,500 returned soldiers on holdings and on land which will be made available. I do not know whether that includes irrigation land. If that is so, I want to tell the Minister that it is hopelessly inadequate. A serious effort must be made not to double the area of land but to treble it. You will find enough returned soldiers who could all successfully be placed on the land, people who will not run away from the land like kaffirs, as was said in the House today by the member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn). I say that that land is not enough. It is far too little. In the Western Province one only needs a few morgen of land to make a living if the prices are fairly high as they have been during the past few years. The land is available and the Minister should make an effort to get hold of some of that land so as to place it at the disposal of the returned soldiers. Let us give those people in regard to whom there is any doubt after they have been sorted out, a probationary period. We have our agricultural colleges, and apart from that we ought to establish experimental farms where they could serve a probationary period under the capable direction of someone who has the necessary knowledge to determine which of them have the necessary aptitude to make a success of farming. We could test those persons on a more extensive scale on the holdings. Let us remember that the man who is on the land, is an independent person. That feeling of independence was cultivated by the people in the past few years during the war—during the struggle which they had to fight. Instead of providing work for these people in other ways as indicated under these schemes, schemes which will cost a great deal, let us try to give more attention to the question of providing facilities for those people in order to get them settled on the land and to make a success on the land. We talk of social security. If we carry out and make a success of this scheme of the Minister, I say that we shall have secured one-half of social security in this country. At the same time, in doing so, and thereby stabilising the position of the soldier, we create more stability for the people who, as temporary workers, occupied the places of the soldiers while they were away. I cannot help thinking that here we are dealing with one of the biggest tasks in the history of South Africa. We have never undertaken a bigger programme of work than we have under this scheme of the Minister. Everything depends on how we carry it out. The Afrikaner has shown that he is one of the best soldiers in the world, and that he need not stand back for a single moment for the very best soldiers which the world has produced. We have the same material in the Afrikaner nation. That has been proved by the fact that our soldiers have accomplished great things. We have the material, but our men must get the necessary training; they must get the necessary coaching and the necessary discipline. If ever we required proof of the material of which the Afrikaner nation is made, every war in which we have taken part has furnished that proof, and moreover it has been proved by this struggle in which we are now participating. There have been failures. That is natural. There have also been failures in other directions, apart from agriculture. That was attributable to lack of those three factors which I mentioned, because those people did not have an opportunity of being trained properly, of being coached properly and of receiving the necessary discipline which would have equipped them to make a success of the undertaking. Our soldiers are proving to us today of what material our nation is made, and what the mettle of our nation is. They increase our prestige in the eyes of the world. Not only did they increase our prestige, but they maintained our reputation, and placed us in the limelight in the eyes of the world. It is therefore the duty of the people of South Africa to ensure that justice is done towards those people, whatever it may cost. That is the duty which we owe to those people.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, 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 6th May.