We have now discussed this matter of demobilisation for a long time. I would just say this, that the reproach has been hurled at this side of the House that we are up against the soldiers. That is nonsense. I recall how three and a half years ago I said here that the soldier who has gone off to fight for his convictions, and the soldier who in the past has fought for his convictions, must be looked after, and today we say precisely the same thing. We feel that it is not the soldier’s fault if, rightly or wrongly, he is involved in a war, and his interests must be seen to. We feel further that we must not allow our soldiers to go into a charitable institution. They must be helped by the Government. Look what is happening in South Africa. Here in our streets, and similarly in other cities, there are endless collections. You can no longer walk about without being pestered. I can say on good grounds that this is prohibited in England, and that a street collection is only allowed once a month. The State must make provision for safeguarding the interests of the soldiers.

What about the Reddingsdaadbond?

No collections are made in the street for the Reddingsdaadbond. In any case I am opposed to this begging on the streets.

You are, of course, not obliged to give.

I am speaking on the principle. Now the Minister has placed a long report before us, and an exposition which looks fine on paper. But I speak as an old soldier from the time of the Boer War. It all looks very fine, but the execution of it is not easy, and we on this side would like to contribute towards making a success of the matter. I do not believe much in promises. I remember what promises were made to us in the Second War of Independence—that we would receive 5s. a day and that our descendants and our families would not suffer. We were going to get a new heaven on earth, and what did we get? Today we have to go down on our knees and we do not receive anything. What has become of the veterans of the 1914-’18 war? When I returned my post was taken by someone else and I received nothing.

The Iron Cross.

That is another matter. But I say that though this plan looks fine on paper I do not believe in it very much.

What do you propose?

That it be borne out in practice. Take the settlement schemes. I remember how there was a scheme of that sort for soldiers at Indwe. Land was surveyed there, and the soldiers all disappeared. It is easy to work out something on paper about what you propose to do, but a settler must be trained to the work. You will find that many of the young men who were at the universities and who were to have become doctors or engineers when they returned from the war, will have changed their ideas and will no longer have any desire to enter those professions. They come into an entirely different atmosphere and will have changed their minds. One must take that into account. Look what happens at Pollsmoor. There it was attempted to pro vide work for ex-soldiers. They were sent out. Many of them came back. They were not fit to do the work, or had no liking for the work. That must be taken into account. Circumstances change. I have no confidence in the new heaven and the new earth if the Minister has to create them. It is perhaps said today that we are the enemies of the soldiers, but possibly we are their best friends, because if we say a thing then we do it. We have not made false promises that we have not carried out. We keep to our promises 100 per cent. and we are the real friends of the soldiers. In the recent elections 23 soldiers voted for me out of 500. I am perhaps one of the best friends that they have in this House, but as a result of propaganda I did not get their vote. I do what I can, but even the Minister has stated that I said that they were renegades.

No, I have never talked about you.

But your newspapers said that. In any case it does not matter. I maintain that there are many other people who perhaps on account of ill-health or physical incapacity were unable to be soldiers, and you cannot go and throw them on to the streets. If you want to make South Africa a happy country you must not play off one section of the people against the other, but you must have regard for every section of the community. You cannot help only one section; so you should also look to the veterans of the Second War of Independence and to the soldiers of 1914-’18. Everyone must be treated in the same way. If you do this you will receive the support of this side of the House.

I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of speaking for half an hour. I want to bring up for discussion a different matter to that which has been the subject of discussion since the beginning of the debate on this vote. I shall confine myself to item “Q”, Coloured Advisory Council. An amount of £1,600 is asked in this connection. In the first place I want to point out that this is the second year that this item has appeared in the estimates. It is obvious that this is an item of expense that grows, that increases. Last year £400 was asked; this year the amount is four times as much. I do not doubt for a moment that this is one of the things that will show vigorous growth, and we must face up to the fact that the amount will increase from year to year. It is a little department in itself. But the expenses in connection with it are at the moment not large, and even if they were large, that is not really the subject that I want to bring up for discussion here. The fact that this item appears in the estimates brings up or discussion in Parhament a very important matter namely the position of the coloured community in the population structure of our country, and that in itself is an important matter. I am glad that the opportunity has presented itself, and perhaps will present itself from year to year, until there is a solution of this problem. I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss this matter here. The advantage that is contained in this is that now, apparently, for the first time the position of the coloured people in the population fabric of our country is regarded and treated as a subject for Parliament, as a national matter. Everything that impinges on the relationship between European and non-European in South Africa is or ought to be not a matter for town councils or for the provinces, but a matter of national importance. It is unfortunate that this has not been the case in the past. The question of Indians that affects the relationship between European and non-European is too Often regarded as a matter for Natal and perhaps as a matter for the Transvaal as well, but it is not regarded as a matter for the Free State, merely because there are no Indians in the Free State. And yet the question of the Indians affects the relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa in general, and on that account it is a matter that affects the whole European population in all the provinces.

The same may be said with reference to the place that is filled by the coloured population, although the coloured population are principally resident in the Cape Province. Accordingly, I welcome the appearance of this item in the estimates, because it is an indication, a welcome indication that now at last the coloured problem is regarded and treated as a national matter. I do not want to discuss this matter in a party spirit, nor in the first place, in a political spirit. I want to view it as a subject in which the whole European population of South Africa is involved, and in no party political spirit, and I hope that if there is further discussion on the subject in this House, that the example that I hope to set will be followed. The object that the Minister had really in view in calling into being this Coloured Advisory Council, according to the descriptions that he has himself given, is that the Coloured Advisory Council should be a link between the Government on the one side and the coloured community on the other side, and not only a link that has to keep the two in continuous contact, but the Coloured Advisory Council must, at the same time, also be the body through which the Government must be consulted at any time in reference to any matter affecting the interests of the coloured community. Seeing that this is the case with reference to their general interests, that it will not be in exceptional circumstances, but with reference to any legislation that may be brought forward, whether in this House or in the Provincial Councils, affecting the interests of the coloured people in general, we have here an important body to deal with. That is the object according to the description of the Minister. The question that I should like to put in this connection is if the object was as described, why has the Minister not proceeded, and why has he not placed the Coloured Advisory Council on a statutory basis? That has been done with another advisory council, the Native Advisory Council. I think I am entitled to put that question. It is an obvious question because if year after year you come to this Parliament and grant funds to such a body it is only fair and reasonable that Parliament should exercise proper control over that body and the manner in which it works; and if it is to be subject to proper control, and the Minister is to be held responsible for what that body may or may not do, if there is going to be ministerial responsibility for the Council that the Minister has established, that body must then exist and function in conformity with legislation which this House has set up. If this is not done you cannot exercise proper control, nor can you offer proper criticism on the work of the body, and you cannot rightly hold the Minister responsible. But that is not all. Even the coloured people who are at present interested in this organisation will not know where they stand if there is no statutory basis for it. It is in the interests of those who have to serve on the Coloured Advisory Council that a statutory basis should be provided for it. But there is another important reason, perhaps the most important of all, and that is that only if there is a statutory foundation for such a body will it be able to keep itself aloof from and outside party politics. By according the Native Advisory Council a statutory foundation we have placed it on a basis of its own, and made it independent of the influence and control of party politics. That is what should be done in respect of the Coloured Advisory Council. It represents a definite section and not a definite political party in the country. But if you do not give to a body such as this a statutory basis then it becomes nothing else than a body nominated by a Minister who represents a particular political party. Such a body can then easily become the tool of a political party in the country, instead of being a body that actually represents the special section it purports to represent. It must almost of necessity be dragged into the arena of party politics because it has not a statutory basis, and because this disadvantage attaches to the organisation from the inception, it will involve the Minister in all sorts of difficulties, and no one knows better than the Minister himself what these difficulties are. He nominates the members of the Coloured Advisory Council. He selects whom he wants to, and drops whom he wants to, and then the accusation is levelled by a considerable section of the coloured people that those members he has nominated have only been nominated because they are his tools, and that these members do not represent them; they go further and say that in this way, through instituting an organisation the members of which are his nominees, he makes the Council dependent on him, and that the object is that this body should take the place of their own political organisation. They say that the Minister would like to kill their own political organisation. That is the attitude adopted by a considerable section of the coloured community. That is to be ascribed to the antagonism with which such a non-statutory body is regarded. So a strong agitation has arisen against the Coloured Advisory Council amongst the coloured people themselves, amongst a considerable section of them, and you get various schisms. The one school of thought adopts the standpoint that they desire to use this organisation to promote their interests in co-operation with the Minister and the Government and Europeans generally, but there is another school of thought which declares that the Coloured Advisory Council is merely the tool of the Minister or of the Government, the tool of a particular political party. They now call themselves the militant section of the nonEuropean population. A few weeks ago a congress was held here of the oldest political organisation amongst the coloured people, the A.P.O. The chairman of the Coloured Advisory Council, Dr. Gow, is also president of the A.P.O. Beforehand it was stated: “Your presidential address will be your swan song because you are allowing yourself to be used as the tool of the Minister through taking part in the Coloured Advisory Council.” The congress of the A.P.O. assembled, and what was forecast by the coloured newspapers happened. He was thrown out and for no other reason than that he had co-operated with the Coloured Advisory Council. The A.P.O. now declare that they are the militant section of the coloured population. If they carry on in a militant manner and come into conflict with the Coloured Advisory Council we can well understand that, especially in these times when Communism is rampant in our country; no limits have been imposed on it, and they make propaganda. What a priceless opportunity is offered for the spread of Communistic propaganda amongst the non-European population. We observe too that one institution after another amongst the coloured community is falling into the hands of the Communists, and the A.P.O., the oldest and most important political organisation amongst them is no exception to the rule. Actually it has become out and out Communist. How do they reveal that? By saying on the one hand that they do not want to be regarded as a separate group, that there must be no dividing line between the Europeans and non-Europeans, and that in every respect they must have equality with Europeans. On the other hand again they say: “We are opposed to the Coloured Advisory Council because it is for coloured people and we are cut off from the natives and the Indians”; and they stand today for a united non-European front which is a positive danger for South Africa, especially when it is under Communistic direction. It is a positive danger for the coloured people themselves, and a positive danger for the peace of our country and for our European civilisation. Thus the net result of the experiment made by the Minister is that the relations between Europeans and non-Europeans have not been improved, as the Minister contemplated when he instituted this, but the relations have positively become worse. Not only that but the situation that has been created is affecting the Coloured Advisory Council itself. It is easy to understand that. If there is such a strong and clamorous section of the coloured community remaining outside the influence of the Coloured Advisory Council, and even opposing it, then it will continuously be flung at the members of the Coloured Advisory Council: “You are working hand in hand with the Government, you are a tool in the hands of the Minister, deliver the goods !” From outside pressure is exerted on the members of the Coloured Advisory Council and it is not a body merely solicitous for the interests of the coloured people. These interests are now not so prominent. It is now a fight for rights and still more rights, and if you glance at the recommendations of the Coloured Advisory Council, according to the Blue Book that has just been placed on the Table of the House in reference to their activities, you will find that they are agitating for more and more rights for the coloured people in every sphere. There is agitation for the removal of all colour boundaries, not only in the political and industrial spheres, but in the social sphere as well. Agitation is being carried on for the extension of the franchise, not merely for coloured people specifically, not only for an extension of the franchise to the northern provinces, but they are beginning to clamour for the extension of the franchise to natives and Indians, to nonEuropeans in general.

You promised that yourself.

It is a breeding ground for agitation and discontent. That is the net result of the Minister’s experiment. From whatever angle we regard it the Minister’s experiment with a body of this character, without a statutory basis, has been a failure. It was indeed that from the inception, because it was built up on a wrong foundation. What is the basis that the Minister laid down when he created this body? The basis was a promise on his part, an undertaking on the part of the Government. The promise and the undertaking amounted to this that they gave the positive assurance that as far as this Government is concerned there would be no separativeness as between European and non-European; or rather between the coloured people and Europeans in the political sphere there would be no separation, at any rate unless compelled on residential grounds. Thus whenever there is a clamour for new urban areas where coloured people, and only coloured people may reside, the Government will not be able to do anything further, the Government will not be able to take a hand in the creation of separate residential areas. Mixed residential areas will continue in the towns simply as they have done hitherto. There will also be no separation in the industrial sphere. That is the assurance that the Minister has given, a solemn promise and undertaking when he set the Coloured Advisory Council on its feet. I do not know whether the Minister realises that when he says there will be no separation, the logical conclusion from that attitude is that he must go further. He cannot say to the coloured man: “You may live with the Europeans in the same neighbourhood without any restrictions,” and then treat the native and the Indian differently. He cannot say to the coloured man: “In the political sphere you will not be treated differently or placed apart from Europeans”; you cannot say to him: “In the industrial sphere you will not be kept apart,” unless you also adopt the same standpoint towards the other races. You cannot escape the conclusion that the non-European is a non-European, whether he is an Indian, or a native or a coloured person. He is other than European. You cannot avoid the corollary that eventually, adopting the standpoint that the coloured person must be placed on an equal footing with the European, that there must be an extension of the franchise to all these sections throughout the whole of the Union. That is the logical upshot of it, and the nonEuropeans in general know that that is the logical sequel. So long as the Minister maintains the standpoint with which he set out so long will the demands of the non-Europeans become stronger, and eventually undeniable, because then they will have logic on their side. That is an erroneous standpoint. What is the correct attitude? In my opinion the correct attitude is that just as in the case of our native policy, we should base our policy for the coloured people on a foundation of separation. I am purposely not using the word “segregation” because that implies a certain amount of detachment; and you will be able to build on the basis of separation in the interests of those who are kept apart. Separation affords the opportunity to those who in this way stand on their own feet, and live to improve themselves on the foundation of what is their won. Allow me to say this, that no nation in the world has ever risen to greater heights except on the basis of what is its own; whether it is the native population or the coloured population if you want to do them a disservice try to raise them on a different foundation to their own. Let us be guided by the experience not alone of South Africa but by the experience of other nations. There are two countries that I have in mind where they have had this experience. They are both English-speaking countries, namely, the United States and Australia. What was the experience of the United States? There the principle of equality was laid down and civil war followed. Those who did not want equality lost the fight. The southern portion of the United States opposed the northern portion, and the standpoint of the north won the day. But what was the practical effect of that equality as it was applied. Today it is still the position in the United States that although the franchise has been granted to the negro he dare not exercise that franchise in the southern states. The Europeans who regard him as a danger, in a political sense as well, simply do not allow him to do this, and until recently one still found that the Europeans were taking the law into their own hands whenever they thought it was justified by circumstances and applied lynch law to the negro. [Time limit.]

I do not propose, nor have I sufficient experience to discuss the very important question raised by the hon. leader of the Opposition. But I would say that according to the annual report of the Coloured Advisory Council it has during its term of office served an excellent purpose in advising the Minister in regard to matters of social welfare. Rather will I proceed to discuss the general policy and work of the Social Welfare Department in whose operations there is no colour bar. In the first place may I voice an expression of confidence in the Minister and the will to co-operate with him and his department to the fullest extent. We congratulate him on his appointment as Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation, and we realise that he has undertaken one of the most important ministerial tasks in the government of this country. One of the features in connection with social welfare in South Africa is the desire throughout the community for a better way of living based upon the community spirit. That has been noted in the report of the Secretary for Social Welfare, in which he mentions that—

The Department of Social Welfare may be called the infant Department of State. It has progressed marvellously during the period of its existence, notwithstanding the many difficulties, one of which is the shortage of staff, and I wish to pay a tribute on my own behalf and on behalf of those who are associated with me on these benches, to the Head of that Department, Mr. Kuschke, and his staff, and to add to my congratulations one in connection with the memorandum issued covering the year 1943, a report that is easily understandable, all embracing and should be of Union-wide circulation. An idea of the expansion of this department can be gauged from the fact that in the year 1938’-39 the expenditure was £790,000. This year provision is made on the estimates, before the Committee for £1,858,000, but even this amount will obviously be insufficient in view of the commitments of the department, and it may be said that the amount which this department will expend during the year will be rather in the neighbourhood of £3,000,000. That indicates the remarkable progress which the Government has made in relation to social welfare involving this tremendous increase in expenditure during a time when the Government has faced heavy war expenditure. It is a clear sign that the Government is out to move in the direction not only of social welfare, but towards the establishment of a social security code for South Africa, which in its operation and functioning will relieve the Government of much of the preventable expenditure involved in the Vote. With the expansion of this department it is perfectly clear that there is necessity for an increase in the specialised staff, men and women well-versed, in sociology and in those matters concerning the family life of the nation and the proper trainnig and rearing of the future South African. Its operations cover the whole span of life, and are preventive, alleviative and rehabilitative. With the increase of public interest in social welfare in South Africa, there is also necessity for a guided development and co-ordination, that local activities should be in line with the general national policy, that overlapping should be prevented as far as possible, and so achieve an efficiency which will be not only in the interests of economy, but in the upbuilding of a healthy South Africa. May I remind the Minister in this connection that in contact with local authorities the fullest possible consultation and sympathy with private enterprise is an imperative necessity. It is well to place on record in this House the excellent example of the Johannesburg Municipality which has endeavoured through the creation of a Social Welfare Department to place all such activities under one umbrella, while leaving to the local organisations power and facilities to carry out their work according to the best of their ability. The establishment of Social Welfare House in that great city is a clear indication that the civic authorities will co-operate to the fullest extent with the Government in the development of its part of national life, and there are indications throughout South Africa that other large cities and towns will follow that example. May I now draw the Minister’s attention to one or two other features, distinct from general policy. The Secretary for Social Welfare mentions in his report that the Elliott Report on crime conditions on the Witwatersrand is receiving the consideration of the Government. [Time limit.]

What I was saying just now was that I think we should be guided by the experience of other countries, and more especially that of two countries that have been colonised by England and which are now English-speaking, namely, the United States of America and Australia. In both these countries the principle of equality has been accepted, and in both cases with disastrous results. In the United States the preponderating white population resorted to violence. The negro has his political rights, but in a great measure he is not allowed to exercise the franchise, and the whites from time to time take the law into their own hands and commit injustices to the negroes without being made answerable for it. The relationship there has not improved, but it has worsened. The other country I want to refer to is Australia. In Australia where there was a considerable black indigenous population when the white man first arrived, the principle was accepted from the beginning that the aborigines must be civilised. But civilisation for the aborigine in Australia meant at that time and meant for a long time: Liberate the black man from everything that is his own, from his own primitive customs, codes and institutions, sind make him a European as quickly as possible except in regard to his colour, which you can never alter. They even went so far as to take the children of the blacks away from their parents and to put them in hostels where they were brought up in a European style in order to civilise them in that manner, and in order to expedite the process of civilisation. That was a policy followed in Australia and it was a failure, as has been generally admitted. It was a hopeless failure. What was the result for the black man and also for the half-caste who is present in Australia? First they retrogressed in the moral sense as also in other respects. They were not in a position to absorb white civilisation in a hundred years. There were certain exceptions, but those were individuals. As a community, they were not in a position to do that. They absorbed only the vices of their own race and those of European civilisation. The position that prevailed there and which prevails to a large extent today as a result of that mistaken policy that was followed in Australia, is that the black population, the coloured population, have been landed into an absolutely disastrous position. So much so that today in Australia only about one-quarter of that population survived. They died out.

They were wiped out.

Partly, it is true. But they were also well meant efforts on the part of the British Government to do the best for them along the lines that I have described, and which is now admitted to have been a hopeless failure. From the year 1918 until 1920 they began to apply the policy for which this side of the House is pleading today, that policy that South Africa has partially followed already in connection with the natives. That policy is now being logically applied in Australia. They have revoked the policy of divorcing the native and the half-caste from what is his own. They have begun to follow the policy of allowing them to have, to as great an extent as possible, what is their own; and to elevate them on the basis of what is their own, however primitive that may be, with the assistance of the Europeans. They have created reserves in which they have placed the aborigines and also the half-castes. No dividing line has been drawn between the blacks and the half-castes. Those reserves in Australia must be situated at least three miles away from the coast. Admittance of any Europeans into those reserves is only allowed by way of permit. No aborigine or half-caste may serve on a ship or may even approach a ship. The reason for that is clear. In Australia they want to protect the aborignes and the half-castes against the pestilential influences to which they are subject—as we see it here in Cape Town— from Europeans, soldiers and sailors, who mix with them with the result that there is a racial mixing. Accordingly, in Australia they may not serve on a ship and they may not even come near a ship and their reserves have to be at least three miles away from the coast. No one can employ one of them except under permit. Race mingling between the whites and the aborigines, and not only between the whites and the aborigines but between the whites and the half-castes, is prohibited by law and made punishable. That new policy that Australia is following is not only in the inerests of the white people. It is also in the interests of the aborigines and the half-castes. Since that step was taken, the result has definitely been this, that they have been happier, and not only do they live more happily but they are beginning to elevate themselves on the basis of what is their own. Not only that, but where they have for a hundred years been in contact with the Europeans without absorbing their civilisation, but only acquiring their diseases and their vices, and where they had been rapidly dying out, we find that they are now increasing in numbers. We must allow ourselves to be guided by the experience of other countries, and I mention these two English-speaking countries, the United States of America and Australia. But separation is not enough. You must have a positive policy. We must have a positive policy when we want to help on the basis of separation to develop what is their own and to raise them according to their own dispositions and capacity on the ladder of civilisation. The coloured people in our country have many grievances in connection with injustices which they consider are being meted out to them, but the fundamental cause of their unhappiness is that they really have nothing which is their own.

I have listened this morning with a considerable amount of interest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, particularly to his first half hour speech in which he dealt with the Coloured Advisory Council. I could not quite understand what he was getting at in the second portion of his speech where he dealt with the position in Australia. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made certain accusations against the Government in regard to the Coloured Advisory Council. I was one of those who recommended the formation of that body, following upon the recommendations contained in the Coloured Commission’s report in 1937, where it was advocated that such a body should be constituted in order to advise the Government from time to time and to keep them acquainted with coloured opinion. I welcomed the formation of that body. I also followed with keen interest the deliberations of that body, and I must congratulate the Council and the Minister on the excellent results they have achieved so far. The hon. Leader of the Opposition seems to imagine that the members of this body were appointed because they have political leanings towards this Government. That is not so. They were appointed because they were looked upon as the most capable men to carry out the duties which would be entrusted to them, men who would command respect and support of the coloured people as they had done in the past, and the agitation which started against that body was engendered in the first place by jealousy on the part of those who were not selected, and by suspicion created in the public mind by a body which later became known as the Anti-C.A.C. and which has as its object, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out, full democratic rights for the coloured people and abolition of the Coloured Advisory Council. He also referred to the A.P.O. The policy of the A.P.O. has been a policy of collaboration with the Government, a policy which is being followed by the Coloured Advisory Council. They believe that it is in the best interests of the coloured people of South Africa to get improvements step by step, not to force their demands on the country, which is not in a state of mind to give them at once all those concessions for which they ask; and the agitation which has been created against the Coloured Advisory Council is an agitation which has been largely fostered by young teachers who have not yet got sufficient experience and knowledge and sense to realise that you cannot do these things by a single stroke of the pen but that it will take years and years for these changes to come about, and then only through the force and the change of public opinion. In the course of the speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, an hon. member on this side interjected that the Nationalist Party at one time were definitely in favour of giving the coloured women the vote, and the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) challenged us to prove that. I can prove it. If the hon. member will refer to Volume 37, Hansard, Columns 1786 and 1787, he will find that the hon. Leader of the Opposition stated on the 11th April, 1928, in The Strand Town Hall at the African National Bond Congress—

The hon. member knows he said that. He admitted in the past that he said that, and he does not deny it now. Why then find fault with the C.A.C. because it recommends to the Minister of the Interior, possibly in the future, that the franchise of the coloured people should be extended and even up north? The Leader of the Opposition must be consistent if he wants us on this side of the House to agree with him on these matters.

He is asking the impossible.

That may be, but the point is that as far as the C.A.C. is concerned I am confident that although there has been a tremendous amount of opposition raised against it by people who are jealous of the movement, on the whole it has the support of the better educated and more intelligent section of the coloured people themselves and they look forward with confidence to the work that that body is going to do and is doing.

I do not think it is necessary to reply to the last speaker. I do not think that sort of argument cuts any ice today, and we have all had enough of it. Is there any political party that has not changed its attitude in reference to the native problem and the coloured problem? The Nationalist Party has changed its standpoint—we admit that; we have never denied that. We have changed, but why not? The members on the other side have also altered their attitude, or do they wish to maintain that they have preserved their attitude in regard to the native question? They took the vote from the native in the Cape and placed him on a separate roll. Have they maintained their original standpoint, or have they altered it; or do they still stand by it? Members on the other side have stated that they want to give the vote not only to the coloured woman but also to the native woman. Do they still stand by that? If they do not still stand by that what purpose is served by such arguments as that employed by the hon. member here? I pass from that. I put the question, why is it that the coloured people in our country are such an unhappy race, because we know that they are an unhappy race. That commission which reported on the conditions of the coloured population said straight out in 1937, that the coloured people were an unhappy race. Why? Because they have nothing which is really their own. The idea is that they do not want to be on the side of the natives. They want to be on the side of the Europeans, to have everything that the Europeans have and to stand on an equal footing with the Europeans. They cannot do that. The Europeans will not permit that, and do not want to permit it. From that arises unpleasantness and racial friction. That is the reason. Now I maintain that the only basis to bring them happiness, the only manner in which to protect them, is to create as much as possible for them what is their own, and then let them build on that foundation with the co-operation of the European community, or such co-operation as the Europeans can give them. Begin with separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans, and a good deal of the friction will be eliminated. Where they have their own residential areas, give them as far as possible in their own circle a measure of self-government, municipal or otherwise. There they will have their church in their own area. Let them have their own ministers and their own churches. If they do not want European ministers let us help them by training coloured ministers. I think that all the church organisations are prepared to help in that direction today. Let their church management be comprised entirely of coloured people, without any Europeans with them. Let them engage in their religious activities in this area. There their schools will stand. In those schools let there be none other than coloured teachers to give instruction; let the school committees who exercise control over their schools be comprised entirely of coloured people. Let the police in the area be coloured. In the post office why should not the postmen be coloured? Why not also the clerks in the offices, and even the postmaster in a coloured area? If there are nurses engaged in health work, why should they not be coloured? If you have doctors in the area why not coloured doctors? In all these respects you can help them to develop. Give to them what is their own. Help them to develop what is their own. Give them in that connection protection, and not only protection, but also prospects’ Now they want to come into the Civil Service; they want to sit on school boards. This is what the Coloured Advisory Council recommends. The Europeans are opposed to that. The European will not fall under the direction or control of a coloured person in any manner. You can understand that. He would not tolerate that. Give to the coloured man in his own territory, in his own circle all these prospects; help him in that then he will be happy. Let him establish himself. There he can be protected against the vices which he will otherwise absorb from European civilisation. Then you will have not only a happy European civilisation, but also a happy coloured population, the two alongside each other, able to live in friendship and co-operation with each other. That is the policy. I think that is the only reasonable policy and the only intelligent policy for South Africa.

One wishes very sincerely to congratulate the Minister on his reply to the debate yesterday evening. If I were unexpectedly called upon to set up a Cabinet of all the talents, I would be most strongly tempted to include him in it—which is not to say that I wouldn’t have one or two more of the present occupants of those exalted seats. It is because of the quality of the Minister that I wish to make one or two final suggestions. First in regard to the wish of some of us that these provisions for the rehabilitation of soldiers should be incorporated in a Bill, which might be regarded as a definite Soldiers’ Charter. We have no wish to particularise. We know that would kill the whole scheme. All that we wished was a financial Bill, setting aside at least a fair proportion of the money that would be required. I have seen a Press report of a United Party member’s broadcast speech, in which he said that the amount required would be at least £150,000,000. Earlier on in the session on behalf of my party I suggested that a fund should be set up, the amount of which shoud at least be equal to one year’s war expenditure. We suggested that because the actual prevision of the money would reassure the soldiers, and it would act as a sort of steadying factor in the country if the money were thus set aside, if it were provided at a time while the amount can be definitely be obtained. If the Government takes such a step now while enthusiasm is high, the money will be easily forthcoming; while it may not be so easily forthcoming later on. These are the considerations which have actuated us. Now the second point I want to make is this: Our army, an excellent, tried and proven army, is nevertheless a civilian army. What has happened to the large majority of the men is this. They were competent tradesmen, or operatives or business men, or students, who left their ordinary lives— they left their libraries, their lathes, and their ledgers, to be forced into a completely different mould, that of a soldier—and, by an arduous and a painful process—they have been made into soldiers. Now these people have again to be metamorphosed, like the Old Man of the Sea; conditions are changing back again now, and they have to be remoulded once more into civilians. I want the House to see the picture of the man who goes back to his office or to his machine. When he comes back he is out of touch with things. Not only does he find that his junior, who has not served in the field, has become his senior, but he has to admit that his junior is now his superior in the profession or craft—a very galling thing indeed. He is completely out of touch with the civilian mode of living—he cannot even talk like a civilian—he doesn’t even feel at home in his own house. It takes a great deal to become rehabilitated socially and as far as one’s occupation is concerned, and my suggestion is this, that very high on the Directorate staff, not at the bottom, where he will have plenty of sympathy to share but no power, you should have a man appointed who had all the experience during the last war—even if it means pulling him out of a commanding position, anywhere other than up North. Unless the man has been in this position himself he cannot know just how it all feels. I shall be very pleased to put a name or two before the Minister. That is one of the most necessary appointments if this plan is going to work. A tribute has been paid, and I agree with it, to the Soldiers’ Group of the Government Party, and I have received, as the Whip of my own party, a communication from a young man for whom I have great respect, a man who is going to do great work for this country, the hon. member for Nigel (Major Ueckermann). Now these are the terms of this communication:

I mention this as being a point where the Minister is not a hundred per cent. in touch with reality. More than a quarter of a century ago I wore a major’s crown in the Imperial Army, and in those distant days I thought I was a big shot. The quarter of a century has passed and I am now a major in the Union Defence Force, and know myself to be a very little shot. Lt. Cameron is I am sure an excellent man, but if an archangel from heaven itself were specially attested to do this job as a Lieutenant, under a Major-General, the Major-General would puff, and the subaltern would be blown over the hills and far away. That is the Army. I am not protesting. I would like to be a Major-General myself, but if Lieut. Cameron is a suitable man for this difficult office, and I think he is, he should be made at least a Lieut.-Colonel. The fitting rank would be that of Brigadier. It is no use attempting to refit our soldiers into civilian life and occupations by sending a boy to do a man’s job. You must give the occupants of key posts sufficient rank and authority. The responsible man must have wide discretionary powers. Now this is an instance where the Minister has taken a tiny step where he should have taken a hundred big steps.

The hon. member has misunderstood the position. That doesn’t apply to demobilisation. That is in relation to the serving soldier. Under demobilisation we have appointed a Colonel and we shall probably have a Brigadier.

The position is extremely hard to understand. I agree 100 per cent. with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris), who said that the bulk of the work in connection with demobilising our soldiers so far has been borne largely by Members of Parliament. It has been.

I shall explain that.

The hon. Minister’s promise is welcome. There is certainly a case to be met. There is another point, but I don’t know whether I should bring that up now. A large number of intelligent people in my constituency, public workers whom I cannot ignore, have written to me asking that native women who are employed in households as helpers, and children’s nurses, should be called upon to submit to a regular medical examination for tuberculosis and venereal disease. [Time limit].

May I just answer the point raised by the hon. member for Durban North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman). I shall not deal with the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) at the moment, as some other hon. members may have something to say on that matter. May I explain for the benefit of the hon. member that the Defence official to whom he refers has not been appointed by the Demobilisation Director, etc., and, in fact, his functions have nothing to do with demobilisation work. There is a distinction between the serving soldier and the soldier who is discharged, or about to be discharged. The latter becomes a charge of the Demobilisation Directorate, when he is sent to the Dispersal Depôt. And then we have to examine his problem. Before that he is a serving soldier and we cannot deal with him. But I understood that it was the wish of those interested that there should be some official of the Defence Department, who could be approached with regard to serving soldiers. We have set up our own machinery under demobilisation. We have our Public Relations Section at Headquarters which will deal with complaints and difficulties which may come from soldiers and their dependants. It has at its head an official with the rank of Lieut.-Colonel.

That is not enough.

Well, Sir, Brigadiers cannot be picked off the tree at the moment! We hope to get a Brigadier.

If the man can do the job, give him the rank.

Yes, but these things are not so easy. This official has the rank of Lieut.-Colonel and, of course, there will be appointed in the larger centres full-time demobilisation officers. In Cape Town, for instance, we shall have one with the rank of Lieut.-Colonel. These are people of standing—and also of understanding,—to whom the soldiers can go and from whom they can get guidance and advice.

There are one or two points I want to bring to the Minister’s notice on the real subject matter of his Department, which is Social Welfare. To begin with may I suggest that I personally regret very much the disappearance of the title “Public Health” from his office because the country is awaiting the report of the Public Health Commission very anxiously and I assume that that report will be dealt with by his department.

The department is there and there is a separate vote.

Yes, but the Minister is no longer the Minister of Public Health and Social Welfare and I think it is a pity that that title was not retained.

I think it will be more appropriate to bring that up under the heading of Public Health.

As it may please you Mr. Chairman. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to one or two things. I want to remind him that last year, for instance, he promised to carry out a Health Campaign.

That is not appropriate to this vote.

It is also a question of the policy of the Minister in this regard.

Yes, but it must be discussed on Public Health.

The hon. member should raise this On Public Health. The Minister’s salary is provided for there.

Very well, but once again on this question of Social Welfare there are one or two points which I particularly want to bring to the Minister’s notice and one is the question of Food Subsidisation. The Minister is aware that the Social and Economic Planning Council has from time to time insisted that the best way of dealing with malnutrition is by way of the subsidisation of food and I want the Minister to assure this House that he will have in mind the starting of a regular campaign—a mass attack on malnutrition. He knows as well as I do that the position in this country in regard to malnutrition among children is simply appalling. Something like 50 per cent. of the children of this country suffer from malnutrition, and it should be almost the first duty of his Department to make a mass attack on that evil which is so rife. To me it does seem that the beginnings and the efforts which we have made so far are too slow. I know there is a beginning in the State Aided Butter Scheme ; I know it has been extended to some degree to Deciduous Fruit and Citrus Fruit, but I would suggest to the Minister that that is not enough and that it should be extended ultimately to all essential foodstuffs because only in that way shall we ensure this sub-economic feeding, only in that way shall we make any real impression on the malnutrition which is so prevalent. Further I suggest he should do this. I suggest that he should press the major municipalities to set up social welfare departments. The Municipality of Johannesburg has led the way, and I would urge him to ask all big municipalities to set up departments, and to encourage them to do it—I would urge him, too, to come to some agreement with them as to the apportionment of funds for such social welfare departments. They have a great part to play in the problem of dealing with malnutrition and if the Government wants to tackle this matter as it should be tackled it should come to their assistance. On the question of funds then I would suggest the idea of one-third being provided by the munici pality as against two-thirds by the Government. A great deal could be done that way and more rapid strides might be made in attacking this problem. There is so much to be done that a greater rate of progress is necessary if anything at all is to be achieved within the lifetime of the present generation. I would suggest to the Minister that there should also be depôts established in the poorer areas for the sale at sub-economic rates of essential foodstuffs. That is another way of tackling it, if he does not desire to canalise all these efforts through the municipalities alone he might use existing organisations to set up depôts not only for the subsidisation of butter and fruit but also for the subsidisation of all essential foodstuffs. And in addition I think his Department might consider, more particularly in the post-war schemes, setting up, what I may call community restaurants, to provide cooked meals in the poorer areas. The Minister is aware that a good many women in the poorer areas go out to work, and if the Minister were to have an experiment made in regard to communal restaurants where at least one cooked meal a day could be got at sub-economic rates by the poorer classes of the community, he would go a long way towards providing for adequate feeding for the people. There have been such restaurants set up in England, and I think the Minister should take a leaf out of the book of those who have set up such restaurants, with a view to experimenting with them. And then I would suggest that in all factories, it should be incumbent on the owners to set up canteens where a reasonable meal can be obtained. So much for feeding. But now there is one other point I want to raise. I am personally very disappointed at the fact that the report of the National Nutrition Council has not yet been published. As the Minister is aware, a great deal of work has been done by that Council during the period during which it has been appointed, but the public is not aware of the work that has been done, and the Council is often blamed for not doing the work—which it actually has done; the fact is that there is not adequate publicity given to that work, and I would remind the Minister that when the Council was reconsituted an undertaking was given that the report would be available this session of Parliament—well we have reached the last lap of this session, and no report has been received yet, and I would like to express my disappointment at that. It seems unfair no less to the new Nutrition Officer who has been appointed than to the Council itself; the Council certainly has received no credit for the work it has done. Finally there is one other point to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention. I would ask that his Department take some active steps to deal with that recommendation of the Government report on Poor Relief which recommends a revision of the scales of Poor Relief Feeding. I would like to remind the Minister that it is years since these scales have been revised. The Poor Relief Feeding scales are very much out of date—they are not in keeping with the modern knowledge in regard to nutrition. It was long ago advised that these scales should be revised so as to give relief on a more correct basis. It should be the urgent duty of the Minister’s Department to see to it that these scales are revised and brought up to date and made much more in keeping with the type of feeding which we hope for from his Department.

Under F. 1. “Child Welfare”, I should like to point out that all the departments there are of a permanent nature. They cannot be replaced if we accept another system. In any case, it is a matter for which provision will always have to be made, whatever the system. Now we find here that all the grants for the support of children in consequence of Section 84 (1) (c) total £277,000. I think this is in connection with children where there are child welfare associations in towns or cities to do this sort of work. They exercise control over the widows who receive the allowances. That is to say, they exercise supervision and the child welfare organisations are also the agencies through which the children are brought to the notice of the department. The result is that where you have a sound child welfare organisation in a town or a village, there they see to it that virtually almost 100 per cent. of those who are entitled to support, receive that support. Now I feel that the probability is that a much larger number of children are entitled to maintenance under this sub-head, and I feel that in those places where there are no child welfare organisations, the administrative method whereby this may be achieved is not of the best. In the first place, it is practically left to the initiative of the guardian or widow who has to look after the child. They may possibly know about it, but they have not sufficient training or intelligence actually to make application for the money and then to use the money as it should be used. I am of opinion that steps must be taken to extend the child welfare organisations as much as possible, and to encourage them so that in every district of the country we may be able to establish one. That can be done, and it ought to be through local initiative, but it can also be encouraged by the Department of Social Welfare. In view of the fact that the child welfare organisation is the agency in connection with the care of children, and the supervision of the disbursements, and also for surveillance of the children so that the mother’s or guardians may spend that money in a proper way. We may virtually regard them as part of the official administrative machinery. There are of course grants for child welfare organisations. They receive assistance from the department, and I think we must frame a plan under which we can establish such associations for every district throughout the country. That will give a greater measure of encouragement to ensure that where help is required to be provided that will be done. This is not charity, but it is actually part of the pension system. It is something that is essential, and which no civilised land can be without today. If that is so, it is our duty to see that it reaches all those for whom it is intended. The second matter that I want to touch on briefly is in regard to hostels for workers in the few cases where we have them. It appears that they are doing excellent work, and we can only voice the hope that at least an extension will be affected where this is necessary. My view is that the hostels that we now have were erected more by way of experiment and for pronaganda. I believe that I can rightly say that they have had such an excellent effect that they have really filled a gap, and that the conditions under which the workers live— seeing that they actually strive for an improvement not only of the standard of living but also of the whole social status which they deserve and to which they are entitled—justify us in continuing with the work. Then I turn to the subsidy for social workers. In this connection I would just say that the great difficulty we experienced in connection with social workers, especially in the large towns though not so much in the smaller places—there are chiefly young women who are in many cases well qualified and sometimes good nurses—is that although they do not fall directly under the department, the department nevertheless contribute towards their salaries and other costs, and they do not receive the salary that they ought to get. These social workers have taken a long course. They are trained in social science, and we feel that the salary must be such that the work will really be made attractive. I do not mean that they should receive a very large salary, but at least they must be placed in the position of being able to live decently, because this is very excellent work that is being done by these people, and on top of that it is work which affects their health. During the last week I talked with two of them. They told me that they liked the work very much, but that it was practically impossible for them to keep in good health. I then made enquiries and I found that their great difficulty was the question of transport. They used the bus, and after that they had to walk miles to get to their work. The result is that so much time is lost that they cannot give full value in the time that they have at their disposal. I realise that this is not a matter that we could put right immediately, but I mention this here because I feel that it is something the Minister must keep in mind, and that he should furnish transport facilities to these social workers as soon as possible. This is a very important matter. Then further we see here that provision is made for a whole series of subsidies. In the first place, mention is made of rations for paupers and cash payments. Then there is general relief and special poor relief. Then we have also a scheme for school feeding, the State aided milk and cheese scheme, the State aided butter scheme, and the distribution of agricultural products. We are heading in one direction, and that is the direction in which we are busy finding a road. What we are really engaged in doing is in filling up the holes where we can do that. I think that the time has arrived where in connection with the provision of foodstuffs and these subsidies in connection with these foodstuffs, we must link them up with the earnings of the groups of people who receive these things. It is correlated to sub-economic housing and sub-economic health services. We are busy creating sub-economic schemes of all sorts. At the moment it is necessary to do this, but the time has arrived when we must take into consideration how we can correlate the provision of foodstuffs in such cases with the earnings of the individual who receives them. [Time limit.]

I should like to deal with two aspects of the Minister’s vote. The first relates to street collections, and is in connection with the subsidy for the blind and cripples. According to this vote these subsidies are granted to welfare and charitable associations, and I feel that the time has arrived when we should change our policy from that of a subsidy to one of general State responsibility. In the case of the charitable organisations, we do not want to minimise the work of those institutions, but the fact remains that from time to time they make appeals to the public for the necessary support. There are two aspects in connection with these appeals to which I want to refer. It is not open to question that the public are gradually becoming tired of these collections which occur at such frequent intervals on our streets, not because the public do not want to give, but owing to the distastefulness of the whole procedure. The second aspect is this, that the blind and the cripples, people who have perhaps given service to the State, do not feel very happy when they see that their difficulties in the unfortunate position in which they happen to be, through circumstances beyond their control, are made the subject of street conversations—that the matter is practically thrown on the street. At one time an attempt was made to remove from our streets the people who are begging. If the grants that are made are adequate then those people will not need to go on the streets to beg. I feel that the time has arrived when we should review this policy, and instead of subsidising various associations we should have a community chest. I am convinced that the public of South Africa would rather pay a regular tax which would cover all these contingencies and which would be adequate, so that we would have a globular grant for this sort of work, rather than make an unfortunate section of the community the subject of street collections. That is the one matter. The second point is this; it relates to the State aided feeding schemes and the distribution of agricultural products. There is a principle contained in that which perhaps is not realised by all of us. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) has already gone into this matter, but, presumably on account of lack of time, he did not go into it deeply. No one doubts the fact that we should embark on a campaign against malnutrition in the country. Such a campaign against undernourishment is very necessary. It is necessary that we should bring our farm produce within the compass of the earnings of our people. But the question now is this: Can we bring these farm products within the range of the earnings of these people if their earnings are so low? We must either make the farm products very low in price, or we must increase the earnings.

We ought to increase the earnings.

Exactly. But then there are people who we cannot do this with. There are, for instance, people who receive pensions and grants from the State. In America they have a system which in my opinion would also answer very well here if we would take it into consideration. It is this. We take a family of five—the husband, the wife and three children, and we determine how much a family of that size should allot to vegetables in order to be properly nourished. Assume that this comes to 10s. a week for vegetables. That family cannot afford to pay 10s. for vegetables, but can only find 5s. Their income only allows them finding 5s. The State should not now pay the whole 10s., because that could have detrimental results both to them and to the farmer. The State gives the difference between what the family can spend and the amount that the family requires to enable them to purchase the vegetables. The State does not, however, give the whole amount, but in the case of such a family a certificate for 5s. for vegetables. The person then goes and gets his vegetables. He pays his 5s. cash and gives his certificate for the other 5s. We thus achieve two objectives. We feed that family and the production of the country is maintained. During this period of war we have had a great demand for agricultural products, but on the other hand we have felt that the poor people have not been in a position to obtain good food. Again, in normal times we have seen over-production and food lying and rotting in the market, while the poorer section of the community are not able to obtain that food. That, in my opinion, is a very important aspect of the matter, and we feel that we should go into this system very carefully. Research work in this connection has already been done by Mr. Murray, the Director of Social Welfare in Johannesburg, and his research work has brought to light very interesting results. If the person got the full grant in the form of money, the danger would be present that the family, instead of using the money to buy food that is necessary for building up the body, would spend it on less important things. It might also happen that the money would be spent on drink. If we have this system of certificates we can safeguard ourselves against that danger and ensure that the family obtains the food. The system of school meals has invited a considerable volume of criticism, especially from families in good circumstances who feel that it is an affront to them. I believe, however, that the Transvaal has shown that it is a matter that can be made a great success. It is not only in our country that such a thing has been attempted. They have school meals in Russia and Germany, who early on realised that the child constitutes the chief wealth of the State. This is very good, and it provides a good omen for the future of South Africa that we have also now realised this. I hope that if there are still schools that have not yet introduced the scheme of State aided feeding for the children, that they will do so at an early date.

I should very much like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) in connection with the Coloured Advisory Council, but more especially in connection with what emerges with reference to the actual relationship between Europeans on the one hand and the coloured population on the other. I feel that actually there has been a lack of realism on the part of the Minister and the Coloured Advisory Council in regard to this problem, and that we shall not get any solution for the establishment of better relations and for the improvement of the position in reference to this matter before we adopt a more realistic standpoint than we have done in the past. The first thing that we have to realise in connection with this problem is this. It is entirely right to say that we should separate the coloured problem and the native problem, because the coloured people are in a social and economic position which is half way on the road between the Europeans on the one side and the natives on the other. The problem of the coloured people is not a problem of the coloured people contrasted with the Europeans, but it is a problem of the coloured person as against the native on the one side and the Europeans on the other side, and any solution that we arrive at in connection with the coloured people must take into consideration these two divergent sides of the difficulty. In various countries similar difficulties have been encountered, and in some of those countries this difficulty has been solved. In New Zealand the difficulty of the relationships between the Europeans and the natives has been entirely solved. In New Zealand it was solved because there is no colour feeling between the Europeans on the one side and the Maoris on the other. If We have a country in which there is no colour sentiment, then the problem solves itself in a natural way through a mixed race, or through having in a measure a mixed race in that country. But I am satisfied, and I think that neither the Minister nor the coloured community in South Africa will deny that here in South Africa we have to recognise that there is a strongly developed colour sentiment. You may say that that is wrong. The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) may say that it is wrong. Others say that it is right. But it is not the merits of the case or whether it is right or whether it is wrong that influences the problem, but the hard fact that that colour sentiment is there, and that that sentiment will remain there in the future. If we want to solve this problem we must be realistic, and the jumping off point must be that that colour sentiment really exists, and we must try to improve the relations between the white man and the coloured man within the framework of that colour sentiment. And I am afraid that what has happened in the case of the Coloured Advisory Council, and it seems to us also in the case of the Minister, is that they have not been realistic enough in connection with this matter; they do not realise that that colour sentiment is there and is going to remain there, and that they have to solve this difficulty within the framework of that colour sentiment. If we accept this as an axiom—and I believe that we can accept it as an axiom—then we must try to see what the difficulties are in the relationship between the white man on the one side and the coloured man on the other side, such as they are disclosed today. Everyone will admit that the relations between the coloured people and the Europeans have not improved in South Africa in the course of the last 40 or 50 years. We can all accept that. That relationship has deteriorated. Forty years ago in the Cape Province the relations between coloured and white people were friendlier than they are today. I know of cases where forty years ago a coloured student was allowed to take his matriculation examination at a European high school. I know of coloured people who have taken their matriculation at European high schools. Today such a thing is inconceivable. I cannot imagine that there is a single high school in Cape Town that would permit this today. I take that as proof that the relationship between the Europeans and the coloured people has not improved. But when I say this I do not suggest that on account of that the danger of miscegenation was greater 40 years ago. Forty years ago that danger was much smaller, despite the fact that the relationship between the two communities was much better than it now is. If we want to solve this problem then we must review the causes of the deterioration of the relations between the European on the one side and the coloured community on the other side, and when he have discovered the causes of this deterioration in their relations, then only will it be possible to remove or to reduce the causes of that friction between the coloured people and the Europeans. I think that the causes of friction between coloured people and Europeans have to be sought in three fields: First, where the people work together, secondly, where the people live together, and thirdly, where they vote together. These are the three places where friction occurs between the coloured man and the white man. By referring to where they work together, I have in mind the whole economic friction, and the economic fear that we find between the coloured man and the white man. The coloured man is in the unfortunate position that in the economic sphere on the one hand he is subject to pressure by the natives who are invading his sphere in large numbers and take his work away from him to a certain extent, and who are also actively exerting pressure so that they are pushing the coloured man into the territory of the white man; and on the other side, he is being subject to pressure by the European. The European is a menace to the coloured man, and conversely, the coloured man is also a menace to the European. Undoubtedly in the course of the last twenty or thirty years economic apprehension has arisen as between the white man and the coloured man. The white man fears that if the coloured man comes into his sphere of work, his economic existence will be brought down to a lower level, because the coloured man has a lower standard of living. On the other hand, the coloured man feels that, because the white man is a better worker, he will be engaged in preference to him if they are placed on an equal level in competeition for employment, and that he will only be given work if a white man is not available. There we have the economic difficulty that exists when these people work together. The second place of friction is the place where they live together. This brings us to the social difficulties and the friction that is occasioned there between the two. There, I maintain, we must be more realistic and the coloured man must be more realistic. I want to improve the relations between the two, but in my opinion they will never be improved if the standpoint of the coloured man is going to be that in every sphere he must stand on an equal footing with the Europeans, where they work, where they live, etc. There can never be an improvement if they want to be there with the white man. That will not improve the relationship, but it will only make it worse, for the sympathy that the white man has for the coloured man will be made smaller and smaller by that contact, and will not be increased. It is in the social sphere that we want to reduce the causes of friction, and we can only reduce it by creating as large a measure of separation as possible between the European and the coloured people on the basis outlined by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think I should now reply to some of the points raised in the course of the debate this morning. I would like, first of all, to thank the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) for his reference to the Department of Social Welfare and the staff. I think his tribute to the permanent head of the department, Mr. Kuschke, is most merited. One appreciates the fact that this tribute comes from a member of the House. In these days departmental officials are not in the habit of getting bouquets from members of the House !

Because their Ministers are wrong.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) has referred to social welfare workers, and has pointed out some of the difficulties with which they have to contend in regard to transport. We are at the present time subsidising 110 of these social workers, 81 Europeans, 12 coloureds and 17 natives. We pay 75 per cent. of the wages of the subsidised worker, and the local agency must make up the balance. Where the local agency is prepared to pay £30 per annum for transport, the Department will also contribute £30. I think that should help to meet some of the difficulties to which the hon. gentleman referred. Then, Sir, the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. B. Solomon) urged that the Department of Social Welfare should encourage local authorities to establish their own Welfare Departments. She referred to the example of Johannesburg. The experiment of Johannesburg has been a great success. The Johannesburg Municipal Welfare Department was established in December, 1939, and, in the light of the experience we have had of it, it has certainly proved itself. The Department has recently been in consultation with the City Council of Cape Town, which is definitely in favour of the establishment of such a Municipal Department of Welfare for the Cape Peninsula. Definite proposals for a basis of financial co-operation between the Government and the City Council of Cape Town are at the present moment receiving the consideration of the Council, and I am glad to inform hon. members that East London is thinking in the same direction. I hope that it will proceed to establish such a Municipal Department in due course. Then the hon. member for Jeppes and the hon. member for Johannesburg West (Mr. Tighy) referred to the important question of a mass attack on malnutrition. Nutrition and the Nutrition Council are subjects which fall appropriately for discussion under the vote of the Department of Public Health. But one of the advantages flowing from the grouping of the Department of Public Health and the Department of Social Welfare together under one Ministry is the fact that the way is opened for greater co-ordination of their activities than may have been possible in the past. The Departments both deal with certain aspects of nutrition. The Department of Public Health deals with what I might call the academic side of the question—diet, protective foodstuffs, what the people should eat, and so on—it is able to spread propaganda; it is able to say what should be given in school diet, for instance. The Department of Social Welfare, on the other hand, deals more with the executive side of feeding, and during the course of the last year we have established a new section, known as the National Feeding Section. The Department has in the past administered certain schemes—the administration of Pauper rations, for instance, the milk and butter schemes—and the intention is to group under that division in the Department all activities concerning National feeding. The official in charge will have to administer on behalf of the Department the milk and butter schemes, the new school feeding scheme, the organisation of food depôts, both static and mobile. We are grouping under this one section all those matters relating to feeding, and, through co-operation with all people’ concerned, the nutrition section in the Department of Public Health, the Food Controller, and the Department of Agriculture, so far as production is concerned, we are hoping to bring protective foodstuffs to an increasing extent within the reach of the lower income groups in this country at reasonable prices. The hon. member for Jeppes has pressed the government to subsidise foodstuffs. Well, the government has committed itself to a policy of subsidisation, and I think it might be of interest to hon. members to know what the government is spending at the present time in order to subsidise foodstuffs in this country. We subsidise certain protective foodstuffs in order to prevent the price to the consumer being raised. We also subsidise others in order to enable those protective foodstuffs to be sold at cheap prices to the lower income groups. Let me take the first category, those protective foodstuffs which we subsidise in order to prevent the cost to the consumer being raised. Take bread, for example. We are subsidising the price of bread in order to prevent a rise in cost to the consumer, and the cost of subsidising bread and preventing a rise in price to the consumer is going to cost this country £1,750,000 during the present harvest year.

That will have to come under this vote?

That will come out of Agriculture. We shall be spending £1,750,000 on subsidising bread. We shall be spending £250,000 on subsidising butter to prevent the cost of butter rising to the consumer. We shall also be spending £875,000 to prevent the cost of maize rising to the consumer, making a total subsidy of £2,875,000 on these three items. Then, if hon. members will turn to the Social Welfare vote, they will find, under the heading National Feeding Section, an item of £200,000 in respect of school feeding, £50,000 in respect of the State aided milk and cheese scheme, £100,000 in respect of the State aided butter scheme. That subsidy in respect of butter is to enable it to be sold at cheap prices to the lower income groups. The total under this vote is £350,000 but the Treasury—my generous colleague on my left [laughter]—has been good enough to allow the Department a further £500,000 …

They don’t seem to think your colleague is generous.

… in respect of the school feeding scheme, so that this year we will be spending £700,000 on providing a free meal for school children. That is a very big advance. We have never had this before in the country. We are providing 2d. per child per day to the Provinces. Originally we asked the Provinces to contribute 1d. as well, but now we have withdrawn that proviso. We have made an unconditional offer to the Provinces, and, as I have said, it is going to cost us £700,000 this year. The Treasury has also given us an extra £30,000 to deal with “so-called surplus” citrus. I say “so-called surplus” citrus, because we have no surpluses in this country if we have thousands of people, European and non-European, going without sufficient protective foodstuffs.

What about raisins?

My hon. friend can apply to me and we will see whether we can do a deal in raisins! We have established mobile food depôts throughout the Cape Peninsula. One stationary one was started at Salt River as an experiment. We have established these mobile depôts with the assistance of the Department of Defence which has provided us with lorries, which we hire. These mobile depôts have been selling citrus and deciduous fruit at cheap prices to the lower income groups. We may well be able to extend that system to vegetables and other protective foodstuffs.

Hear, hear!

In doing so we are helping both the farmer and the consumer by bringing these foodstuffs within the reach of the lower income groups. We shall this year be spending in respect of national feeding schemes £880,000 under the Social Welfare Vote; and, if we add that sum to the amount which the Government is to spend in respect of subsidies to prevent the cost rising to the consumer, we arrive at a total amount of £3,775,000 to be spent this year in order to enable protective foodstuffs to remain at reasonable prices within the reach of the lower income groups. I think that shows that we have already begun this mass attack on malnutrition to which the hon. member for Jeppes referred.

What do you spend on cattle?

I am not able to give my hon. friend the figure. Admittedly governments have not done a great deal in the past in regard to this method of combating malnutrition, and we have not reached the summit of our achievement. We should go further. But I am sure the hon. member will agree that by making this good start— this school feeding scheme alone involves an expenditure of nearly £1,000,000 a year— we are making a very big advance on what has been done in the past. Then I want to deal with an important matter which was raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He referred to the establishment of the Coloured Advisory Council and, after offering certain criticisms regarding the basis on which that Council was established, he went bn to contend that the Government is approaching the question of the relationship between the Europeans and the coloured population in South Africa along wrong lines. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said that we were not taking a realistic view of the position, and he said that the relationship between these two racial groups in the community has deteriorated during the last 40 years, that it was on a much better basis previously, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition stressed that we should look to the example of other countries. He referred specifically to America and to Australia, and he urged us to follow the examples of these countries.

I said you must look upon them as a warning.

To look upon them as a warning…

The policy is a new policy.

Did the hon. member say that we should follow the policy of Australia? I am trying to find out what he said.

No, Australia has followed us, but they go much further.

They have followed the policy of the Nationalist Party.

The hon. gentleman says that Australia has followed the policy of the Nationalist Party, but that they go much further. May I deal first with the criticism that the Coloured Advisory Council should be a statutory body on the basis of the Natives Representative Council. This Coloured Advisory Council was never intened to be a legislative body; the parallel of the Natives Representative Council was never in the minds of the government when it appointed this body.

They would like it to be.

The policy of the government was to have a body of enlightened representatives of the coloured community which could be called upon to advise it and which itself, would raise matters of interest and of importance to the coloured community. The terms of reference given to the Coloured Advisory Council are laid down in the report of the Council which has been circulated to hon. members. It is stated here—

There are the functions in brief. The government felt that, in the interests of the coloured community and in the interests of the community as a whole, it should have a body of enlightened coloured opinion whom it could consult from time to time and whose advice it could obtain on matters affecting the coloured community as a whole. To achieve that object it is not necessary to have a statutory foundation for the body. We have not established the National Social and Economic Planning Council by statute There we have a body which is advising the Government on many important matters, but it does not exist on a statutory basis, and I do not see that there is any necessity in the case of this body for placing it on a statutory basis. The hon. member for Picketberg (Dr. Malan) has said that his criticism of the membership of that Council is based on the grounds that the Government is making the members of the Council political instruments ….

That is what your opponents among the coloured people say. That is their objection to it.

I understood the hon. gentleman to say that certain people in the coloured community say that certain members of the Council are the political instruments of the Government. Hon. members, and particularly hon. members of the Cape Peninsula, know the vitriolic campaign which was carried on against the Council and against the formation of the Council. It went to extreme lengths, but I have no doubt—and I think the election results have shown, because this matter did become a political issue—the election results proved conclusively that that vitriolic and immoderate campaign carried on against the formation of the Council and against the members of the Council was the work of a small but noisy coterie.

What about the A.P.O. Congress?

It is perfectly true that at the recent A.P.O. Congress the Chairman of the Coloured Advisory Council was not re-elected, but I have yet to learn that the A.P.O. is fully representative of the opinion of the coloured community. There was a time when Dr. Abdurahman was chairman, when the A.P.O. was very representative of the coloured community. I doubt whether it is sufficiently representative at the present time. The hon. gentleman says that so far from improving the relationship amongst coloured persons themselves, the formation of this Council has led to an embittered relationship and to communism springing up. He said that this embittered relationship was the direct result of my action in the matter.

My contention was that that gave the communists an opportunity.

If the hon. gentleman is correct that communism has sprung up amongst certain sections of the coloured people, then it was not the Coloured Advisory Council that brought it into being; it was there before. If there is a danger, then it is a good thing that the Coloured Advisory Council brought it to light. I say that if there is a danger, then the formation of the Coloured Advisory Council brought it to light. It is no longer working underground, and we know what we have to meet. I do believe that there is a small section of agitators amongst the coloured community who are doing the coloured community untold damage and harm by this propaganda, but the Coloured Advisory Council and the moderate elements among the coloured community, will, I feel convinced, stand up staunchly and irresistibly against those attempts by a small number of agitators to sow the seeds of dissension. The hon. gentleman then went on to say that, following on the formation of this Council, the Council is agitating for the removal of all restrictions, social and economic, and that it is asking for the extension of the franchise to the north. Hon. members can read in the report itself what the Council has been advocating. It has certainly attempted to advocate the removal of a number of social and economic difficulties, and surely that is its task. We as whites have a strong duty to remove a number of the economic and welfare difficulties which exist at the present time in relation to the coloured community. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) stated that 40 years ago the relationship between coloureds and whites was better than it is today. He is probably correct. But I would remind the hon. member for Humansdorp that 40 years ago, and generally speaking before Union, the skilled occupations were the preserve largely of the coloured artisan. Many of the older European artisans today received their training from coloured artisans, and in the Railway Service many graded positions were occupied by coloured persons, while even senior skilled posts were occupied by them. In those days members of the coloured community held important posts, and it did not in those days lead to intermingling. There was a better spirit and one of the reasons, in my opinion, why the coloured community is in such a desperate plight today, is that one after another their jobs have been taken away from them. It is the policy of this Government to try to assist the coloured community to advance economically. We do not stand for a policy of social equality, not on the ground that we are better than they are or that they are better than we are; we do not stand for social equality, but as far as the welfare of the coloured community is concerned, we want to improve their condition. The difference very largely between the Government and the hon. Leader of the Opposition, according to his present policy, is that the hon. member wshes to bring about a policy of compulsory segregation. We admit that in matters of residence, it is a good thing if the coloured community lives in its own townships and runs its own affairs, but we are not going to force them to go there. We are not going to take them by the scruff of their necks and put them there. We have no doubt that if we build decent townships to accommodate members of the coloured community, they will be only too pleased to go there; they will be attracted by the amenities and they will go there voluntarily. The policy of the Government was set out in a statement that was issued by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to the country towards the end of last year. In that statement, the Prime Minister said this—

Does that mean that you have abandoned Stuttaford’s policy of 1937?

It means what it says, that we are not going to use any methods of compulsion, but we are going to provide the amenities which will attract the members of the coloured community to live in coloured townships.

Stuttaford’s policy was a policy of compulsion to a large extent.

If the hon. gentleman refers to the policy of Mr. Stuttaford, the former Minister of the Interior, I am not sure to which one he is referring now, because there were quite a number of policies !

We know it’s a difficult question to answer.

We forgive you.

But the hon. gentleman appreciates, of course, that there may be a change of opinion because today for the first time the hon. gentleman has admitted that the Nationalist Party has changed its policy !

It has improved its policy.

I do not want to go into political issues. The hon. gentleman himself asked that this House should discuss this question on a non-Party level, and we want to do that; but, quite obviously, this matter cannot be entirely divorced from politics; it is a political matter. There are new members in this House who may not have known of the political past of the hon. member for Picketberg. And I think it is as well, therefore, that the hon. member for Cape Flats (Capt. R. J. du Toit) did remind the House of some of the things that the leader of the Opposition said in the past, because my hon. friend today suggests that I am responsible and that the Coloured Advisory Council is responsible for the coloured community wanting to extend its political rights. I venture to suggest that if there is anyone responsible for starting that agitation, it is that hon. gentleman himself, because it was he who said on one occasion in 1922—

In what respect?

Perhaps the hon. member elaborated and made that clearer at a later stage. In 1923, when writing to Dr. Abdurahman, the editor of the A.P.O. Magazine, the hon. gentleman said—

And then, at a later stage in his letter, the hon. gentleman went on to say—

That is all I ask.

At a later stage the hon. gentleman said in 1925, when addressing the National Bond Congress—

What are you quoting from?

And then at a later stage in 1925, addressing a meeting of Malays in the City Hall, the hon. gentleman said—

What is wrong with that?

He went on to say—

Well Sir, those are the things that the hon. gentleman told the coloured community in days gone by. And, if he now complains that the coloured community is seeking to extend its political rights in the north and elsewhere, then I would suggest to hon. members that the encouragement of that policy came from the hon. gentleman himself, the encouragement to pursue that primrose path.

I do not want to discuss the speech which the Hon. the Minister has just made. We, on this side of the House, have done our best in regard to this discussion to take the matter outside the ordinary political sphere. The Minister did his best to bring it into the political sphere again. If we were to take the subject into that sphere we might perhaps say things which we don’t want to say. For instance we might say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has never yet tried to pose as a coloured man.

He has never worn a coolie fez yet.

I don’t want to go into those matters however.

The Minister has even adopted their way of dressing.

We have done our best to adopt a businesslike and realistic attitude in regard to one of the greatest problems we have to deal with in South Africa today, one of the greatest and most serious problems, and I just want to say this to the hon. the Minister, that the type of speech that he has made now, or at least the second half of that speech, is not going to contribute to the solution of that problem.

Look how ashamed he is now.

So the Minister can also be ashamed.

I am prepared to assume that the Minister is honest and that he wants a better relationship established between the coloured and the white people than we had in the past, and that he is anxious to create a future in which there will be room for both coloured people and white people, a future which will mean happiness for everyone. But if that is the object which we are striving for, then I only want to say that if the Minister continues to make the kind of speech he has just made, his contribution will not lead towards our achieving that solution—his contribution will simply tend to create troubled waters in which he will be able to fish. But I imagine the Minister’s outburst was merely a momentary slip, and that he is really not as bad as he pretends to be, and that he really is whiter than he pretends to be.

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

When business was suspended I was trying to determine the causes for the deterioration in the relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa, and I said that there were three places of friction between Europeans and non-Europeans. The first place of friction is where they work together; in other words it is the economic difficulties which have caused the relationship to become worse; the second place of friction is where they live together, which amounts practically to the social difficulties with which we are faced. I had just concluded my remarks on that point. But undoubtedly there is another place of friction and when I touch on that I know that I am touching a very contentious issue, but if hon. members will regard this question objectively, I think they will agree with me that this is one of the princinal reasons for the deterioration of the relationship between white and coloured, especially in the Cape Province: and that is where we vote together; in other words, the political relationshin between coloured and white in South Africa. Unfortunately, and I think anyone who considers the matter objectively will agree that the bad relationship between European and non-European is to a large extent due to the fact that so far as the vote is concerned there is no dividing line between the coloureds and the whites.

That has been so for a long time.

Certainly. I am not discussing the question now of who is to blame and who is not to blame for that position.

You say the position is now getting bad.

I say that relations are getting worse and worse. The Minister and myself have agreed that relations between whites and coloureds are worse than they were 40 years ago, for instance, and we are now trying to arrive at an analysis of the causes. I have already dealt with two points, and now I am coming to the third. I don’t think anyone in this country will deny that the relations between whites and natives have improved considerably as a result of the fact that they no longer compete in the political sphere.

I am not so sure about that.

With the exception, perhaps, of the few members who represent the natives and who are in this House as the result of the new arrangement. With the exception of those members, I think everyone will agree that hon. members in this House today can regard and discuss the native problem more objectively than in the past, and that is due to the fact that the natives have been registered on separate voters’ rolls and no longer constitute a part of our electoral corps, and that members are not dependent on the votes of these people to get into Parliament. They often used to take up a wrong attitude in the hope of catching those people’s votes. Some members in this House represent native areas, and I think I am entitled to say that one of the most satisfactory omens is the difference one can see in the speeches on native affairs made by those members today as compared with the speeches they were compelled to make in the days when they were dependent on these people’s votes. I do not say that they are less sympathetically disposed towards the natives. They are just as sympathetic towards the natives, but when you are dealing with a race like the white race, which should act with a sense of responsibility as guardians of the less developed races, you cannot look at the problems in the right light, and you cannot deal with them in the right light if you regard them subjectively. You must be able to do it objectively. All the time those people were to a large extent dependent on their votes, it was practically impossible for them to act objectively. When there was no danger of miscegenation the white man was able to take up a more objective attitude towards the non-Éuropean race, and when there was no danger to the white man in the industrial sphere, he was also able to take up a more objective attitude. That is the position which we must get back to in South Africa—we must be able to handle these people’s difficulties sympathetically, and I admit that there are many such difficulties. We must try to make their mode of living, their whole outlook on life easier, and we must try to improve it. But you can never act sympathetically towards people while on the one hand there is this biological fear in regard to them, and while on the other hand there is the same biological fear on their part so far as the white race is concerned. You must remove that fear. Once you do that you will be able to act really without prejudice, and be able to look at all these problems from an objective point of view. I spring from a generation which for years has been known for its sympathetic attitude to the non-European races in South Africa, but I want to say this, that the sympathetic attitude of the family from which I come, towards the non-European races in South Africa, was not based on some romantic or sentimental grounds, but it was a realistic outlook in regard to those people both economically and socially. That is why I say that we must revert to that condition of affairs where the Europeans in South Africa can take up a sympathetic attitude to the coloured man, which at the moment is being made very difficult. We all admit that the position of the coloured man is not good, and I say that you will only get a sympathetic attitude to the coloured people if you enable the whites in South Africa to face these difficulties objectively, and you can only get that objectivity towards those difficulties, if you remove he sources of friction which undoubtedly exist today among Europeans and non-Europeans. These sources are primarily economic difficulties and conflicts. Secondly, they are social conflicts, and thirdly they are political conflicts. If one day we should reach rhe stage of being able to agree on a policy in South Africa, a policy sympathetic and constructive in its character so far as these people are concerned, great progress will result, but that object will only be achieved if these points of friction, misunderstanding and fear are removed. That is why I got up to say a few words in the hope that I might make a small contribution towards bringing about better relations between the various colour groups in South Africa. I am afraid of only one or two things. And one is that the course which the Government and the C.A.C. are following today is not one which will lead to a removal of these sources of friction, because the course they are following ignores the colour feelings which undoubtedly prevail in South Africa today—rightly or wrongly. Some people think these feelings are wrong, others think they are right; one cannot ignore them; one can only try to create a future for the less privileged colour group, taking into account that these sentiments about colour do prevail and will continue to prevail. It is a fact that one has to realise. One has to realise that within the framework of that colour feeling in South Africa one has to try to improve relations. If you ignore it you will simply aggravate the feelings between the Europeans and the non-Europeans in South Africa with the result that the Europeans, with the exception of a small group of people, will be made less sympathetically disposed towards the non-Europeans than they are today. My second fear is that we are too prone in the Cape Province—the Province where, in particular, we are faced with this problem, to regard the colour problem merely as a colour problem, a problem affecting the coloured people only, and that is not correct. The colour problem in South Africa is just as much a white problem as a colour problem. There are biological conflicts, there are social conflicts, political conflicts and economic conflicts. You cannot pick out the one problem by itself; you must take the problem in its whole context—not merely as a colour problem, but also as a white problem— a problem which affects equally and touches equally both sections of the population.

Before I was interrupted, Sir, I had raised the question of the recommendation of the Committee on crime conditions on the Witwatersrand in regard to establishing training camps for idle native youths. I would like to ask the Minister what is being done in that connection, as I regard it as a matter for special consideration. The House will have welcomed the statement of the Minister in regard to the school feeding scheme and the subsidisation of the lower income groups. In that connection, while we welcome that statement, we consider that the Government has a considerable leeway to make up particularly in regard to the children of the non-European race. At the centre of the department’s activities stands the child, and it is worthy of notice in passing that the amount provided for children’s grants has increased during the last five years from £315,000 to £585,000, an advance of 86 per cent. We know that the Department and the Provincial authorities have been engaged in considering arrangements for the school feeding programme for some time. I understand that arrangements have been made for native school children in all the provinces with the exception of the Free State.

That is right.

I would like to know from the Minister whether the arrangement has been completed in respect of that last province.

Not as yet.

It is of the utmost importance that we should extend it first of all to those who need it most, and that is not only my opinion but the opinion of representative European societies who have communicated directly with the Minister. Winter is at hand, and it is the desire of the whole community that at any rate the major portion of the children shall have this school feeding scheme extended to them soon. The country will support the Government in its intention when it is made cognisant of some of the facts connected with malnutrition and under feeding of school children. The Social and Planning Council on Page 105, includes this statement—I cannot delay the House in order to give the full information, but here is a short extract—

That is a very important statement, and I do not think that the majority of our people understand the fundamental significance of this school feeding scheme introduced by the Government and its effect upon the health of the child. It will make a remarkable contribution to health and save the country from some expenditure in respect of these very children, or at least a good percentage of them, in their later days. Then I would like to ask the Minister whether he proposes to go any further with the Work Colonies Bill this session, and if he is not prepared to do that, whether he is going to take into consultation all the parties interested. I would also like to point out that by its decision to supply fruit, etc., at reduced prices to the lower income groups in South Africa, the Government is expanding the market of the farmers. It is a very wise thing that our children of all races should become fruit conscious, not only for the good of trade but also for the major good, namely, the health of the children. I do not want to take up any more time, since this is my second opportunity, but I do want to impress upon the Government that here it has a department whose work is associated with the family life of the people, and now that there are thousands of citizens imbued with this spirit of public welfare, we should take advantage of our opportunity to obtain their help. I would ask the Minister whether he will institute broadcasts as to the work of his various departments, something on the lines of sections of the memorandum prepared by the Secretary for the Department of Social Welfare. That would have the effect of stimulating enthusiasm, as well as be a matter of education among those groups of men and women who today want to know what steps are being taken by the Government and the direction in which they may apply their energies in order that the less privileged of the population may be uplifted, and their general condition improved.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested in what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said. He informed the House that since the Goverment had decided to adopt a policy of segregation so-called between Europeans and natives, there had been a much better relationship between the Europeans and the native population, and that it had been possible for this House to discuss matters in regard to the native population with an objectiveness which had been impossible so long as the European population suffered from the fear complex induced by the fact that natives were eligible for membership of the common voters’ roll. Now, Sir, I would like very much to know on what grounds the hon. member states that the relations between Europeans and natives have so much improved.

I only said as far as we are concerned, not as far as they are.

Oh well, Sir, I am also interested in that. I am interested in what objectiveness really means, and I am interested to know in what sense the Opposition and the House generally have made up their minds to discuss objectively questions affecting the native population. I have not seen much of this objectiveness. Now I assume that any policy of segregation affecting the coloured people should carry with it the consent of the coloured population, and I must say I see no possibility of that happening. In this connection I would like to put one or two facts before the House, since I have sat in this House putting forward to the best of my ability the case for the native population my experience has been this, that where in the old days there were various member of this House who owed their seats to the native population, they made it their business to put before the House the needs of that section of the population, but since we have been in this House the work has been entirely left to us on these benches. The result is that while we have a continuous expansion of the acceptance by the Government of its social obligations to all sections of the community, in practice that has meant to a very large extent that emphasis is laid on the needs of the people who go to the polls at the ordinary election, not at the special election which governs our seats. In the circumstances I feel that the coloured population will be very well advised to oppose every attempt to lead them into a separate kraal on the assumption that when they are there they will get the services which the Government is now afraid to give them. That leads me to the point I have been hoping to make to the Minister all the morning. I was very glad to hear, and I think my colleagues were glad to hear his statement in Another Place that it is the intention of the Department of Social Welfare to accept responsibility for all sections of the community. I welcome that. Since I have been in this House, I have always found the Minister extremely human. I listened with interest this morning to the Minister telling the House of the services that the Social Welfare Department is rendering in respect of subsidised feeding, thus giving the poorer people access to essential foods, foods which they are not in a position to buy for themselves. I want to ask the Minister what is the policy of his Department, with the time factor in the foreground, in regard to the native population on this question of subsidised feeding? I appreciate the fact that he has had the courage to institute new methods of bringing food to the under-privileged groups in an area like Cape Town, and assisting them with Government subsidies to obtain that food. But I want to point out that we have got to get the same assistance to the people whom we on these benches represent. At the present moment the native population is being swept by an epidemic which is largely the result of malnutrition, and underfeeding, and so far, the bulk of the schemes which the Government now finances do not reach the people who are suffering from that scourge. The subsidised milk and butter scheme stops before it reaches the native population. It is true the Native Affairs Department is doing what it can to fill the gap in regard to milk; it is encouraging the development of herds in the rural areas, building up herds that will provide milk for school children in some of those areas; but that scheme comes out of the poll tax; it is limited by the resources which the Native Affairs Department commands for education and the whole of native development. The Government itself, as far as I know, has so far contributed nothing to that scheme. Now I am not going to contend that in respect of this milk, butter and cheese scheme, the need of the naive population is greater than that of the coloured. I would not say that, because I do not think there is any greater need than the needs of the coloured people; but the need of the native population is certainly as great as that of the coloured. Now it is not a question of maintaining the health of the native population at its present level; it is a question of restoring some of the standard it has already lost; and here the issue at stake is not merely that accessibility of protective foods but even the accessibility of the basic food, maize. The Minister told us that the Government is subsidising the price of bread, and he told us that the Government was now going to subsidise the price of maize in order to maintain the present prices, or rather to prevent the price of maize from rising. But the price of maize has already risen nearly 50 per cent. since the war began. Last year when the price to the farmer was 15s. a bag, the Social and Economic Planning Council proposed that the Government should subsidise the consumer’s price of maize to the tune of at least £1,000,000 and do it at once. After that the price to the producer was raised to 16s. a bag, and the retail price went up accordingly, and Sir, all the Government has done this year is to say that they will fix the retail price at that level So long as this sort of thing is done to that large section of our population which is not on the common voters’ roll, what grounds have we for saying that the relationship between the European and the African is better than when the native was on the roll. [Time limit.]

There is one matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice; it refers to the Labour Colonies. There was a feeling that the conception of the work to be done by these labour colonies should be that of improvement and rehabilitation, and not of discipline and oppression. The Department thought fit to appoint a man at the head of the Swartfontein Labour Colony who was more the type of teacher for rehabilitation work than a man selected from a group of prison warders who would simply apply discipline and correction to the people in those colonies. Now I want to draw the Minister’s attention to this, that instead of expanding in the direction of improvement and rehabilitation, Mr. Pretorius, who has been appointed in charge of this institution, has been faced with all kinds of difficulties, and he was interfered with as soon as he tried to undertake certain things, and as soon as he followed that course of running the institution on a plan of recovery and rehabilitation, and training the workers in the labour colony for certain types of work and occupations, all kinds of charges were made against him to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention, because it means that in future we shall never manage to get a man who is really competent, and enthusiastic enough to bring about such improvements; we shall never get a man to give up his Government position and go to another department to undertake that class of work. This man was asked to go to the Swartfontein Labour Colony with the idea that he would effect certain improvements there. But what do we find now? Shortly after he had gone there, after he had taken all kinds of steps to improve the position of these people and to train them for various occupations, including agriculture, he was interfered with by inspectors and others who came to the labour colony. His appointment was the result of certain recommendations made by the official of the department after certain investigations had been made by him. That department had the investigations made, and this man was selected from the staff of the Education Department to undertake that work. He did not apply to go there. But apparently, because he had been selected by the one section of the Department, the other section of the Department continually interfered with him. It is a most unfortunate thing to find that one seceion of the Department, can interfere with another section and cause rivalry and misunderstanding. This man was specially invited to undertake this work; he gave up his position in the Education Department to take up a position in the Department of Social Welfare, and after 18 months he was dismissed. Why? Because he tried to follow a certain course. Let me give a few instances. On one occasion he gave the inmates of the labour colony the opportunity of attending a cinema performance; he arranged for them to go there by motor; the film which they went to see was in connection with the Springbok achievements up North. The motor-car had to go to the town in any case, and he allowed the inmates of the colony to travel by the motor to attend the performance. The department felt so incensed about this, that although the motor-car had in any case to go to the town, £2 12s. was deducted from his salary. That was only a straw to show which way the wind was blowing. A Board was appointed, a Board of Control over the work of the Labour Colony. The original intention was that the Board should keep an eye on the institution. I should lay down the policy and it should show that it took an interest in what became of these people. Now what was that Board told? They were told that they had only been appointed to decide who were to be taken into the institution, and when and whether they were to be discharged. It was no concern of theirs what happened to these people while they were in the colony. If that is correct, then I ask the Minister whether those are supposed to be the functions of a board with such an important division of his Department. When an investigation was made into the difficulties which had arisen, and into the allegations made against the principal of the labour colony, I am told that these remarks were made to the principal: “Don’t talk to me about rehabilitation. That word should not be in the dictionary. What we want is punishment, and again punishment.”

Who said that?

The allegation is that that was said by an official who is in charge of the institution. When such serious allegations are made regarding friction between the various parts of the department, I think the Minister should give the matter his attention. I do not think the present Minister is responsible, because he has only just taken over, but I can tell him that one section of his Department writes things which are not in harmony with what another section of his Department says. One section of his Department makes recommendations which are completely out of harmony with the recommendations by another section. Apparently there is discord, conflict and dissatisfaction between these two sections, and that condition of affairs should not prevail in that Department. The Department itself doesn’t matter so much. The officials have their jobs to do. We should take note of the position of the people in such a labour colony. Now let me say a word about the allegations that have been made against this man. It is alleged, among others by one of the officials of the Department, that this man has turned the Swartfontein Labour Colony from a place for criminals into a luxury hotel. The Minister should enquire into this. We don’t want to have luxury hotels there, but if it is possible to turn those criminals into people who can learn an occupation and who can be taken up into the community again, then it is worthwhile trying it. It has further been alleged that he had had a building put up at a cost of £500 without first having obtained approval. I cannot say any more about that. In the third place, it has been alleged that so far as regulations are concerned, he had no respect for God and his commandments. It has been alleged that all these things merely constituted an attempt to get this man out of his position after he had been there 18 months and after he had been specially selected by the Education Department to do this work. The officials of the Department cannot be so blind to a man’s capacities for such a post that they would specially select him and then after 18 months say that all these things are wrong and that he must leave that post.

I propose to concentrate my few remarks on the grant to the South African Council for the Care of Cripples, and I will give the House some figures with which I am certain they will not be very satisfied. We know, of course, that millions are to be spent in respect of rehabilitation of the soldiers, a praiseworthy object, and we know that a good deal of money has been spent on other objects equally praiseworthy. But I am disappointed, Mr. Chaiman, when I find that £200 is the sum out of nearly £2,000,000, the total vote, devoted to the National Council for the Care of Cripples. The Minister will no doubt say that that is the same sum he contributes to various other councils, but that does not make the contribution any the more magnanimous. There are roughly 31,000 cripples in the Union and the funds devoted to them by this National Council is £200, and that is a very small item indeed. Moreover, the great majority of the cripples in the Union are coloured, and for the whole Union of South Africa we have one single social worker drawing the princely salary of £325 per annum, of which the Government contributes £162 10s. Mr. Chairman, there is no financial support for the colossal work of orthopaedic treatment, or after-care, education or vocational training, or for the placing in employment of one single being. In 1942, this particular council made application to the Government for social workers in Pretoria, Johannesburg, the Free State, Natal, East London and Port Elizabeth, and thus far since 1942, has received no reply in regard to establishing such for the whole Union where they still remain with one solitary worker; but the interesting feature is that the Department of Social Welfare refers patients to this Council in spite of the fact that it pays only a negligible contribution. We know the magnificence with which the staff of the Department of Social Welfare works—they are very humane in their outlook, but of course without five fingers you cannot make a fist. If you haven’t got the money you can do nothing. We have got so far, however, that we have obtained their ear and we know that when the Minister of Finance becomes a little more liberal we may get something. There are other bodies in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and so on which can rely on street collections, but as soon as this society applies to the municipality for assistance they are told : “We are sorry we cannot give you facilities for a street collection because you are a national body.” The economic factor, so far as those who are crippled are concerned, is a very important one. Two-thirds of the cripples of South Africa are coloured— and the coloured man who is crippled is of no economic value to the country. The average non-European has nothing to sell except what is “below his chin.” His only saleable commodity is his muscular strength and when he can work no more he is cast aside. Without an arm or a leg, or with a crippled arm or leg, the coloured man is an object of charity. And it also reflects on the State. Let me add this: a large percentage of the cripples go to the bad. There are physiological, psychological and medical reasons for it. I don’t want to weary the House for two reasons; (a) it is complicated and (b) my time is limited, but the fact is that many who are crippled in body become crippled in mind. And what are you going to do with these 20,000 non-European cripples? The grant made is very small, and the native, until a few months ago, got nothing. You are cultivating professional beggars. These people fall back on charity. The Minister will probably tell me that: We are giving you something from the Nuffield Grant, Yes, the Minister is giving us £300 per year which is used for administrative purposes. He will tell me when we come to the Public Health vote that they are giving £3,000, but it still does not come within the sphere of Cripple Care. I should like to impress on the Minister, by his very sympathetic and humane department to approach the Treasury when he reframes his Budget for next year to see whether he cannot do something for the cripples of South Africa. They receive very little help indeed. We cannot all be Alexander Popes or Steinmetzes or other famous crippled people—and I say again it is very easy for the crippled to go to the bad, and so become a burden on the State, whereas if the State takes an interest in him he may prove to be a very useful member of the community. I hope the Minister will take into account that this allocation of £200 for 30,000 cripples in South Africa, two-thirds of whom have nothing to sell but their strength, is inadequate.

I am not going to make any apologies to the Minister for going back to his demobilisation scheme. I want a little information. I have received requests from Port Elizabeth asking me how the schemes apply to men who have already received their discharge— do they participate in the various benefits or do they not. If they do participate, does it go right back to the first men who were discharged or does it only go back to a limited period, or just how does it apply to men who have, prior to the introduction of these plans, received their discharge from the army. In Port Elizabeth we have had cases of men who have been discharged from the army not through any fault of their own but through various disabilities of which they were the victims. Some of these men were placed in jobs and were not able to hold those jobs down. The Minister knows something about some of these cases, and I want to know how and if they participate in any of these schemes which have been introduced here. Some of these men after losing their jobs received financial benefits to the extent of £3 per month plus certain rations. Some of these men are not properly rehabilitated yet and I do feel that men in that category are entitled to some of the benefits which it is proposed to extend to these men and women who are demobilised and discharged from now on. I do not see why discrimination should be made between the future and the past, because each one of them came forward, with the best intentions of giving his or her all to the cause. And it is only natural that if they are not to receive any benefits, some resentment should exist in their minds, that they were unfortunately retired too soon. Then again I should like to ask the Minister this: Some members might think that I could have gone to the Minister and got this information privately—but I didn’t do so because I think this is a matter on which the House is entitled to have information and which the country generally is entitled to know; how is it going to apply; and I hope the Minister will give a statement on this subject. Yesterday the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) raised the question of the benefits which the prisoners of war would receive when they come back and ate welcomed home, and as far as I can gather, those benefits are very extensive, and I think the Minister should state very clearly what those benefits are to be, and how much leave on full pay these men are to get, because I believe it will have a very beneficial effect on the minds of the people when they know how well these prisoners of war are going to be treated.

As the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) have dealt with the general policy in regard to the colour problem, I want to deal more in detail with the report of the Coloured Advisory Council. It is noticeable that one gets divergent recommendations from that council. For instance, there are recommendations in favour of equality between coloured and Europeans. And then there are recommendations in favour of separateness as between coloured people and natives, and then on the other hand one finds pleas for separateness of coloureds as such. On page 7 they have the following recommendation—

Here we have a plea for coloured people in the northern provinces as well to be given the same rights in respect of local authorities and school boards. On the next page they say—

They are asking for equality for coloured people and natives throughout the Union. On page 10 they openly advocate equal rights—

There is no objection to this if coloured boards are appointed which only have to deal with coloured questions, but that right is asked for here in connection with existing commissions and boards. And now I come to page 26 where we find this—

There we have an open plea for equality with Europeans. There is no objection to their being treated alike, but in areas where they are separated from the whites. I am only referring to points where they plead for equal treatment. On Page 29 we get this—

Another plea for equality. They also want an investigation made into the question as to why, when tickets are issued on buses, those tickets cannot be issued to Europeans and non-Europeans together. But they go further and they say this with regard to bus services—

It is objectionable to them to travel third class. So they plead for equality with Europeans. Then on Page 29 they say—

I have travelled third class before today when the bus is full and I have never had reason to complain that people have been herded together like cattle. And so one can go on. On Page 30, we find this—

They want civilised labour to include all races. They want equality of white and black. So one can go on and on. They put forward all sorts of claims for equality. They want to be appointed on boards and commissions. But then they also come and ask for separation as between natives and coloured—exactly what the Nationalist Party stands for. Somebody, a certain Francis H. Gow has drafted a report about the Southwestern Districts in which he say this—

Here they state openly that coloured people and natives are living cheek by jowl under identical conditions. On Page 24, they further say in regard to an enquiry at Balfour and Seymour that the coloured people are treated in every respect like natives, and they complain that the coloured people are not allowed the same prices as the Europeans by the control boards. On Page 25 there is a sharp complaint against natives and coloured people being placed on a footing of equality. This is what they say—

There again they are advocating the separation of coloured people and natives, and it is interesting to notice what they say on Page 22 with regard to Defence; they advocate—

They want to have separation and they advocate this again on Page 23. And so we can go on. But I want to deal particularly with an allegation in the report on the subject of wages paid by farmers. On Page 14 they say that they have investigated the position at Port Nolloth, and that there is a famine there, and they go on to say—

I deny emphatically that that is all they are paid. And then they go on—

It is an infamous lie. Not a single farmer today pays a farm labourer or a shepherd less—if he has a family—than half a bag of meal and three slaughter ewes, in addition to the 10s. or £1 per month they get in wages. In addition to that they get tobacco, boots, clothes, water, fuel and a house. In the report they also speak about a fishing village, and they say that the men living there will perhaps earn something on 100 days in the year, and the rest of the time they earn nothing—on 265 days they earn nothing. I want to reply that people who are without work for 265 days don’t want to work. There is no part of the country where there is no shortage of labour and they can go there and get work. And then they talk about housing. Let me say what my personal experience has been. In a certain village in my constituency the District Surgeon took me to a house where two families were cooped up in one room 10ft. by 10ft. When I asked them how much they earned I was told that each of them earned £3 per month. So I asked them why they didn’t go to work on the farms where the farmers paid from £5 to £6 per month. And the reply was that they didn’t want to go there because the magistrate supplied them with food and their children lived on that and they tried to come out on the £3 per month. [Time limit.]

I want the Minister to give us some assurances in regard to mineworkers who have gone on active service. I want an assurance that these people will receive sympathetic treatment in regard to land which will be made available for settlement. Many of these men are Nature’s children who have gone to the mines to make a living. Now that they have been away for a few years many of them don’t want to return to the mines, and I want to know whether the Minister will treat them sympathetically in regard to the allocation of land. I also want an assurance that the two years’ limit in regard to reporting to the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau will not be insisted on as far as they are concerned. Many of them will not want to return to the mines, but there is the danger of their losing any claim to compensation. A number of them will no longer feel at home in the mines, underground; when they return they may roam about possibly for a few years and in that way they may lose all claim to compensation. I also want to ask whether the Minister will consider the cases of men who have contracted asthma up North, and whether he will treat them in the same way as Miners’ Phthisis sufferers, and have them certified as such. If that is not done many of them will lose all claim to compensation and they will have to be satisfied with a trivial military pension. And then there is the question of the re-employment of miners. Will the Minister see to it that the promises made to these people that they will be taken on again in their work on their return at the same pay as they had before going on active service will be carried out? Will the Minister also see to it that the principle of one man one job in the mines, the principle which we, as Trade Unions, surrendered for the sake of the war is restored? Will the Minister see to it that the ratio of natives to European workers is maintained as before the war? When there are surface positions to which women were appointed during the war in the place of men, will the ratio which existed before the war be re-introduced? I understand that the heads of certain departments in the mining industry have already received notice to reorganise in such a manner that a number of the women are to be retained even when the men return. It is held that they can easily be moved to other places. It would be a grave injustice to the men who were prepared to make sacrifices and to join up. Will the Minister also see to it that the men are paid the increases which they would have got if they hadn’t gone on active service—the increases which those men have got who have stayed at home? Those are questions of vital importance to a lot of people in the mining industry and I want the Minister to give us a definite reply. I do not propose taking up the time of the House, but I would like to have a reply to these questions.

I should like to clear out of the way some of the matters dealt with. The hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) has raised certain points, some of which are more appropriate to the vote of the Minister of Mines, but I shall enquire into the matters he has raised insofar as demobilisation is concerned. The general principle which the Government is trying to apply is that a volunteer who returns should not be prejudiced by reason of the fact that he was away on active service for some years. We are making provision for that, so far as our public and railway service is concerned, and we shall try, so far as possible, to induce private interests to follow the same principle. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has asked for some information in regard to the school feeding scheme. The scheme is in operation in all the four Provinces at present. From the 11th April all Government and Government-aided, European, coloured and native schools in the Cape Province, became eligible for participation in this scheme. It is too early as yet to be able to state the number of schools in which the feeding scheme is operating as far as the Cape is concerned. In the Transvaal, the feeding of European, coloured and Indian children in Government schools has been in operation since the 12th October, 1943. After a number of protracted negotiations the Transvaal Province agreed on the 11th April last to extend the school feeding scheme to native children in primary schools. In Natal the scheme has been in operation for children of all races since the 25th January, 1944, and in the Orange Free State the scheme has been in operation since the 1st March, with the exception of native children. That point is still outstanding. I am hoping that we will settle the matter with the Orange Free State at an early date. We have succeeded in doing so as far as the Transvaal is concerned, and I hope we shall be able to come to the same satisfactory arrangement in regard to native children in the Orange Free State. While we are discussing this question, I would like to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). The hon. member made the statement that so far as the food schemes sponsored by the Department of Social Welfare were concerned, their area of jurisdiction was limited to the ballot box. I do not think that statement was worthy of the hon. member’s usual high standard in this House.

I said in practice.

That statement, even if it refers to the practice, is not worthy of the hon. member’s usual standard in this House. This school feeding scheme, on which we are going to spend £700,000 this year, applies in three of the Provinces to natives as well as to other races. We are going to pay the money from the money given to us by the Treasury. There is no limitation in regard to the ballot box there. As far as citrus and deciduous fruit are concerned, the sales which have been made available to the lower income groups have been available to all. Admittedly, so far those sales have been confined to the urban areas, but they have been available to all. We have not yet been able to extend the schemes to the Transkeian and other native territories, but nor have we been able to extend these schemes to other areas where coloureds and Europeans live. Last year we received sudden notice from the Citrus Board that there were 30,000 pockets of oranges available at Port Elizabeth. They were perfectly good, but they were not suitable for export. We stepped in at once and at a moment’s notice we made those 30,000 pockets available free for natives in the Port Elizabeth area. Only recently we received notice again that there were another 10,000 pockets available in Port Elizabeth, and we made them available for the natives in that area. So I think the suggestion is not worthy of the hon. member.

I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has asked me whether we propose to proceed with the Work Colony’s Bill. It is not the intention of the Government to proceed with the Work Colony’s Bill during this Session. The Bill effects what we hope will be a number of improvements in the Work Colony system. It makes provision, inter alia, for a system of classification of the inmates in a work colony. I know that there are a number of interested persons who are anxious to examine the Bill. They will have that opportunity during the recess, and if necessary, the Bill can be sent to a select committee before second reading at the next Session of Parliament. I shall follow up the hon. member’s suggestion that we should have a series of broadcasts in regard to food schemes which are available to the people. I think there is a good deal to be said for that. We have to do a great deal in the way of health propaganda and propaganda by way of broadcasts may serve a very useful purpose. The hon. member for Cape Eastern also referred to a recommendation of the Economic and Social Planning Council that the Government should subsidise maize to natives in the territories to the extent of £1,000,000. That suggestion was examined by a special committee appointed by the Government, and the committee unanimously came to the conclusion that a practicable scheme could not be worked out along the lines that the committee had thought, and the Secretary for Native Affairs was a party to that decision. It was felt that it was not practicable to work out a scheme other than by subsidising maize generally in order to prevent the present cost from rising. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) has given the committee the benefit of some very valuable advice in regard to cripples. The care of cripples, so far as hospital services are concerned, is at the present time of course a function and responsibility of the Provincial Administrations. The National Council for the Care of Cripples only came into being recently. It is a new service and we have accordingly only now come to light with a contribution towards the funds of that particular Council. That is why this amount of £200 is on the estimates this year. We also subsidise the wages of one Social Welfare worker in connection with cripples. If the National Council makes further approaches to the Department, we shall be able to go into their request in the light of the circumstances. It should also be pointed out that cripples are, of course, eligible, if their circumstances justify it, for invalidity grants which are made by the Department of Social Welfare. But I am glad the hon. member has raised the matter, and his suggestions will be gone into in due course by the Department. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) has raised the question of Mr. Pretorius, who was the Superintendent of the Swartfontein Work Colony. Mr. Pretorius had his contract terminated at a time when I was not yet in charge of the Department of Social Welfare. But it is quite clear from the papers that were placed before me, when this matter was brought to my notice, that the Department had grounds upon which to act. So far as I am concerned the matter has been dealt with; it is res judicata. A former member of the Advisory Board of the Swartfontein Work Colony raised the matter with me and I have let him have a summary of the allegations by the Department, and have told him that I am perfectly prepared to discuss the matter with him when I visit Swartfontein, as I hope to do, at the end of the Session. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth has asked me whether the demobilisation plan will be applicable to men already discharged. The answer is yes, if their circumstances justify it. The gratuity, in any case, will be applicable to all men already discharged, and those who have not yet been properly reinstated into civil life will be able to approach the Director of Demobilisation and to have their cases gone into. I know that there was considerable difficulty at Port Elizabeth in regard to men who lost their employment through no fault of their own. These cases will now have to be gone into in the light of the recommendations of the ad hoc committee, which have been accepted by the Government. We now have the means of taking them back to dispersal depots; there may be other cases where we will be justified in paying reduced allowances for the time being, but all those cases will be gone into by the Department.

Reference has been made to the subsidisation of foodstuffs for the lower income groups, but I am afraid that the whole effort of the Government in that direction is going to be frustrated. I would like to invite the Minister’s attention to a statement on the marketing of the present crop of mealies by the Mealie Industry Control Board. This statement was issued last Thursday. In the course of this statement it is said—

I would like to ask every member of this House whether he has ever heard of a more outrageous, a more barefaced or rottener swindle than this? In the one breath these people are saying that they are not increasing the price of these foodstuffs to the lower income groups—and the price is high enough in all conscience and beyond the capacity of the lower income groups to pay—and then they come along and say that only five per cent. of the bran is to be extracted in future. That simply means that you are going to sell mealie meal in the future which is deficient as compared with the ordinary mealie meal, and you are giving the native less for his money now than he got before. Who is going to get the difference in value between the new mealie meal and the old mealie meal? Certainly not the native, certainly not the consumer. Who is going to get it? I say the producer is going to get it; if not the producer, then the miller, and I say it has got to be stopped. It is a swindle of the worst form.

There is one question which has already been discussed, and with which I find it very difficult to associate myself, and that is the system of school feeding which the Government has now put into operation. The question has been asked : What has been done in the Free State? I can tell the Minister that my impression of the Free State’s attitude is that the policy is entirely wrong. Already we have this position that family life is being broken up more and more and that the parents’ sense of responsibility is being made weaker and weaker. The parents are beginning to look at the school as the only institution to educate the child, to the Church as the only institution responsible for the child’s religion and now the State comes in to feed the child at school. In that way you are destroying the sound principle of family life and of the responsibility of the family, and the principle that the child should receive that which is good in his own home. The child should not be made to feel that he will get better things elsewhere than in his own home. He should feel that this home is the place where he is happy; that that is the place where he must get his food, where he must receive his education and his religion, and the system which we are now following is destroying that, and I can assure the Minister that many of our people are entirely opposed to it. And they are also opposed to the idea of all children having to get a meal at school. It should be the responsibility of the State to look after the needy. I cannot understand why the State cannot see to it that a District Surgeon or a Medical Inspector of Schools should determine which children at school are suffering from malnutrition; which of them are not getting enough food at their homes. And then the Government must leave it in the hands of the parents, or in the hands of charitable institutions to attend to the feeding of the children at their homes. We have our school hostels—the Government can assist there too. Let me just mention one instance of the difficulties in which the school hostels are placed. The Government has laid down a war allowance for servants in the hostels. Let me take an average hostel in the Free State. I have one case in mind where the war allowance is no less than £130 per year. This is over and above the ordinary increases of cost of living allowances which such a hostel has to pay. The result is that that hostel is almost forced to turn away the children. I don’t say it is doing so but it is forced to pinch and scrape and to keep the children short, while at the same time the Government presents the Chamber of Mines and other big enterprises with £2,000,000 in connection with the increase in native wages. Here we have a hostel which needs much more help. All this extra expenditure comes out of the hostel funds. The Government should see to it that these hostels are paid a grant to enable them properly to look after the children. I should rather see the Minister pay these hostels an allowance or a grant to assist them to pay these war allowances so as to make it easier for them to educate the children. It is a very fine thing, and one appreciates the fact that the Government wants to see to it that the children are not underfed, but in actual fact the school committee is experiencing the greatest difficulty in obtaining the necessary labour and in establishing the necessary organisation and in keeping that organisation going to feed the children at school. I don’t know whether the Minister is going to tell me that he has found this scheme to be a success so far. I cannot judge. We are only starting in the Free State. But I can tell the Minister that there is dissatisfaction because in their opinion this matter is not being properly tackled. They feel that it has been tackled in the wrong way—I assume with the best intentions in the world. I want to ask the Minister to consider going into this system with his Department to see whether a better system cannot be devised to counteract underfeeding. The school is not a place for the children to be fed. The child must be fed at home, and he should only get his ordinary in-between meals at school. Perhaps the Government could give the child raisins or something like that at school. The view I am expressing is a view held throughout this country and it is held very strongly hy parents and school committees and by responsible individuals, and I want the Minister to give the matter his serious consideration.

I know that the hon. Minister has on many occasions clashed with the Cape Town City Council. I must say that as far as I am concerned my sympathy has been with the Minister. I think it is about time this House took notice of what is happening not so very far from where this House is situated at the present moment. Cape Town, the Mother City of South Africa, the oldest city of South Africa, the legislative capital of the Union, is treating its people here worse than any town in South Africa, and probably worse than any town in the world. There are a trinity of social evils here—bad housing, disease and death and ignorance and not 5 per cent. of the coloured people are decently housed. Quite a large number of the Afrikaans people who have been driven from the platteland to the city are living in appalling housing conditions. It is time this House expressed its disapproval of what this City Council is doing in regard to social services.

You mean what it is not doing.

There are 16,000 coloured families in Cape Town living in one room. That also applies to Afrikaans-speaking people who have been herded in alongside the coloureds, and there I agree with my friends of the Opposition that it is not right that these people should come from the platteland and be herded in alongside the coloured people. I find that the incidence of tuberculosis is so high that 4.85 per cent. of deaths are due to tuberculosis. I think it is higher than it is in England.

Much higher.

I am not blaming the Minister’s Department for it. I have every sympathy with the Minister’s Department and the departmental officials. I know they are doing their best. I am blaming this particular City Council. And I would like this thing to be known throughout South Africa because this is the oldest Town Council in South Africa and they are setting no example to the other places. Mr. Justice de Beer, coming down from the Free State, where they do these things properly, said from the Bench that the position was intolerable, and that is why we are getting all this crime. We have always heard that a race marches forward on the feet of its little children. In Cape Town it is marching to the cemetery. The death rate among the children is extremely high. Does this House recognise whether you are procoloured or not; there is no one in this House who is anti-coloured; our friends on the other side may be opposed to them in certain respects but they are not anticoloured; the Leader of the Opposition is not anti-coloured; my friends of the Opposition want to give the coloured people their rights—does this country recognise that the fact is that 58 per cent. of the coloured people die before they are 25 years of age? The churches, the Dutch Reformed Church and everyone else, is throwing this on us. What are we going to say to the world? What is the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister going to say on the other side when he is confronted with this; what is he going to say when he is confronted by the Americans with this position? 58 per cent. of the coloured people die before they reach the age of 25 years! The fault lies with the Cape Town City Council. I have here before me a copy of the Social Survey of the underworld which was made by the churches of Cape Town, and they say in an official statement that the deaths from pulmonary infectious tuberculosis have increased by 30 per cent. in the last six years, and whereas in 1938 five non-Europeans died from it—for every European—the proportion is now nearly ten to one. The deaths from all forms of tuberculosis for the last year ending 30th June last amounted to 1,128. The recent increase in the nonEuropean deaths, amongst Afrikaansspeaking people too, is accounted for by bad housing and other social conditions in Cape Town. The position is absolutely scandalous. I am not going to keep the House because I know it is Saturday afternoon and my friends do not want to be kept here. But I am making this protest against these bad housing conditions and ignorance and disease which is being allowed to go on by the City Council of Cape Town. I say this House must take notice of it, and I say they must hold up the arms of this young Minister. I can tell the story of Cape Town, as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) also can, how many years ago some of us were taken through the slum districts by Bishop Lavis. We saw the most terrible things and nothing has been done. The Government has given them a lot of money but they have done very little with it. They have had the money, but they have not used it, and I am beginning to wonder if this is the right place to have the Parliament of South Africa. Within a stone’s throw from this building you have some of the worst slums in South Africa. This is the show window, it is the tavern of the seas. We show the people who come here this House and the good-looking members in it, but one of these days, we will show them the slums. I say they are a disgrace to this House and to the country.

We have now discussed demobilisation and social welfare. I merely want to mention one evil and I want to ask the Minister to give this his serious attention. I am referring to the evil of drunkenness among our soldiers.

Drunkenness everywhere.

Yes, I should like to stop it wherever I could.

Which Vote is the hon. member speaking on now?

I am speaking on Demobilisation and Social Welfare.

Which item?

Representations have been made to me by a number of wives and mothers whose husbands or sons are in the army and they have told me that they are very worried about the way in which the drink evil among our soldiers is increasing. As we are on the eve of demobilisation I want to ask the Minister most urgently to see to it that while these men are in the army, drunkenness is prevented. I want to ask the Minister to use his influence in that connection. The mothers of the young men who are in the army …

I’m afraid that that does not come under this Vote.

If the soldier is still in the army then it comes under Defence.

I now come to the question of demobilisation. What I want to say is this, that as soon as a soldier is demobilised, he comes under a different section. I am only mentioning this to come to the question of drunkenness. What is particularly alarming the women is that more than one of these men has degenerated in consequence of drunkenness. They are afraid that the soldiers, once they are demobilised, will get out of hand and that is why I am raising this question now, as the welfare of our people and the welfare of our children are at stake. We must see to it that families are not broken up, and as this evil is seriously on the increase, the mothers and the wives are afraid that the soldiers, immediately they leave the army will start drinking and that evils may result which we shall not be able to contend with. This has become a serious problem in this country. I just want to say that I am not treating this question frivolously. It is a very serious question as far as I am concerned, and that is why I have raised it at the request of wives and mothers whose husbands and children are in the army. I am convinced, that having brought it to the notice of the Minister, he will induce the Minister of Defence to counteract drunkenness, an evil which is demoralising our people. We know that there is a so-called sporting spirit among those people who drink to excess, and that is why the mothers and wives feel that their sons and husbands may be dragged into all sorts of things which may give rise to crime and which may eventually lead to murder, such as recently occurred in Durban.

The hon. member should not pursue that subject.

In conclusion I want to appeal to the Minister to give this matter his serious attention.

Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak but under these absolutely outrageous attacks on Cape Town you could not expect a member for be City to remain silent. These exaggerated statements …

It is true.

The hon. member’s comments were exaggerated but his figures were not exaggerated.

[Inaudible.]

I did not interrupt the hon. member when he was making that absurd attack on the Mother City. Are there no slums in Johannesburg? I am making no attack on Johannesburg, but are there no slums in Johannesburg or in Pretoria? It is no good the hon. member coming here and talking about Cape Town in that way and blaming the City Council as being responsible for the conditions. His figures are all right, when he sticks to the figures regarding the incidence of deaths and disease among the coloured population. No one deplores that more than I do, and no one deplores it more than the City Council.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is only interested in talking himself, he won’t listen to anybody else. I am addressing myself to the House, and I say that if we take the amounts spent by the City Council upon its Health Department, you will find there is only one municipality in the Union that beats it. My friend the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) says that the amount is £215,000; and that has nothing to do with the ordinary work of the City Council, that goes far beyond the work of the City Council in providing clinics for European and non-European, pre-natal treatment for mothers, the cure and prevention of tuberculosis, about which the Minister has taken them to task. They are doing what they can for all kinds of diseases, including V.D., they have a first-rate medical department and competent medical men, which very few municipalities have today. The City Council estimates for 1944 showed under Public Health the following two items : Health and Hospitals £316,674; Housing and Slum Clearance £163,782. Total £480,456. The fact of the matter is the hon. member could have included this House in the general condemnation. This is a national question, and not a question alone for the municipalities to tackle. So far as Cape Town is concerned, the Council has tackled it indeed beyond the strength of the ratepayers; the City has had to have a very high rate to meet what should really be national expenditure. The hon. member talks of the slums he saw 24 years ago, but he forgets that most of these have been eliminated. If he were to go through the same areas as he went through 24 years ago, he would find a large number of sub-economic housing schemes right in the heart of that very slum area. There today people have their own little tenements which are quite different to the position which existed 24 years ago. Admittedly more could be done, admittedly the high death rate is a deplorable thing to contemplate, but we are all responsible for it, and not the City Council alone, the hon. member as much as anybody else. You do not get rid of these evils by talking, but I will say this, that if the hon. member confined himself to figures and showed that they were appalling not only in Cape Town but in Johannesburg, Durban and Pretoria, all the big places, I would have been with him. But when he singles out one municipality and then proceeds with that absurd threat that I have been listening to since 1910, the threat of removing the capital, that leaves one quite cold, and I have no doubt that it will leave everybody outside the town quite cold. Let us get down to the facts, and the facts are that the incidence of disease in Souh Africa is too high both for European and non-European, that housing conditions are deplorable not in Cape Town only but throughout the country. There are not enough houses and slum conditions are deplorable right through the country, Cape Town included. If the hon. member had proceded on these lines, I would have supported him, but I cannot support him when he exaggerates and puts all the blame upon Cape Town, which has been especially progressive in the very things that he mentions. They have used the money the Government granted them, and they are still using it. If the hon. member will help me and others to improve matters in the big centres, and not try to cast the blame in one quarter, he will get very much more support.

Mr. Chairman, in the housing scheme it is stipulated that not more than one-fifth of an individual’s wage shall be charged for rent. That being so, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to what is being done by Iscor Housing Utility Company. As the Minister may know, Iscor supplied the funds for building houses, and the municipality the ground for the reason that the Pretoria Municipality was prepared to throw open its sub-economic housing scheme to Iscor employees. I maintain that Iscor in going in for this housing scheme, did so to improve the conditions of service of its employees, and between 300 and 400 houses were built. In 1938 the tenants were charged £7 per month rent; in 1941 that was reduced to £6 12s. 6d., and in 1943 as the result to the Rent Roard and its allowance of 2 per cent. for depreciation on a life of 50 years, the rents were increased to £8 5s., an increase of £1 12s. 6d. I maintain that as this Utility Company is a non-profit making concern, the matter needs investigation, because after eleven years the capital cost of these houses will be written off and thereafter the income will be used merely to lower administrative and maintenance costs. I suppose, Sir, this is what one might call a semi-government concern, because a tremendous amount of Government capital is invested in it. If the correct sub-economic rent should be no more than one-fifth of the tenant’s income, this charge being at least a third of the substantive earnings of the individual, is excessive. I would also ask the Minister to investigate why Iscor, having been given the exclusive trading rights there, have not yet introduced any shops in that area? The township is at least three miles from the town, and this is a tremendous hardship to the community there. I appeal to the Minister to have some investigation made.

I listened very carefully this morning to the Minister and I made a few notes about his colour policy. He said this among other things : “We do not stand for a policy of social equality.” He quoted from a speech by the Prime Minister and said they stood for “parallel social development”. He further said that they didn’t stand for a mixed society. Now I want to take the Minister back to a speech which he made at the Wanderers in Johannesburg on 7th November, 1943. The report of his speech reads as follows, and I shall read it in English to compare it with the words which the Minister used here today—

You don’t understand what I said there.

I understand it very well. It was a sports meeting of children in Johannesburg. There were Europeans, coloured children and natives there.

Yes, but the various sporting events were kept separate.

The Minister spoke there of “irrespective of colour and creed”. I was wondering today whether he has a sort of dual personality in connection with this matter.

I am perfectly consistent.

Or is it a question of making one speech in the North and another one here in the Western Province; one policy for the North and another one for the South?

I don’t turn any somersaults.

If words mean anything, then that is what the Minister has done. In the North he says one thing, and in the South he says something different. In Parliament he says one thing, and outside Parliament he says something different. I want to protest most emphatically against that sort of speech which the Minister made in the North. In the North we have not yet got the mixed position so far as colour is concerned, which we have here in the South. If one is in Cape Town one always feels as though one were in a location. You travel alongside coloured people in the buses, they knock you off the sidewalks, and if you go to Maitland and those places, there is hardly room for a white man in the railway carriages. We don’t want that sort of thing in the North. And these sorts of speeches go in that direction. They certainly do no good, particularly to our children. Is it the Minister’s intention to send our schools in that direction? He spoke about Provincial Councils and local bodies. By local bodies he apparently means Town Councils, School Boards and School Committees, and he says that if they do their duty there will be no colour bar. The implication is perfectly clear. We want to point out to the Minister that these things do no good. Then there is something else. The Minister made a serious allegation in regard to the football position here in Cape Town. I want to point out to him that so far as football is concerned it is a case of sport, and we feel that we must take part in sport for the sake of the sport itself. We don’t want to drag politics into sport, nor do we want to drag politics into our schools. The Minister talked about a boycott. This is not a question of a boycott. We go to the place where we get the best value for our money. At the moment we go to Bellville where better football is played than at Newlands—I won’t say than used to be played at Newlands. If we go to the races, we go to the place where they have the best races, and the same thing applies to dog races. We also select the best bioscopes, and the same applies to football. I want to conclude on a better note. On behalf of Christiana I want to thank the Minister for the fine spirit in which he acted there in connection with the relief which was needed on account of the floods. We want to thank him sincerely for his immediate and active interference. When I left there a few houses had already arrived by rail, and I hope that this matter will be expedited. Winter is coming and if we can’t get those houses finished before the winter is there, the position will be very serious. There are old people there who cannot stand the cold and we hope the Minister will expedite matters. I have a question on the Order Paper in regard to the fees which these people are to be charged and I hope to get a reply next week.

I do not want to repeat the things that have been said about Johannesburg by the hon. members for Jeppes and Roodepoort. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has accused Cape Town of having very bad slums and the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) has accused Johannesburg of having worse slums; I do not know which is the worst, but I do know that they are both bad enough. We know that the Minister is anxious to give us housing, but at the very best the carrying out of any building scheme under the present conditions can only be a very slow process. In the meantime we feel in Johannesburg that there is a lot which could be done as regards health, and if we could have a few more social welfare workers to teach those poor people hygiene and housekeeping and how to make use of the houses that they have, a lot can be done in that way, and we would like a little more money for that. When I tell you that we have poor people in the urban areas of the Union, 13,000 of whom are not earning over £50 a year, some idea of the position may be gathered. There are 22,000 not earning over £100 a year, and 31,000 who are not earning more than £150 a year. When you consider this you will see the dire necessity that those people should get not only housing relief but other relief as well. We cannot build houses for them quick enough. We feel that we can do a bit towards relieving poverty and disease if we have some social workers to go round and instruct these poor folks how to keep a house. We have established in Johannesburg a work centre where recipients of poor relief are given work. We learn them to make their own clothes and other articles, thereby helping to augment the small relief that they get, and we also teach them to earn a little bit besides that. We would like to increase what we are doing in that direction. We also have established play centres in Mayfair and Jeppes for children, and in the Mayfair centre there are some 300 names on the waiting list to get in. We would like to extend that work. We have also locations round about Johannesburg, and there I would like to see a few play centres. Many other useful matters have been carried out by the Social Welfare Department and are now in practice. Particularly the promotion of very good facilities for soldiers and ex-servicemen. Our director, Mr. Murray, is the co-ordinating head for the soldiers’ hostel and has the work at heart. We want to take the native youths off trie streets. We have been trying to do this, and the Native Affairs Department have built a large workshop and hall and a school all in one. The native youths have built this under instruction of a native teacher; we have taught them how to make furniture and to lay bricks and how to grow vegetables and other useful work. We are doing these things, and we would like to do more, and I would appeal to the Minister if he can see his way to give an increased subsidy to the Johannesburg welfare centre.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. member for Port Elizabeth raised an important matter, and that is the unfair effect of restricting the gratuities to women soldiers who have not purchased their discharge. The original design of the scheme for the purchase of discharges by women soldiers was to discourage discharges for frivolous or vexatious reasons, but I do not think we should carry this into the field of gratuities, as a form of victimisation. We know that no gratuity is going to be payable to anybody who has served in the army less than six months, but one comes across numbers of cases in which women have served three times that period, who are now going to be prevented from getting any gratuity whatsoever because of the simple fact that they bought their discharge. In many cases the reason for buying their discharge was a perfectly good one—in some cases a mother was ill, in other cases there were other reasons that made it absolutely imperative that the women should return to their homes. My hon. friend over here says in some cases they got married. I do not think the crime of getting married ought to be penalised by way of withdrawing the gratuity. I hope the Minister will reflect upon these facts, because the penalties for discharge were very harsh in some cases. Discharges before the 4th of April, 1941, were subject to payment of £15 if the discharge was in the first year, £10 in the second year, and £5 in the third year. These are heavy penalties, and a little return of those penalties in the way of gratuity would be very acceptable, I am sure, to these people who gave good service while in the army, but were obliged for good reason to take their discharge. This penalty does not attach to the man soldier.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has made an attack on Cape Town. If he attacks Cape Town he attacks the Cape Province, and we want to protest most emphatically against what he says. The tuberculosis sufferers in the Union are not the liability of the municipalities as such. The tuberculosis sufferers in the Union, and tuberculosis in the Union, constitute a national question. I feel we must look upon tuberculosis as a national affair and as such we should place it by means of legislation in all its branches under the State, and we must look for a solution of it in that way. I also want to express my agreement with the hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) that it is not fair for this insinuation to be made against Cape Town as if Cape Town alone has been neglectful in regard to tuberculosis sufferers. We find it throughout the country, in the Transvaal and even in Rhodesia. I readily agree that it is a very serious matter and that the Government and the Minister must take serious steps to ensure that all that is necessary is done to combat tuberculosis and to find a solution for this grave danger and threat to the population. Let me say that an officer came to the Ebenezer Mission Station in the Namaqualand constituency, to recruit coloured men; 110 offered their services, and of those only 8 were found medically fit. I made enquiries into the reasons why the others were turned down. They suffered from all kinds of diseases, but I was told that without exception they were turned down because they had T.B.

The hon. member can raise this under Public Health.

I mention this to prove that this insinuation is undeserved. So far as the non-European problem is concerned it is undoubtedly one of the greatest problems in the country and I want to say on behalf of this side of the House that we certainly feel exactly as the other side does. We are anxious to have steps taken to do the best for the non-Europeans. We know that they are indispensable in connection with our activities throughout this country.

Is that the reason?

Yes, we have to look after their welfare and their livelihood.

Because they are indispensable to you in your work?

The towns can no less do without them than we can.

Onward Christian soldiers !

Our coloured people are being exploited by certain groups. They are being exploited in a most unfair manner by certain unscrupulous people. Our coloured people are very susceptible to the so-called “slim-sleg” (sharp) type of white man. The coloured man is disposed to take notice of him. For instance he’ll take much less notice of a professor than of that poor type of white man, and in that way he gets under the influence of the poor class of white man and he is exploited. He imitates the white man and is exploited in a most scandalous way. Look at rents in the towns, and see the miserable little hovels in which they have to stay. These are things which the Minister should tackle—the exploitation of the coloured people. One even gets it at the Mission Stations. I am talking of what I have seen for myself. You get the trader there, and the coloured man works his bit of land for the benefit of the trader. All he has, his cattle and everything, belongs to the trader and he is exploited most scandalously. It is not the farmers who do it. A coloured man who works for a farmer gets all he needs. The farmer looks after his food, and he feeds his coloured people well, but what is the position at the stations? We call them starvation stations, because the coloured people are exploited there in the most scandalous way by the traders. The time has arrived for us to tackle this coloured question seriously. The salvation of the coloured man lies in his being separated. The coloured man has to work out his own salvation. He cannot compete with the white man. The coloured man has no hope of achieving his ambitions side by side with the white man, but he can do so if he is by himself. On the Cape Flats one comes across nice little coloured villages where they have schools and where a lot is done for the coloured people. Why cannot this be extended? Give the coloured man his own hospitals and his own shops Prohibit any one but coloured people from doing business in those coloured villages, give the coloured man his own magistrate and his own police and let coloured people serve them in the Post Offices. Give them their own judges, and all the amenities which the whites have but let them have those separately. What is the coloured man’s grievance? His grievance is that he always has to submit to the white man. He is brought before a white magistrate, he is arrested by a white constable, he has to get his letters in the Post Office from a white man. What difference would it make to the State If coloured men were employed to attend to coloured people in their own areas? Why should we have coloured doctors in European hospitals? Why should we not have special hospitals where coloured doctors would have the chance of attending to their own people? We must look for the solution in separation. [Time limit.]

I just want to touch on a few points; I know the time is short and I just want to put a few questions. In the first place I want to ask for the rural housing scheme to be put into operation again. I just want to say that in the area from which I come it has had excellent results as far as the rural population is concerned. Then as regards the underfeeding of children I want to point out that the great problem is with regard to the very small children who do not go to school yet but who are at home. By the time they go to school they are underfed and are only half of what they should be. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should give the parents of small children the opportunity, when fruit is sent to the school, to buy at the depot where the fruit is distributed; they will have to pay for this fruit out of their own pockets, but at the reduced price at which the school can sell it. If that is done, the small children will not be suffering from malnutrition by the time they go to school. A third point I want to raise is that transport facilities should be provided for the women, officials of the department, who are doing excellent work in instructing the mothers when they do not know how to feed their children, or in preparing those women before the birth of their children. I want to urge the necessity of proper transport facilities being provided.

I feel quite sure that the honourable and kindly member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) will not thank my hon. friend on the other side (Lt.-Col. Booysen) with his rather Pecksniffian cant, taking the same line as he does. It is a somewhat extraordinary alliance between the hon. member for Namaqualand and the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle), but even in this House extremes meet to defend the salubrious slums of Cape Town. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle), made a rather hasty charge against me when he said I was extreme in what I said. Well, the reformer is always extreme. And the hon. member has been a reformer all his life. I quoted from this book I have here, “Cape Town’s Underworld”. On it you’ll find: “To Mr. Barlow, with compliments from the Right Rev. S. W. Lavis, Coadjutor Bishop of Cape Town.” Just let me quote from it again—

Yes, Moses and the Prophets. I suppose that is the Phophet— the hon. member for Namaqualand.

On what item is the hon. member speaking now?

I am referring to the question of social reform in Cape Town which the Minister has been endeavouring to get right for a long time and he has been stopped by the Cape Town City Council.

What about other Councils?

I have nothing to do with other councils at the moment. Johannesburg is not so bad as people say, but I am interested in what is happening here, and I have been asked by a large number of influential people to bring this question before the country— to judge. And when the hon. member says it is not true ….

I didn’t say it is not true; I said you are blaming the wrong people.

But here they say: “Who is responsible for this but the Municipality of Cape Town”. And the hon. member said: “Yes, we have moved Wells Square”. Well, this is what was said to the Cape Peninsula Church Council: in speaking about the reclamation of the Slums Area : That 54 evicted families were rehoused and the remaining 150 families were left to find shelter in some slum as filthy as the place from which they were ejected. In Johannesburg they first find homes before they break down places, but here in Cape Town they eject people first and put them into worse slums than they were before. And that is what we are fighting. The “Cape Times”, a newspaper not unknown in Cape Town, made this remark under the heading of “Crime Hatchery”— it spoke of the startling revelations in a recent criminal case where six families were housed in three rooms, one of which was a kitchen, and we have absolute proof from the Church and from the newspapers that these conditions prevail. Now the Cape Town City Council has not done its job. The Government gave them the money but they would not spend it. The commercial people were called upon to pay a decent wage, and they fought the decent wage, and right through they cannot be congratulated on being representatives of the Legislative Capital. My hon. friend says if you attack Cape Town you attack the whole of Kaapland. Well, I don’t know how he can blame Namaqualand for the position here, but let me tell him this, next time I shall talk about his constituency. I want him to read “Libertas” about his constituency and I want to ask him that why instead of giving £1,000 to a pseudo-Republican movement, he did not give it to the poor.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he has any scale in connection with the distribution of food to the poorer sections of our people who apply for rations?

Yes.

Then I think he should increase it a little. I have received various complaints in my constituency. I received a complaint from a man and his wife and five children. The quantity of food which is given to them per week does not seem to be at all sufficient to keep the family alive. I think the Minister should review the scale. Then I think the state should also make some plan to assist the poor and sickly people in connection with rentals. The church can no longer do it. The church assists as much as possible, but the money which is available is not enough. There are certain cases where the people get rations on which they are able to live, but if the church or some other charitable institution does not give these people financial assistance in respect of rent, many of them will later on find themselves without a home and with very little food. I should like the Minister to look into this. I am referring to deserving cases. Then I want to revert to the question of semi-fit people. When a man’s arm is off, he cannot plough and dig and farm With only one arm, and there is no work for him on the platteland. In the cities the position is different. There they may become lift attendants and night watchmen, and there are certain avenues of employment for them. I have in mind one specific case in my constituency. A young man lost his arm. He is poor and his family is poor. I think his parents are in receipt of an old age pension. He cannot obtain employment in the constituency because he has only one arm. I tried to obtain employment for him through the Department of Labour but did not succeed. Today he is living with his parents. I told him to go and see the magistrate, but he got no assistance for that quarter. Some years ago the Minister of Finance introduced a Bill in connection with semi-fit people. I was very gratified, because it is the young men more particularly who are semi-fit, who suffer hardship. Usually they have a wife and children, which is not the case with older people who are unfit. These young men cannot obtain employment. The municipalities, divisional councils and other local authorities try to evade their duty and in the end the wife and children suffer. I shall be glad if this Bill can be reintroduced, because at the time of its introduction, it must surely have had the approval of the Cabinet. The position of semi-fit people on the platteland is very critical. It is also very difficult to determine which people are semi-fit, and which people are totally unfit. I have pleaded for this for years. I come into contact with the poor people in my constituency, and they ask for assistance. Where provision is made at all, the amount is so little that it does not meet the requirements of these people. If I can persuade the Minister to introduce this Bill again, I will at least have accomplished something. I think the Government should take this matter seriously. We are spending millions of pounds on welfare work; I am not objecting to that. But I think a great deal is being said and very little is being done. One hears of many schemes for returned soldiers. But what is actually being done? This morning I received a letter from a soldier who is at the Witwatersrand University at the moment. It is stated that for some reason or other he cannot get an allowance. I should not like to discuss the particulars on the floor of the House, because this young man comes from a respectable family, but the position is simply that he cannot get any assistance. I do not know just what the reason is. I interviewed the committee which makes the grants, but they refused to give any assistance. The parents are not well-to-do. They probably had to borrow money in order to enable their son to study. Because he first had some other plan, I believe, and has now changed his mind, the committee is not prepared to assist him. I think the boy’s first plan was not a good one. He would not have made any progress in that direction. I do not know why his application is being refused. I might be able to go to the Minister, but he would tell me that a committee has been appointed to advise him, and that that committee refused. I do not know whether the parents are able to let their son study further, but perhaps they will only be able to do so if they are able to borrow money somewhere. Then I notice an amount in respect of “guests, refugees and evacuees.” I should like to know what the position is. I believe the British Government pays the expenses. If that is so, what does this amount represent? There are approximately 5,000 Polish children in this country. Some of them are in Oudtshoorn. They are living under more acceptable conditions, as far as housing and food is concerned, than our poor people. It is stated that the Polish Government will pay the expenses. Have they paid anything up to the present?

Yes.

If so, what does this £900 represent? In my home town there are also a number of evacuee children from England. They are living under good conditions. I have no objection to the State giving assistance, but we should first look after our own children. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member over there said in connection with under-nourished mothers. Meals are being given to the children at school, but what is the use of that if the mother starves when the child is brought into the world? The child comes into the world under-nourished and abnormal. In other countries the mothers are taken care of. I should like to know whether the Minister has any plan to assist the poorer mothers during the time of pregnancy. One cannot expect healthy and normal babies to be born if the mothers starve. Finally, I want to say a few words in regard to the rations which are given to the less-privileged people in the form of cheap agricultural products. Take raisins. For years raisins have been provided cheaply to school children. The scheme has expanded rapidly. We often hear that there is a surplus raisin production. I say that is not so. There is underconsumption, not surplus production. Today they are distributing raisins to children who otherwise would never have got them. [Time limit.]

I want to make a few remarks under E. 5, “Inebriate Retreats.” I see here that £3,000 is allocated to this. By inebriate the scientist understands a man who is worse for the ingestion of alcoholic liquor and also drugs. I find that we have a home near Johannesburg called “Northlea,” for 60 European males. At Maritzburg we have another for 40 European females and at Zwartfontein we have a labour colony for the real down-and-outs with criminal records for 150 patients. We, in the medical world, know that there is very little we can do for the habitual drunkard. He is to all intents and purposes beyond the aid of science. And yet here we have accommodation for 100 Europeans, and 150 people who have sunk so far in the ladder of depravity that they so to say are beyond human aid. That is all we have. It is quite clear to us that these inebriates are not getting the proper treatment. No one wants them. No hospital will take them and no asylum will, except where it can be forced to do so by the law which we passed a few months ago. I wish also to point out that there is no such home for the non-European. The only home he knows when he imbibes too freely is the gaol. Of course it is one thing to lay before the House these facts but it is another thing to submit a reasonable statement to show what the conditions might be. I suggest that the Minister of Social Welfare might seriously consider the establishment of very fine up to date sanatoria—not one for the Union—but one for each province. These people can be treated only under those circumstances— under circumstances where everything for them is get-at-able, where the surroundings are pleasant, and they are spoken to kindly and led slowly while at the same time their minds are occupied. It is perfectly useless to lock up a man in a home and keep his mind unoccupied. You may say that this is a very costly thing, and there is a good percentage of people who would like to see the inebriate not wake up in the morning after a bout of drinking. But such treatment cannot be countenanced and in any case there is a slender hope of curing such people. The Minister may say that he hasn’t the money.

What percentage can be cured?

I can only answer that after we have given it a trial, but the percentage is not very big. There are medical people, specialists in this line and psychologists who will spend their whole time with these people and not merely visit them on request. I have no doubt that the Department of Social Welfare will favourably consider this. The Minister of Finance need not bother about finding money. I propose to show him the way to get a couple of millions a year from the people who are responsible for the aetiological factor which puts these people into the institutions. I suggest, that is to say, I propose to make the man pay to secure the welfare of the man whom he has ruined. A very small tax has been imposed upon liquor, and this can be increased. We know that the people who produce the liquor will not pay. The consumer as usual will pay. The consumer will be glad to nay when he knows that the money will go to relieve the distress amongst those whom liquor has ruined. Today a man has first to be arrested before he can be committed to detention. I think that state of affairs should be altered. At present we have no place to send these people, and I would like the Social Welfare Department to consider this point. The Minister of Finance can easily get the money in the way I have suggested.

I want to deal further with this report, and assure the Minister that I heartily support the recommendation in connection with the building of houses for servants on the farms. Under the housing scheme municipalities are enabled to build sub-economic houses, and the Coloured Advisory Commission now recommends that it should be extended to the farms. I should like to give my hearty support to that recommendation. Then there is another matter, namely the rations of paupers. It is a sound principle to see that no one starves. But where food is given to people who are fit and healthy and who are able to work, we have to be careful. The officials issue rations because they are concerned about the health. We do not want children to starve, whether their skins are white or black. But when we find that in such cases the father refuses to take up employment, I think steps should be taken to compel those people to work and not to rely entirely on the rations given by the magistrate. There are cases in my constituency where the people simply refuse to work. They want to be in town where they can readily obtain alcohol. The liquor evil is assuming disturbing proportions on the platteland. There are places where the town councils do not exercise proper control over the locations. Large numbers of unemployed people congregate in the locations and on Fridays and Saturdays the streets are packed with people who refuse to work. I think we will all admit that in South Africa it is not necessary for anyone who wants to work, to be without employment. In this connection I want to refer to a statement which appeared in the press a few days ago by Nurse Reynolds, of Port Nolloth. She deals with this report and states that if there are people who starve, it is because they are too lazy to work. I fully subscribe to that view. In South Africa no one need starve. There is enough work. The labour market is empty. These people could take up employment on the farms; they could work on irrigation works where private people would only be too keen to make use of their services. Where the magistrate finds it necessary in these parts to issue rations for the sake of the children, he should consider whether the father is capable of working.

I will not keep the House more than a couple of minutes, but I want to say that one has listened with some impatience to the discussion that has taken place today on these problems that the Department of Social Welfare is called upon to tackle. I know that the Minister and his department are doing the best they can under the circumstances, but we know that all these problems, are due to poverty which exists, and until such time as we decide definitely and the Parliament of this country decides that we are going to fight poverty and fix an economic floor below which no one shall fall, neither the Minister nor his department can succeed. Until such time as this evil of poverty is solved, all the money we spend can only afford temporary panaceas.

I am very grateful for what is being done for the poor and needy people. We are very grateful for the excellent work which is being done by the Department of Social Welfare. But up to the present that work has been patch-work; and the work in connection with the feeding of poor children at school, more particularly, is nothing but patchwork. Those children come under the school feeding scheme only when their health has already been impaired to a great extent, they are only fed when they go to school. From the time of their birth they are Undernourished until they go to school. We admit that there is undernourishment, and that the health of the children when they go to school has already been impaired. They are sub-normal children. They now receive a plate of food five days per week, but they are not given anything from Friday to Monday, or at any rate not the plate of food which they would have been given at school. The major work should begin in the homes of the parents before the birth of the children. The standard of living in the parental home should be improved; we should assist in that direction so that the parental home will be able to give such a standard to the child that it will be able to receive instruction at school as a normal child. The child could then be given normal education at school. I want to urge very strongly that the department should deal with the root cause; and in view of the present economic and social conditions, we must begin with the family at home. It is no use pruning the branches when the evil lies at the root of our national life. We must fix a definite standard and the department should see to it, in terms of that standard, that the family is built up. If we have to give food, we should give sufficient. We must not give bits and pieces to keep these people alive—too little to keep body and soul together, and yet too much to cause starvation. Let us give in such a wav that what we do give will not be in vain, but will have a beneficial effect. To give the children a small plate of food when they go to school, although the intention is good, and although the underlying motives are good, will not solve the problem. We also plead for the mothers and fathers— for the whole family. We must take care of the whole family, and not only of the children at school, so that when the child attends school, he will attend as a normal child and be able to receive education as a normal child.

I see that there is a subsidy here of £1,650 for settlements for semi-fit persons. I should like to have some information from the Minister as to how this money has been spent.

What item are you referring to?

If the Minister sits there and laughs and plays the fool when I talk, he must find that out for himself. I want in the first place to know, as I have said, how that money is being spent. There is a settlement at Groblersdal in the Transvaal and there is also one at Hereford, and I want to ask him what does he provide for these semi-fits?

Everything.

The Minister can tell me what the position is. Then I want to know whether he has built houses for these people and whether they have to pay rent. I further would like to know how the Minister is dealing with the crops that the people get. I want to know whether he takes possession of the whole crop. Then I want to bring to his notice a special scheme, and I want to ask the Minister whether he has any share in the Rhenosterkop scheme at Kakamas.

I have nothing to do with that.

Of course the Minister’s department has to do with that, because his department pays subsidies for 25 people on that settlement.

If you know that, why do you waste the time of the House by asking the question?

I would like to know from the Minister how it is paid. There are two Ministers affected by this matter. In regard to the Rhenosterkop scheme a contribution was given to the church to build 25 houses for old people, and I should like to know from the Minister whether his department required from the Labour Colony Commission that they should refund that money, and whether they should only pay the house rent, and whether he laid down any conditions to the Labour Colony Commission. At this stage I should like the Minister to say what his plans are in connection with the settlement at Hereford, and then I should also like to have information in connection with the scheme at Rhenosterkop which is under the supervision of the Church.

I did not want to take part in this discussion, but there is an important matter which is near my heart, and that is the position of charitable associations. This is a matter that has been discussed in the past, and it appears that the department has gone over to greater centralisation and that they are now distributing subsidies to various institutions. We know that in Johannesburg there is such a central council on which there are representatives of the various charitable institutions, and that they are given grants to enable them to continue their work. It has been urged from that quarter that there should be complete nationalisation of poor relief, and that the state should take over all the charitable institutions in the country. That would be a completely mistaken policy. I hope that the Minister wil take the opportunity to make a statement in this connection. We want to know whether it is the Government’s policy that charitable associations should disappear entirely from the scene, and whether they are going to take all poor relief under their wing. That has been suggested in the House.

No that would be a wrong system. We are co-operating with the associations.

I am glad to hear that from the Minister. The Minister should know that some of the charitable associations have already spent millions of pounds on charity. They have done very good work, and I should not like to see that work hampered now. I will not talk in the same manner as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) about the slums; sometimes he has a good case and then he spoils it by personalities and venom. I will, however, help him to make representations to the Minister over the position in the slums of Cape Town. Within a quarter of a mile of this hon. House we find the most appalling slums in District Six. I would suggest that the Minister should convene the town councils and indicate to them the sores that exist in the heart of the city, and their duty to remove these blots on our civilisation. We know what happens today. People who possess property in the various villages and towns are members of the town council, and they are opposed to the extention of proper housing. I will support the hon. member for Hospital 100 per cent. if he will take the field against the slum owners.

Mention their names.

The hon. member knows who they are.

No, I do not know who they are.

In every village and town there are numbers of them, and whatever nationality they belong to they must be compelled to evacuate those properties and to provide proper houses. But the Minister has taken another matter up, and that is in connection with the taking over of certain coloured mission stations and communal reserves, chiefly in the North West Cape. He has taken them over from the Department of Native Affairs, and I should like to have more information in connection with that matter. If there is one thing to be deplored in our administration, it is this overlapping which takes place between the various departments. If those mission reserves remain under one department, that department could view the matter as a whole, but now we find this overlapping. I consider that the Department of Lands has still to a certain extent to deal with this matter, and then the Department of Welfare has to deal with another aspect of it. I should like to know what the arrangements between the various departments are, and to what extent improvements have been effected in connection with these mission stations. Then there is also another matter in connection with building costs. The Minister knows that there are various urban housing plans under utility companies who are engaged in the improvement of housing conditions, especially in providing houses for the poorer section of the community.

I am sorry, but the hon. member will have to bring that matter up under the following vote.

It has been hurled at me that I made a contribution towards the republican funds. I did that and I am not sorry for it. I did that from personal conviction, but now the hon. member is again absent. He is a fugitive. I am proud to be a republican, and to make my contribution for this great and noble cause to which Afrikanerdom looks.

What item is the hon. member discussing?

I am just replying to what that hon. member said. If we have a republic it will be good for our health, because we will get rid of all the parasites and germs which batten on us and feed on us. I take an interest in the demobilisation of our soldiers. I appreciate the attitude of members on the other side and what they have done in this connection, in order to find a refuge for those who are in need. I was myself a soldier in the Boer War, and when we returned everything had been destroyed and ruined. The Boer commandos fought without wages, and they had to return to their farms without cattle and without possessions, without subsidies, without a pension and without anything. The dark night closed over us, and that is why I am so grateful that the Government is going to provide those people who are returning with a refuge. Although we do not approve of this war, although I shall be the last person to encourage a soldier to go to the war, when he returns from the war it is only Christian charity to care for him and his family. I know where they come from, and therefore I appreciate the attitude of the other side of the House. That is also our attitude on this side, that we shall show a willingness to accommodate the men who return from the war and their children. In this connection I want to make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of those Oudstryders whose position today is still gloomy, the lives of the group that remain are still darkened by worry and misery, and I should like the Minister to extend a hand to them.

Give another £1,000.

That is a matter for the Government. We are heavily taxed to raise these funds. I am not making an appeal to members on the other side to pay out of their own pockets. That would be ridiculous. I am making an appeal to the Treasury. Another matter is this. Soldiers have joined up and they have gone to the front. We hear much about them, but what about those who have remained behind to hold the fort? They must take the places of those who have gone. As we know, they have filled these places on a temporary basis. Now it is not clear to us what will become of these people who have released men for service, when the soldiers return and get their posts back—and we agree that it is right they should. Why do we hear so little from the Government side about these people who have remained behind to hold the fort here? There are also poor people who have to live from hand to mouth. Are they now to be thrown on to the veld? Why do we hear so little from the other side in connection with those who are performing duties in the Government service, about the young fellows and girls who are doing the work of the soldiers who have gone off? Will they be thrown out of the service on to the streets, and what are we going to do with them when these men come back to resume their posts? That is a serious matter which involves tens of thousands of people. When the soldiers return and resume their positions, then these lads and girls will be at a loose end, and I say that they have also the right to a living. They have done good work. They have distinguished themselves in the Public Service, in the Railways and elsewhere, and they also deserve a living in South Africa, just like the soldiers. I say that I should like to know from the Minister—we have already heard what is going to be done for the soldiers and what is going to be done to assist them—but we want to know from the Minister what he is going to do about these young people who released them for service. We want to know whether they will also share in the provision that is made by the State for the soldier. Will the State see to it that they are not neglected? When the soldier returns preference will be accorded him, and he will choose the post in which he formerly served, and the result will be that the lad or young woman who now occupies that post will have to make way for him. What is the Minister going to do about that? I should like the Minister to make a circumstantial and honest statement, and then we shall know what his plan is in respect of these young men and young women who are now serving the State and who gave those soldiers the opportunity to go into the field.

There are just one or two points I should like to clear up. I will deal with them now. The remaining suggestions that have been made in the course of the discussion this afternoon will be examined by the Department of Social Welfare, and I am grateful to hon. members for the help they have attempted to give the Department in these matters. The last speaker, the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) raised a very important point which was also dealt with by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) yesterday. He asked what plans were being made to deal with war workers, keymen and others, who might be displaced when our soldiers come home. The hon. member for Stellenbosch said that there were many hundreds of these workers, possibly thousands, who would be displaced and he felt that there was a gap in my demobilisation plans, inasmuch as they made no provision for war workers who will be displaced. It is not the function of the Directorate of Demobilisation to deal with that problem. That is a problem which faces the Government, and the Government is prepared to face it, and the Minister responsible is the Minister of Labour. Hon. members will know that provision has already been made in the Bill which has been introduced by the Minister, the Volunteers and War Workers Employment Bill. There is provision in that Bill for this category of persons. The Government realises its responsibility.

It is not dealt with in the Bill. It was merely recommended by the Select Committee that the Government should find employment for these people.

The Government realises that that matter has to be dealt with and it will be dealt with by the appropriate Department, namely, the Department of Labour. Hon. members must not therefore expect me to go into details as to how the problem will be approached. Then the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) raised the question of semi-fit persons and others whom he had met in the course of his travels in his constituency. He raised certain difficulties. I think those difficulties will largely be met by the increased invalidity grants which were announced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. Those increased grants will come into operation on the 1st September next, and provision will have to be made for them on the supplementary estimates. These grants have been increased in order to bring them up to the latest old age pension standard. In addition, the means test hitherto applicable has been modified and softened to the advantage of the applicant; and thirdly, in the future when the new scheme comes into operation any earnings by children will be completely excluded. I hope that these new provisions will meet the difficulties which faced the hon. member for Swellendam. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has raised the question of the coloured reserves. Those reserves were taken over by the Department of Social Welfare on the 1st April this year. The Department of Social Welfare is now responsible for the welfare side of the coloured community in those areas, but in so far as the irrigation matters are concerned, the Department of Lands must still accept responsibility. That responsibility does not fall on the Department of Social Welfare. The hon. member for Gordonia also asked me about Rhenosterkop and Hereford. In regard to Rhenosterkop the position is that there are 25 families who are being paid allowances totalling £1,575 by the Department of Social Welfare. Those allowances are paid on the same lines as the allowances paid to settlers.

Per month or per annum?

That is per year. At Hereford the scheme was started by the Department about three years ago. It was a settlement for partially disabled Europeans. It has been working very satisfactorily and plans have been made to add an additional two sections of 45 settlers each, to provide the means of placing semi-fit ex-volunteers on the land. The conditions relating to the civilian settlers there are as follows—

1. (a) Each settler family receives a plot of approximately 6 morgen under irrigation, on which a house and necessary farm buildings are provided.
2. (b) Each settler is equipped with animals, including a cow, machinery, seeds and fertiliser to work the holding. His account is debited with the cost of these items.
3. (c) Monthly loans, calculated at 4s. per day worked and depending on the work done, are made to a settler at the end of each month. His account is debited with these allowances.
4. (d) The main crops produced by the settlers are marketed by the Department and seven-eighths of the proceeds are paid into the settler’s account. In this way the debts referred to above are wiped out. The remaining one-eighth of the proceeds is paid direct to the settler.
5. (e) When a settler’s account is in credit to the extent of £50 or more he can elect to be paid one-quarter of the proceeds in cash or in kind.
6. (f) Cash balances are held in trust by the Department until a sum of £1,000 is accumulated when it is expected that a settler will be in a position to embark on independent farming.
7. (g) A nursing sister is resident on the settlement.

The scheme was inaugurated three years ago and already quite a number of those settlers have fairly substantial amounts to their credit, indicating that these schemes are working in the interests of the disabled persons concerned.

I am sorry that I must rise again. I do not want to hold up the House, but the Minister has not replied to my question in connction with raisins.

The department is at the moment busy dealing with the whole matter.

I should like just to say to the Minister that in the past the Government bore half the loss. Now they want the K.W.V. to pay. This is philanthropic work. The raisins are worth more than cheese; they cost more than cheese and the children take them with relish.

You are not suggesting that the K.W.V. products are protected foodstuffs.

The K.W.V. have nothing to do with that, except the fact that when they do not make wine they make raisins.

I think we shall be in a position to take your raisins.

Vote No. 29.—“Social Welfare”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 30.—“Public Health”, £1,236,500, put.

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :