I was glad the proceedings were interrupted last night at Clause 26. I suppose it will be within the Minister’s recollection that last Friday the Minister of Economic Development thought it necessary to bring in an amending Bill to the Fisheries Act of 1940 his explanation being that it was necessary as no provision had been made for the disposal of boats or fish or nets that may have been confiscated under Section 8 of Act 10 of 1940 and forfeited to the Crown. I mention this because the Minister may find it necessary to add a paragraph to Clause 30 which will prevent an amending Bill being necessary next year.

I will be glad to look into that and to deal with it if necessary at the Report Stage.

The remaining clauses, the Schedule and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments to be considered on 30th April.

It is of interest to note that the amount being voted for native education as such is £585,890, while the number of natives of school-going age is 600,000. The is consequently £14,110 less than the figure that would give the provinces £1 per native of school-going age. That does not leave very much for the education of natives as regards vocational training. I would anneal to the Minister to see whether he cannot increase the vote to enable the provinces to bestow a little more attention on vocational training. I am encouraged in this appeal by the examples of work I have seen with a small effort we have made in Johannesburg where we have trained the boys to lay bricks, to do simple carpentry, to make their own furniture, to grow their own vegetables and generally to make themselves handy and do a good job. I have also visited a mission in the Northern Transvaal where the education is of a very much more varied type, and I was especially pleased to see that the native was being trained there more with a view to assisting him with his own requirements than in learning in more abstract directions. They are being taught to prepare hides, to make handbags and other articles out of skins they have cured. They have also an excellent garden. They were even taught to repair a motor car and to do some welding. I am further encouraged to ask for this increase because I am sure I have the backing of the farming community. These recommendations have in fact been endorsed by some of the agricultural unions. I feel that the vocational training of the natives is the responsibility of the State and not of any particular province; and I might add if the Minister cannot see his way clear to build schools he might give any local authority who wishes to introduce this vocational training, a subsidy which would enable it to achieve something in this direction. I feel that the State would be well repaid for any money spent in this way, and that local authorities especially would be repaid by a lessening of the native crime that exists today. This type of training would appeal greatly to the youths between school-going age and the age when they start work. It is during this transitional period that they fall into bad company, lose any sense of discipline and gradually go down and down until they become criminals. I would strongly urge that the Minister gives this his serious attention, and I feel sure we shall be amply repaid in training a better type of boy for work on the farms. There is nothing to hinder these lads going out to the farms, where they should prove very useful and handy with tools in connection with the odd repair work that is always required on farms. This, in my opinion, constitutes one of the most desirable forms of educational training. Higher training of natives in many of the professions has not generally been proved by experience to be a success. But in this practical training where the native youth is taught to use his hands along with his head, there are great possibilities of conferring a benefit on the towns, on the farmers and on the country as a whole.

May I just say that these amounts were fixed by the Native Affairs Department in consultation with the provinces. In future, if the Bill before Parliament is accepted, the proposed new Advisory Board on Native Education will no doubt give full considerartion to the aspects my friend has emphasised. There have, of course, been developments along these lines even in the last few years.

The other day I objected to the item of £380,000 for the feedling of native children. I should like to associate myself today with the statement by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) that to feed the native children at school will have the effect that native parents will work less and they will rapidly cultivate a state of mind where-under they will not fulfil their obligations in respect of the feeding of their children. The native child in my area does not attend school every day from Monday till Friday. There is a big native reserve with a large school. The children get food at school twice a week, and the result is they only attend school on the two days of the week they get food. Here is something that nullifies the native’s sense of responsibility towards his child, and the result is the native does not work so much to provide food for his children. He believes it is our duty to give food to the children at school. The other point is this, that this feeding of native school children is complete proof that the native is being brought on to a level footing with the Europeans. Where something is being done to the Europeans it also has to be done for the natives. The result is that the native, who has not yet reached the stage of development the European has, is today beginning to feel he has no need to fulfil his obligations as in the past, because the State is feeding his children. To tell the truth I feel that all school-feeding of children, of European children as well, is an unsound policy when regarded from this angle. We are cultivating a feeling of inferiority even amongst the European children who are being fed. The Minister will say this is something that pertains to the provincial councils, but I feel it has a demoralising effect on the people. We are educating the people to be dependent on the State and an unsound principle is being created. Not only this, but we are killing the self-respect and the national pride of the child, of the growing generation, by means of the sort of thing occurring here now. Not only that, in these estimates an amount of £6,000 appears for native medical students to make bursaries available to them, and I should like to know from the Minister whether a single European child in the country is studying as a result of a medical bursary granted to him by the State, and why there should appear on the estimates an amount to give bursaries to natives who want to become medical students. I am not against them receiving medical training, but let the native realise his duty and pay for it himself if his child is to enjoy medical training. Why should the State come into it and pay for the education of those native students. If there is a European child who is very bright and whose parents are in necessitous circumstances, he should be able to complete his studies by means of a loan or something of that nature. But here the State comes and offers these bursaries to the native students so that they can qualify as doctors in the country while this is not being done for Europeans. No, I feel that the whole of this vote for feeding and bursaries is wrong. There should not be anything of the sort on the estimates, and I express the hope that this item will be eliminated from the estimates in future. The native’s contribution to the State is so little that we cannot justify these amounts being paid out. I want to object strongly to it, and I want to ask the Minister of Education to delete from the Estimates next year these items for the feeding of native children and bursaries for native medical students. We feel it is an injustice towards the European section of the community who are being taxed to provide a home for these natives, as well as food for their children, and bursaries for students who wish to enjoy medical training.

When we come to this vote of £380,000 for school feeding, the discussion we had on this matter on a previous occasion recurs to the mind. I only want to recall to this Committee that during the original discussion on the subject strong objections were lodged against the provision of food for native school children. I can recollect that at that time I told the Minister of Native Affairs in this House that he was not in the position to make an estimate of how much it was going to cost. That was also my position in regard to the Minister of Finance. I told them they were going in for a scheme, the expenditure on which they could not calculate. I also remember I made an estimate of the cost of providing food for school-going children, European and non-European, on a basis of the census figures for the year 1938. I made the estimate that meals plus administration would run into millions of pounds. I call to mind that the Minister of Native Affairs told me at that time that my estimate was entirely wrong. I worked it out on the basis of 1s. per meal per child per day. He said it was wrong, and that I had to base the calculation on 3d. a meal per child per day. This morning I come with the same objection. Here an amount of £380,000 is voted for the feeding of native children, and there are two considerations in connection with it that we should bear in mind. The first is that the total cost of this scheme can be determined or assessed either by the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Native Affairs. We do not know what it will run to in the future. We do not know what the sequel will be to the provision of school meals for non-Europeans. We at that time pointed out that it would mean an influx of native children to the schools, not to receive instruction and education but to get a free meal. Experience is teaching us that that prediction was absolutely correct. From all sides of the House hon. members can testify that it is only on those days when they can receive meals that the native children attend school and on the other days they remain away. They do not go there to receive education but to get a free meal. We must remember and the country must remember, when we have to deal with natives we have to deal with human beings who are in a certain stage of development, and to a very great extent the native population has only reached that stage of development when they have mainly one thing in their minds— not that they should accumulate the wherewithal to insure a subsistence for their children—but merely that they should have enough to eat from day to day. Now I maintain that this scheme has had everything but an educational effect. The effect of it has been just the opposite. I will not make any secret of it; in regard to European children as well, when the State makes provision for the nutritional requirements of the child, and when the State assumes the responsibility that originally rested on the parents, that process in itself is something that instead of fostering the educational principle actually runs counter to all sound principles of training and education.

Are you opposed to school feeding?

It is necessary if we want to build up a healthy population that we should bear family life in mind in connection with that building up process, and one of the big principles in family life is the responsibility that rests on the parents to see to the feeding of the children.

At £2 a month.

I am prepared to reply to all interjections, and I will do that immediately. When I proposed the other day that the State should accept responsibility for providing employment to every member of the population so that he could make a decent existence, hon. members opposite, one and all, objected to that. They are the people who objected to that. They refused to allow the State to take the responsibility concerning the right of its citizens to exist. Now they are the people who have such a lot to say about children who suffer hunger and die. If they want to be logical we could declare that the State should accept the responsibility of providing a decent existence for every member of the community; and if the parents have a decent livelihood the duty rests on them to ensure that the children they bring into the world are properly fed and educated. If the State refuses to accept the responsibility for providing the opportunity for a decent existence it does not behove the hon. members opposite to make such interjections. We are obliged as a European population not only to give the natives food, but to educate them gradually, in the sense that we should also teach them to realise their responsibility in life, at any rate towards themselves. Now I want to mention a few points. At this juncture tremendous sums are being voted by the House in, for instance, the establishment of native reserves, and the intention was they would enable the natives in the reserves to make a living there—to give them land from which they could derive sufficient to provide reasonable necessities for themselves and their families. If this was not the underlying principle, what was the underlying principle of the establishment of the native reserves? It was segregation. But it was segregation with the object that if they got land they would have to realise their responsibility towards their families— in bringing them up, not just to providing them with food. They should learn to provide for their children, they should realise their responsibility. And what is the position now? While the reserves are there and money is being devoted to them, the natives are streaming by hundreds of thousands out of the reserves, and they are lying about here and in the towns. The obligation that the native had as a father towards his chldren is being lost. He comes to the towns and as the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) stated, they come here as immature creatures in contact with conditions they have not known, and when the native earns £5 or £10 a month it is all spent. He loses his sense of responsibility towards the children he has left behind in the territories. What is more, the State does not only look after the natives who are here, but they also accept the responsibility of the native in regard to his chldren. Reception depots are created here. The Prime Minister spoke of “decent homes” until they had an opportunity to find work in the neighbourhood. With all these measures you exempt the natives from their responsibility towards their families. You relieve them of their duty towards their children. I have stated that with feeding it is also a question of bringing them up and it is high time that, as larger and larger sums are being devoted to the native population under circumstances created by themselves of their own free will, this House should call a halt and realise that we are dealing not only with a matter of feeding but also of upbringing and of a sense of responsibility in the native.

I am afraid that my hon. friend the member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) is fighting a losing battle. If his Party came into power tomorrow they would not change one line. They would not dare to. They are all more educated, civilised and decent than that. If all the Nationalist Party came into power they would not change anything. They are just trying to catch votes for the member for Boshof. Just as he fought a losing fight when he supported Hitler, so he is fighting a losing fight today.

And you are supporting a losing Government.

The Leader of that Party dare hot get up and say that that is the policy of the Party. He would have the Dutch Reformed Church and his own people against him.

Nonsense.

In a civilised country like this the hon. member preaches the doctrine that the unfortunate poor native child, weary and hungry, who goes to school shall not be given food by the State. That was also preached by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) in regard to the white children, but he dropped it like a hot coal. He also said the same thing two years ago when he stated that by doing so we would take their self-respect away from them and their stamina, but he found that the country swept him aside. He was wrong, just as my hon. friend is wrong now. I say that they are old takhare. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) said just the opposite the other day. He said that we must take the non-European by the hand and give him every assistance, feed him clothe him and send him to school. I say they dare not do it, and they dare not make it the policy of their Party. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) may do so.

If you are referring to me, I will do it now.

They know they are just playing up for votes all the time. When the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was a Minister, and we worked together, did he ever bring forward this thing? Never. But he wants to do it now. Did he ever mention it in any Cabinet? I challenge him. Did he ever say: You must not assist the native and feed him? Never. I challenge him. No, that was not General Hertzog’s policy. General Hertzog’s policy was to take the native by the hand and to make him a better citizen. Unfortunately our friends crucified him and he never had a chance to do it. But now they come along and say—these votes were all under discussion last year, under different headings—“You must not pay out £6,000 a year to assist the native to become a medical man.” That is just the opposite of General Hertzog’s policy. His policy was that you must have segregation, but you must do all you can to assist the native to be a doctor of medicine; and that is the only hope for South Africa. Unless we can teach the native to become a medical man in this country, and to look after his own people, they will not be looked after, because we do not have sufficient doctors, and will not have sufficient for many years to come. Look at the deplorable position in the Transkei today. Typhus is sweeping through but there are no black medical men to assist them. Give these men who are taxpayers, only £6,000 a year to help them to become medical men. I say you will not find one medical doctor amongst the Nationalist Party who will not agree to do it. Ask the hon. member for Stellenbosch about it. He is one of the best-known medical men, the chairman of the Medical Council. Ask him. He will say the opposite. He will say you must hasten it on. That is the basis of our security. They voted unanimously for security, social security, which laid down the principle that the white man and the native should work together in helping the natives and to assist them to become medical men.

Can you tell us what the position is in Rhodesia, Kenya and Uganda?

I am not interested in that.

Uganda trains them as medical men.

You were just interested in Germany.

And you in China.

I cannot tell the hon. member, because I have not the knowledge. I do not know. But I know this, that in the Congo they are training these men, and the State is paying for it.

Which Congo?

I do not know of Uganda. But the position is this, that our friends are making political propaganda. Having come to the last point, they are making the black man the whipipng post, but I challenge them to make this the policy, because the country wants to know where they stand. There are men on that side whom I have the greatest respect for and I say they will never make it their policy. It may be the policy of the hon. member for Boshof, who is in the peculiar position in this House that he hits the downtrodden man every time he gets the chance. I have never heard him get up in this House to make a constructive speech. [Time limit.]

Every time the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) rises in this House he is very voluble about a man who was highly respected by the Afrikaners, and who is always attacked by him, namely Gen. Hertzog. Today he again stood up and asked what the policy of Gen. Hertzog was. The policy that Gen. Hertzog followed was clear, namely, that the natives should realise their responsibility and fend for themselves. On that account he considered it necessary to purchase land for native reserves. But what is the position that has developed? The natives got the reserves, but the responsibility for their children is now being imposed on the Europeans. It will be a mistaken policy if the State deprives the natives of their responsibility and itself assumes it. But the hon. member for Hospital goes further and states that the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) is supporting a lost cause. No; but the hon. member for Hospital is propping up a lost Government. He is endeavouring to keep going for a little while a Government that is lost. Then he challenges this side of the House to say that when we come into power we will alter the policy. I say here that if the native children are being fed the native parents should pay for it as far as possible. We shall alter the policy. We shall not let people die of hunger we shall not crush people; but a great responsibility rests on the parents to care for the child. We accept the challenge. We refuse to pay for natives who are too lazy to provide for their children and who merely come to the towns to loaf about. By way of interjection the hon. member for Hospital asked whether they could feed their children on £2 a month. Now I want to challenge the hon. member to go to any farm in the country, he will not find natives who are in the employment of the farmers, underfed. The Afrikaners have always seen to it that the labourers on the farms are properly fed. But what is the Minister and his Party doing? They tell the natives that they can continue in their easy life, that they do not need to accept any responsibility, because the State will see to their children. That is one of the Communistic doctrines, that the State should accept the responsibility for the children. We are not prepared to agree to that. I challenge the hon. member to mention one farm where the farmers allow their people to suffer hunger. They have to work, but the farmers see that they do not starve. Even in bad years the farmer will always try in the first place to see that the people get enough food. The hon. member can go to my farm, and I challenge him to point out a single native, child or adult, who is undernourished. It is the same on all the farms of our farming population. From childhood we have learned that the native must work but we must see that he is fed. We do not however see that there is any call to encourage the natives to loaf and laze while the State assumes the obligations that rest on the natives themselves.

I can take you to hundreds of natives on farms where they are underfed.

The State is now stepping in to care for the children of those natives who do nothing. As the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) has rightly mentioned, the native children are in many cases attending school not for the purpose of being educated but in order that they may get something to eat. But in the towns the position is still worse. Where the native children are being fed the position arises that you cannot get any labourers. We should teach the natives that they must work to eat and that they must earn their bread with the sweat of their brow. But the Minister of Finance, with his liberal attitude, wants to twist this thing round. No longer do they need to eat by the sweat of their brow. The State will see to the children. We are not in favour of slavery. We do not want to be hard on our nonEuropeans, but we say that trusteeship does not signify merely that the natives can loaf and that the State should provide them all with food, that it does not mean that the Europeans must provide food for natives with the sweat of their brow. That is not trusteeship. You must teach the native to realise his responsibility towards his children. I hope that our position is now clear. It is impossible for us to continue to pay more and more on their behalf. If you examine it you will find how under this Minister of Finance the amount for natives has increased tremendously every year. I am amazed that the Europeans in the country are still content to endure this state of affairs. The country is beginning to get tired of it. We cannot encourage this loafing in this manner. There is work for all the natives, and if they want to work they can also feed their children. I hope that the Minister will take the matter into consideration. Where is it going to end? Last year the amount was £200,000; this year it is already £380,000, and next year if we continue like this—because as time goes on we are attracting more and more children to the food—the amount will be double and within four or five years it is going to be millions, as the hon. member for Boshof has rightly stated. The Europeans are being impoverished. They do not receive a reasonable price for their products, and they are being more and more taxed for the nonEuropeans. This sort of thing that is now going on will yet cause a great clash and spilling of blood, and the Minister and the Government will be responsible for it. They are encouraging natives to be indolent and the Europeans simply have to pay. I am sorry that I should have to speak like this, but the hon. member for Hospital has issued a challenge, and we accept it. If the native wants to have children he must accept the responsibility.

Move that the amount be deleted.

We shall.

As soon as we come into power we shall rectify this matter. The hon. member for Hospital does not need to be afraid, but as he is so desirous of challenging us further, I shall move—

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has moved an amendment, and before the matter develops further along political lines I should like briefly to state the position from the departmental point of view and to explain the general course of events. This vote is for the first time presented by the Minister of Education. It is being done in reference to the Bill for the financing of native education that was read for the second time in this House, and thus approved in principle. Under this Bill the various amounts that are expended in connection with native education are being applied on the recommendation of the Advisory Board that is being appointed under the Bill, and responsibility will be accepted by the Secretary for Education as the accounting officer of the board. For that reason the Minister of Education has to present the vote, but hon. members will understand that what we have here is nothing new. As the hon. member for Hospital has correctly stated, we have here only amounts that appeared earlier under other votes and hitherto neither I nor my department have had anything to do with this matter. We are only taking up what has previously been approved in principle by this House as part of the work of other departments, and consequently I am not yet conversant with the details of the matter. I am only presenting the vote on the basis that in the past was approved by this House when this matter fell under other departments. Two points have been mentioned here. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) mentioned the point of bursaries to medical students. There we are simply carrying on with what has been done by the Department of Native Affairs in view of the conditions amongst the natives, the bad conditions in respect of health in the native territories which cannot be confined to the natives only, but under which we shall all suffer. It is in the interests of the community as a whole to combat those bad conditions in the territories. Bearing in mind a few years ago the Department of Native Affairs instituted a system of bursaries to assist in the training of natives as medical practitioners so that they might then work amongst their own people. We are simply continuing with that system.

The natives have no confidence in natives who have been medically trained. But what is the State doing in connection with the institution of hospitals for natives?

That is of course a provincial matter, but great expansion has occurred in reference to hospitalisation of natives. A considerable change has come about in the attitude of the natives in regard to medical services in comparison with ten or twelve years ago. More and more of them are making use of the Europeans’ medicine, and today they are streaming to our doctors and hospitals.

Quite right, but my question remains, what is the State doing for hospitalisation? Why is the State not providing hospitals to improve the health conditions?

It is a provincial matter.

The provinces say that they have not the money.

Then I hope the hon. member will support me if we introduce legislation to place the provinces in a bettter financial position. In any case it is a provincial matter. Now I come to the question of school feeding. A few years ago this House approved the principle of school feeding, and I believe the principle was approved that it should be applied to all sections of the community. As far as concerns the principle of school feeding I have a great measure of sympathy with the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) when he maintains that we must not impair the principle of parental responsibility. But you have to deal with facts as they exist today. It will of course be very desirable if every parent in the country should be in the position to be able to do everything necessary for his child, but that is simply not the position both in relation to Europeans and non-Europeans, and we have to deal with the position as it is. The underfeeding of school children is undoubtedly a deleterious condition that must be remedied. There is one province that has for years been fighting the evil. The Transvaal Provincial Council had been active in that respect before I became Administrator, more than twenty years ago, and they approached the matter purely as an educational problem. Consequently it cannot be stated that it has no educational value. The system was introduced as something for all sections of the community, and provision was made on the Social Welfare vote for all sections of the community. Last year, so far as I can remember, the vote was adopted without discussion as far as this point was concerned. Last year a proper start was actually made for the first time with the school feeding of native children, and the amount according to the latest figures I have available, that was devoted to it in respect of last year was £260,000, but the scheme was not in full swing in a couple of provinces last year. In the Free State, I believe, they only started on the 1st January of this year, while in the other provinces a commencement had been made with it on the 1st September. So the scheme was not in full swing last year. If it had been in full swing, the cost would have been more than £260,000 for the full year. We are therefore providing an amount of £380,0000 for the current year, but as far as the vote is concerned we are merly continuing the system that is already in force. For myself, in so far as I have seen the reports, the school-feeding system is on the whole a success, and it is of educational value. If it has the effect of perhaps attracting to school a few native children who otherwise would not attend school I would not regard that as a reason for dropping the whole scheme. The scheme is a good one. It is a scheme that should be made to apply to every section of the community, and as the scheme has now been transferred to a vote under the Union Education Department I must make provision for it at least on a basis of what was in force last year, and what was applied then.

I am sorry that the question should again be discussed along political lines.

You steered it into that channel.

That may be. I say that it is regrettable that is the case. I want to regard the whole thing from an economic angle and from the standpoint of humanity. It is either a fact or it is not a fact that the native children in the towns require the food. Solely from the educational point of view if the children are unfit it does not help matters to spend money on education. If we are providing the money to educate them we should also put them in the physical state where the education will be of some value to them. If that is sound in principle, to spend money on their education, it is also our duty to ensure that they are in such a physical state as to be able to derive the best advantage from that education. The reason why the natives are today flocking to the towns is not the reason suggested by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). They are fleeing from the platteland to the towns solely as a result of economic pressure. That they earn more money in the towns is universally recognised. It is a fact that they are driven by economic pressure from some parts of the platteland where today they cannot make so good a living as formerly they did. In the ordinary course of affairs the agricultural industry is no longer as good a paying proposition as it was years ago.

And who is to blame for that?

The farmers are becoming smaller and smaller and the owner has no longer the opportunity that he formerly had to provide the natives with grazing for their stock. Thus it is in consequence of economic pressure in these respects that the natives flock to the towns. Now we are faced by the other medical fact, whether the children need the food or whether they do not need it. If they do need it then it is only a question of humanity and it is not a thing over which we should fight. It is of course an accepted fact, according to medical statements, that the native children do need it. That is stated from year to year by the Provincial Councils. Now it appears that we are making a political football of it. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad who has been many years in public life, to see that these things are kept out of politics.

Tell that to Barlow.

If necessary I will also put it to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that we should discuss these things on a higher level. I am in favour of regarding this scheme also from an economic angle. If our European population do not see to it that we have a sound native population we shall lose that source of labour and thereby we shall be injuring agriculture as well as industry. When that day arrives it will be a sad day for South Africa. In my opinion we cannot go too far in making our native population fit, and if it is necessary to train native doctors and to send them to the native territories to preserve the health of our own people then we should give them the necessary training not only in their interests but in ours. It is not only in the interests of the native that we are maintaining his health, but it ‘is also in the interests of the future economic development of South Africa. And therefore I feel that the food we are now giving these school children will yield a good return in the future to the European population. We make food available for our European children. We cannot do this in the case of poor white children and exclude the wealthy children. That would be practically impossible. If we do it for the one we must do it for the other. We know that some of the native children cannot exist on the food their parents give them. Why? Because in the country we have fixed a level of payment under which the white man is paid on a higher scale than the native, and we are doing that largely because we feel that the white man ought to stand on a higher level socially than the native. Accordingly we have to pay him more, and if we want to pay natives enough to put them in a position to supply food to their children we shall have to reduce the salary of the white man and increase that of the native so that he can make a reasonable existence. Well, who wants that? It has already led to’ our fixing higher wages for natives. The necessary protection should be extended to industry so that it may survive, and if we progress in that direction the native will be able to become economically independent and feed his own children properly; but so long as we pay him less in order to benefit the white man we must see to it that the native child receives food when this is necessary, in our own interests as well as from a purely humane point of view. If we regard the matter from a humane angle and from an economic angle I feel that this scheme is a step that will conduce to the welfare of non-Europeans as well as of the Europeans in our country.

One is inclined to smile over the lesson in ethics that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) tried to give us here. He said that we should not make a political football of this scheme.

He has a habit of saying that.

Every time he stands up he reads us out a lecture on ethics. All of a sudden he has become the great master of decency and propriety in the House. We are rather tired of that. We do not need it from him. If he talks about a political football I want to say that certainly on his side of the House all sorts of matters are made a political football.

You know that is not so.

There is Balaam’s ass again. Before he opened his mouth everyone knew he was an ass, but it was only after he spoke one realised what an exceptional ass he really is. The hon. Minister also, when he rose, had recourse to the argument of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). I would advise the Minister not to be led by the nose and dragged by the tail by the hon. member for Hospital. I would advise him rather to stand on his own feet. [Interruptions.] If Balaam’s talkative ass will remain quiet for a little while I shall proceed. It is asked here why we are making an objection to the scheme. Personally every year when this question of school-feeding has come up for discussion I havé objected to it, not that I do not want the children to have food but because it is entirely wrong in principle to send children, European or non-European, to school and to give them food there. School is not there to provide the children with food. The hon. member for Vereeniging says that should we reach the position that we are one day all earning enough it will no longer be necessary to do this. You know how difficult it is to withdraw such a system once it is in vogue. It is wrong in principle to feed the children at school. It reminds me of what happened when I was in the United States. We as students regularly attended a certain church, not to hear the Gospel but because we went there to get eats. Before the service began one got a nice plate of food, and after the service you got ice cream.

And of course there were some nice girls too.

Yes, they were there too. I fear the church lost a good deal by it, because many went there just to meet the girls and to enjoy the ice cream.

That accounts for your being so tall.

Yes, but your intelligence is the reverse. We object to the scheme, and we have always objected to the principle of giving food to school children, and we shall continue to object. The conditions should not be such that it shoud be necessary to give food to the children at school. We are more and more disposed in South Africa and apparently in the world, to pass on to the church or school the natural functions of the family. The home cannot be eliminated. We are going further and further, and one sees that the church must see to the religious education of the child, and the school for its food. That ought not to be the case. Church and school and home should work in co-operation; each one must contribute its share. That applies not only to nonEuropeans. We have been challenged to say that we are also opposed to the principle in so far as regards European children. We assert it also applies in reference to Europeans. The Free State Provincial Council is also now applying the scheme, but it made an objection to it in principle. We said it is wrong in principle. Our church registered an objection, that it was wrong in principle. It is specially wrong in reference to the native child. The native is now taught and he is being taught under the impression that the school is a place to which he should send his child to get food. The country native consequently prefers going to the town, because if his child goes to school there he does not give it food any longer. The impression that you are making on the native’s mind is undoubtedly wrong. I repeat, he forms the impression that when his child goes to school its stomach is filled. It is not for the learning that the child is sent to school, and the native shifts his responsibility easily from his shoulders. I say that there are also Europeans who" do this, but especially the native in the present stage of his civilisation will regard the school as a place where his child can get food, and he can use the rest of his money to buy beer. We agree with the Minister and any other member that we must do justice to every section of the people. But here we are doing an injustice to the native, bearing in mind his future development, by placing this thing in his heart and in his mind that every year we are going to vote more and more money to feed his child at school. We have to deal with the facts; it is true. But then we should not deal wrongly with the facts. We should today adopt in principle something that can be maintained in the future, and not a principle that in the future may work incalculable harm. Today you have really the ridiculous position that the children come to school, and whether they have had enough to eat at home or not they are again given food at school. That cannot be right. It is not right to have an organisation at the school that has to provide food for the children. I say that is wrong. We maintain that you should rather see to it that the children get enough food at home.

How can you do that?

If the hon. member wishes to state that one stands powerless to provide enough food for one’s people then he admits the impotence of his own Government. I challenge any member on the other side to tell me that this is a proper principle to take the responsibility for the feeding of the children from the home and place it on the school.

But your own people are doing that today.

The Free State did not accept it in principle. It is being done in the Free State because the Union Government accepted in in principle, but the Free State Provincial Council objected to it, and the church also objected to it. It ought not to be done. That is the wrong way to feed the people. We must put these bad conditions right. But I say to the Minister and to every member of this House that if they imagine they can continue with the idea of reversing the scheme later, they will find it difficult. If you proceed with the scheme, and later spend millions of pounds on it you will find that you have become so involved in the matter that you will not be able to put it right. I really rose to reply to the statement of the Minister that we approved of the scheme. We voiced our objection co it time and again. I personally read out the objections from school boards and church councils who disapproved of this in principle and who did not want it. I did this last year; and we are still doing this today especially as regards native children. It will lead to a condition of affairs for which we shall later be sorry, and we shall regret having adopted the scheme.

I am very pleased to hear the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) say that it is our duty to see that all the undernourished people do get their food. He states, however, that at this particular moment the school is not the right place to give these children food. He also states that even if children are at home properly fed they are still fed at school and are overfed there. Former speakers have told us that there are children who only go to school on days when meals are provided. The two statements do not quite go together.

I say it is unnecessary to supply children with food at school when they have food at home.

Quite. You said they are being overfed. The two do not go together, because if it is only on the days food is provided that large numbers of children go to school, it shows these children on those days feel their hunger, and therefore we are at all events doing a good service to a number of them. Let me remind him of the time when the multitude was fed on a few loaves and fishes. It is not the right place necessarily to go for your meal there, but when the Disciples tried to drive the multitude away they were told to sit down and have their food. We today stand as a Christian country, and whether it happens to be the right place or not, if we are serving people there and helping those that are hungry we are doing a great service to our country and we are worthy of the name of Him we serve.

You must not serve in the wrong way.

When this food being distributed both to our European children and to our native children, let us see that we have a balanced diet given to these children. In many places where chidren’s normal food is chiefly mealie meal, we find at times they are given such things as raisins for their food ration. Now raisins are an excellent food but their chief value lies in their carbohydrates. Let us see our children get more of that balanced food. Let us find out what food is being given in the vicinity; let us find out what food is being given at home, and find out what food is necessary for a balanced diet.

The farmers pay the subsidy on raisins.

Raisins are an excellent food where the chief article of diet is not carbohydrates.

The only difference is the wine farmers pay the subsidy and not the Government.

Raisins are an excellent food, but in their proper place. It is not a good food where people get a large amount of carbohydrates.

With an eye on this scheme we should look the facts in the face, that we are a small white population in the country, and not a wealthy white population either. ’ The percentage of Europeans who are comfortably off is small, with a large proportion who are very poor. The taxation on those poorer Europeans is heavy. We cannot argue away that heavier and heavier burdens are being imposed on the European population. If we continue on those lines we shall later on reach the point where the position of the Europeans will be unendurable. Gradually the native is being encouraged to live a happy-go-lucky life. We who have some knowledge of the native know that we are encouraging the native to work less and less. We want to do something to stir up energy in the native; we want the native, who is strong and healthy, to be encouraged to work. We should not encourage the native to live this lazy life. We make him useless to the State, to his own people, in respect of the feeding of his own children and in fostering his family life. It runs counter to the laws of nature. The hon. Minister is a great authority on the laws of nature. He knows that if you do not use your hand that hand later on becomes paralysed. What is the country coming to if you are going to encourage the natives not to work? We are already giving the natives pensions for the aged, for cripples and for the blind. Now we are going so far as to feed the native child. Is this the right principle? I ask this of white South Africa, and of this House and of the Minister: Is this right in principle to feed the native children from the coffers of the State? The native has the best land in pur country. Is that not the absolute truth? No country in the world has given to its natives and non-Europeans the best lands it possesses. We have the evidence here that the native makes a good living; he can provide for his family, but he does not want to work and we now have to step into the breach to feed the native child instead of providing opportunities for work for the native so that he may be an asset to himself and to his children and family. On the other hand, I want to draw attention to the fact that the native is today in a position of being able to take more than one wife. Though the European has only one wife, and from two to five children, there the native is sitting with five to 10 women and 50 children. The multiplication of the native children is so tremendous and the Europeans have eventually not only to see to the education of the native child, but they have now to go so far as to encourage the native father not to feed his children. As the Europeans are already feeding the European child, should they now have to see to the feeding of the native child? (That is going too far. We must cry a halt. We simply cannot do it. Where is this going to stop if that principle is laid down and the propagation of natives continues on this scale? I ask again, what is it leading to. I can understand that certain religious demoninations welcome the scheme. The principle of the English Churches and the Wesleyan Churches is not exactly to establish eating houses to be in a position to feed the native children. But there is one denomination that is going to benefit a great deal by that, and it is the Roman Catholic Church that has the eating-house system among the natives—twice and even 10 times as much as the other demoninations. I say that the Roman Catholic Church is going to benefit tremendously by that, because where it had to supply the children with food from church funds, the State is going to help the Roman Catholic Church to maintain the eating houses.

You should not attack the Roman Catholic Church.

The result will be that the other demoninations will find no advantage in it. It is here stated that we should create opportunities for natives to become doctors, to assist the native in the critical state in which he is. But we have a considerable number of doctors, and where are they practising? Have you noticed that the native doctors do not want to help their own people? They remain here in a European area, and I fear the more native doctors we train the more will remain herd. They do not want to help their own people. The Minister cannot mention one case to me where a native is helping his own people in the native reserves. Why do we train them then? We do not train them with a view to them practising where there are European doctors. But what is happening? They remain here where there is no need for them and they clash with European doctors. Why should the State again be roped in to help the native students to train, seeing that they will be no asset to their own people but want to work amongst the Europeans.

I feel that I should intervene in this debate because £6,000 for bursaries for medical students appeals to me as being an important constructive step forward in relation to national health plans and should thus receive the support of this Committee. We are all very conscious of national health, and it is surprising to me that where a constructive step is being taken it meets with adverse criticism. We must examine this item in its true perspective. We must appreciate its real significance in relation not only to Bantu health but in relation to Bantu disease contacts with European civilisation. We must regard this as important. We must appreciate that the Bantu conception of medicine is based on superstition, and it is important, in order to break down that superstition, that the Bantu people should have contact with their own kith and kin who have been trained in the scientific approach to medicine. This, in my opinion, is fundamental. A great proportion of the ’ ill-health in this country today is related to the Bantu community, and that ill-health is the result of sheer ignorance. There is not at present in relation to the Bantu an unbounded faith in the European doctor and there is in this country a great dearth of doctors, and in view of that, it is imperative, for the fulfilment of a sound national health plan, that we encourage and provide the facilities for the fullest education for Bantu medical men. I am not advocating that these Bantu trained medical men should function in association with the European community, but definitely there should be the fullest facilities for these scientifically trained Bantu doctors to have contact with their own kith and kin. Let me stress this as an important item, and I think hon. members will appreciate its significance in connection with European health. In the rural areas where Bantu ill-health is terrific, from time to time there are outbreaks of contagious diseases, and in their ignorance these men traverse from the rural areas to the towns and the urban areas. Members here have recently read of the outbreaks of typhus, smallpox and tuberculosis, and I feel that this is due to inadequate medical attention. In view of the superstition which has to be broken down, it is imperative that the natives have an adequate number of scientifically trained medical men to eliminate these outbreaks, and to prevent these natives, so diseased, going into the urban areas and becoming a menace to the Europeans. I speak from the point of view of the natives themselves as well as from that of the European, and it is incumbent upon this House to appreciate the significance of this, and I feel, in view of this particular aspect, that this amount of £6,000 is grossly inadequate for the needs of the Bantu community, for themselves and in relation to the European community of this country.

The hon. member for Newcatsle (Mr. Robertson) tried to show how necessary it is to provide the native children at school with food, because he says: Look how the native children are streaming to school to get that food. That absolutely confirms the argument that we have been advancing from this side of the House in regard to the danger of providing that food at school. Because they are getting the food gratis the danger arises that the natives will not work and will merely take advantage of that. What we have been saying on this side of the House has now been proved by a member on that side of the House. Then I want to come to the observations of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). He stated here that the natives are streaming to the cities and towns because their wages on the farms are limited, and because they receive higher wages in the towns. But in the same breath he contradicts himself. He says that the feeding is so important at the schools in the towns because the native children do not get enough food. If they are getting such good wages and the children have not enough food, there must be something wrong somewhere. It shows that the argument of the hon. member does not hold good. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) issued a challenge to us in connection with free feedling of native school children. We accepted that challenge and then he remained absolutely silent. W have accepted the challenge to oppose this vote, and we accepted it because we do not want to lose sight of our duty as trustees of the natives. We know what our duty is as guardians, but we do not want to create an evil that the native will both in the immediate and distant future convert into a burden to us. If he wants to go on with the scheme of school feeding, and wants to contribute his share, let him do it. We have solid grounds for opposing it. The fact is based on that. It creates a wrong precedent, and a precedent that we cannot apply in practice. As far as this school feeding is concerned we are taking away entirely the duty of the parents towards the child. It is the duty of the parents to look after the child, and I am speaking now for the Europeans as well. We must hold the parents responsible for the feeding of the child, but as we are now going on the danger exists that in the future the parents will eventually not care at all what becomes of their children, and that they will shift their responsibility on to the shoulders of the State.

You are again the old Tory.

We do not want that sort of thing. We want the child to have respect for his parents, and that is why the parents should look after him. If the parent cannot do it because he is financially weak it is the duty of the State to ensure that that parent should have a proper means of subsistence so that he can feed and clothe his children. But the cause is that the State has not seen to it that the parent has proper work; that is why this sort of thing has to be instituted for children to be fed at school. When one wants to eradicate noxious weeds if you begin with the leaves you will never be able to eradicate them. You must begin at the roots; and the root of this evil of undernourishment is in the first place that the producer does not get the right price for his products and in the second place that the worker does not receive an adequate wage on which he can make a decent livelihood. That evil must be eliminated, and then we must teach every parent that it is his duty to feed his children. Consequently we cannot approve this item in the Estimates. Take next the native children. They go to school, and they leave at home the food they used to take because they will be getting food at school. The result is that the food they no longer take to school with them, they miss and that would have been of greater value to them, because they only get food at school once. The parents are perfectly content to leave the matter at that, and the money that they would have used in finding food for the children is now used to fill the beer pots. They drink it. Those parents are deteriorating more and more. We are in this way creating loafers in our country. On the farms the farmers are going so far as to provide schools for native children and to give them all the facilities. Now they are also getting food as well at school, but when those children have grown up and are of service to the farmer they leave the farmer. The farmers cannot carry on like that. The position is becoming insupportable. We must see to it that this unsound thing is abandoned, and that we teach the parents to earn with their hands so that they will be able to provide for their children. We must take up the standpoint that in the Union the native should be able to prove that he has work that gives him a reasonable existence, otherwise he should be obliged to work, and then we would eliminate this evil. Here the native children receive for school feeding an amount of £380,000. They get about £2,500,000 for education so that the combined amount is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £3,000,000. I am not including the figures for other services, because it would run to millions, and what is the share that the native himself contributes for all these facilities? It is an amount of £1,744,636. Look at the small amount he contributes, and we as a white race of 2,000,000 as against 8,000,000 non-Europeans have to carry all those burdens for the natives.

He does not contribute anything, because all his taxation goes to the Native Trust.

Yes, and eventually the result is that it brings a relationship between European and non-European that should not be there. You should do the same as our forefathers did in respect of the natives and the coloureds on our farms. We continue with that policy. We let justice prevail in regard to the natives, but we enforced the policy of separation. The hon. member for Hospital stated here that we opposed the training of native doctors. That is untrue. The hon. member should not endeavour to drag the matter into politics in that way. We do not oppose their being trained as doctors. What we do contend is that they want to practise as doctors amongst the Europeans. We maintain that they should practise amongst their own people and that they should train themselves. I hope that the Minister of Education will take this matter into serious consideration and that it will be applied on another basis in the future. I want to say that he should rather give support to the employers, so that they should see to it that the native children are fed. On the farms the children are not being under-nourished. We are convinced that the natives, especially on the farms, are not undernourished. They are much healthier generally than the majority of town children.

Your proposition is wrong.

The hon. member may think it is wrong, but that does not make it wrong. I want to touch on another point. I want to point out that the Roman Catholic Church is making black spots amongst the European population so far as native schools are concerned. The Europeans cannot buy farms in the native reserves, and that is quite right. But on the other side I want to point out to the Minister of Education that the Roman Catholic Church is every now and again buying farms in European areas and they are making black spots, because they are instituting native schools, and that is the cause of a number of loafers being produced. This is becoming unendurable to the farmers. In those schools, moreover, the correct attitude between European and non-European is not being maintained. That is a point that the Minister of Education ought to investigate. It is an unhealthy situation for the farmers, and I hope he will go into it to ensure that an end is put to it. [Time limit.]

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

I must express a word of regret that this particular item which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has moved to delete, should have been put on this vote. It seems to me the proper place for this, as in the past, is on the Social Welfare Vote. This is not an educational item. It is essentially a social welfare item designed to improve the health and the physique of the rising generation. However. Mr. Chairman, it has been put on this vote and it is therefore under discussion in this committee. I must express a word of admiration for the controversial methods of hon. members who sit on the Opposition side of the House. I myself have always admired those members who can stand up and make speeches in flat contradiction of the facts for which there is overwhelming evidence on record.

Admiration?

Yes, admiration that they have the face to do it. Here we have members returned to this House who know nothing about most well established facts within the common experience of the people of this country, and as established before responsible commissions of enquiry. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad this morning made a speech from which one would gather the native children of this country are comparatively well nourished, that if they suffered at all from malnutrition it is their parents’ fault, and that it really is a piece of extravagance, and not warranted, to provide them with school means. As we know, all that is absolutely not in accordance with the plain and well established facts. There is nothing more to it. I assume that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad has taken the trouble to read the report of the National Health Services Commission. I assume that members of his party have done so. They have had a certain amount to say on the subject during the Session. I could quote any amount of authorities on this proposition, but I want just to quote a passage from the report of the Health Services Commission because their general view of the need for school feeding, the general picture they present, of the malnutrition of the native people of this country is simply inconsistent with the facts which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad gave the House this morning. On page 25, Chapter VI, paragraph 3, we have the following considered finding, a finding of fact not an expression of opinion, of the commission—

What follows is what I want to stress—

They refer to the evidence of the Secretary for Native Affairs, who perhaps knows much less of this matter than the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—

That is the accurate general view of the picture as ascertained by an impartial commission which has heard evidence. But I want to come nearer to this particular item that has been attacked by hon. members on the opposite side of the House. If a people are malnourished there is a prima facie case at once for feeding them, and surely the rising generation should not be allowed to suffer. I want to read a few items from a questionnaire sent by the headmaster of the Tiger Kloof Institution in Bechuanaland to various schools as to the condition of the children in Bechuanaland. He says—

These are samples of the condition of the school children in Bechuanaland, a part of the native population I represent. This is one of the questions put to the teachers—

The answers are as follows—

1. A. Ganesa: Very many of them come to school hungry.
2. B. Takwaneng: Yes.
3. C. Kraaipan: Yes, children come to school hungry. I can give an instance of one child who dropped down and came to life when some porridge had been given it, after which she went to class.
4. D. Vryburg Location: No.

The latter is only one instance out of the four, and that an urban area, in which the answer to that simple question was in the negative. The next paragraph in the questionnaire reads—

1. A. Ganesa: Yes.
2. B. Takwaneng: No, 43:145.
3. C. Kraaipan: Most native children do not take meals in the mornings and so most have no meals before coming to school.
4. D. Vryburg Location; Yes, but some of them eat during the interval.

Here again the majority of the children have not even had a meal before they come to school. What is involved in their going to school? It is not what is involved in most of the children of members of this House going to school. Some of them have to go as far as 10 miles without having had any food at all, and yet hon. members object to these children being given a meal when they reach school. The question and the answers from the questionnaire are as follows—

1. A. Ganesa: Yes, 10 miles.
2. B. Takwaneng: Yes. 72:145—2 to 4 or 5 miles.
3. C. Kraaipan: Approximately 5 to 7 miles.
4. D. Vryburg Location: Very few of them have far to go; from 1½ to 4 miles.

In Bechuanaland four miles is not regarded as a great distance to have to go to school! The next question was “What is their usual daily food?” and the replies were—

1. A. Ganesa: Mealies and kaffir corn.
2. B. Takwaneng: Mealies and corn, stamped and porridge.
3. C. Kraaipan: Their usual daily food is mabela porridge and boiled mealies.
4. D. Vryburg Location: Mealie meal and kaffir corn porridge, fat cakes.

Vryburg was the only one that has any alteration from the starch diet. Another question asked was: “Do you find milk can be got and meat?” The reply from Genesa was: “Milk cannot be got and meat is unknown”. These are the people who are to become the workers of this country. Those are the facts applying to a very large section of this country which have been gleaned by an investigation by a man who has given his life in the service of these people. He writes—

This meets another point put by hon. members opposite—

That is the kind of evidence we have from people who are living on the spot. I have quoted the evidence of the National Health Commission to the effect that desperate malnutrition exists amongst the native people. I want to deal now with the points raised by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). He says he is against school-feeding schemes in respect of any race. The only comment I have to make on that is that he is very far behind the social experience of every other civilised country in the world. All the civilised countries in the world have found it necessary to introduce school-feeding schemes in some form or other. I can only describe as effrontery the attitude of hon. members on the opposite side of the House who stand up and say that the poorest people in the country do not need this service. The point was also made that the children’s parents are too lazy. It is easy to make a general allegation against the people of a whole race and to say that they are lazy and that if they worked harder they would earn more money to feed their children, but the fact remains that every survey that has been made of the labour position in the urban areas has indicated that there is no laziness; these people work, and the extent to which they are unemployed in the reserves is due—and here I refer to the report of the Commission of Enquiry into the wages of mine natives— to the lack of land per family. I am very sorry that this particular item should have been attacked. I do hope that the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer), whom I see in his place this afternoon, will not attack it. One is used in this House to hearing from various quarters, and generally from the Opposition benches, attacks on the native and coloured population of the country, but I do wish that they would leave children out of it; I wish that in their attacks on these people they would leave the little ones out of it, and I hope they will do so in future.

On Tuesday last when this vote came before the House, both the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) and I objected to this item of £380,000. We are now pressing that objection. We have heard some remarkable statements from the other side, and I want to deal briefly with the statement which was made by the hon. member who has just sat down. He stated that we on this side were always attacking the natives and the coloureds and he expressed the hope that on this occasion we would not attack their children. We are not attacking the natives and the coloureds. We reprimand them when they do anything wrong, but we do not attack them. We are criticising the attitude adopted by certain hon. members in this House in connection with the non-European population, and in doing that it cannot be said that we are attacking the non-European population.

What have the children got to do with that?

I shall come to that later, if the hon. member will only exercise the necessary patience. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) is not here, but he pleaded almost with tears in his eyes that we must not drag this matter into the political arena. Here we have this state of affairs that when a member on this side of the House criticises steps taken by the Government, he is accused of dragging the matter into politics. If that is to be taken as a criterion, it simply means that we on this side must always refrain from criticism when the other side does anything wrong, because if we criticise their policy, we are accused of dragging the matter into politics. That is nothing but childish, and that is all we need say in that regard. Now I come to the Minister of Education who, without having made enquiries, made the tactless statement that this was the first time that any objection was being made to this item.

I did not say that.

What did the hon. Minister say then?

I stated that the principle had been accepted by this House.

No, the Minister stated that as far as he could recollect, this was the first time that any objection was being raised to this item.

I stated that as far as I could recollect there was no objection when this matter was discussed last year and the year before.

In other words, there was no objection from this side. I have taken the trouble to go into the matter, and if no one had taken the trouble to do so, that statement on the part of the Minister of Education would have gone into the country uncontradicted. In 1943 when this matter came before Parliament, we objected to it. Last year we again objected. I just want the country to know that. We are not coming here for the first time and objecting to a measure of which we approved previously. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) that this item has not previously appeared’ on the vote of the Minister of Education. It has never appeared separately. It has always appeared under the Social Welfare Vote and this is the first time it is appearing on this vote as a separate item for the feeding of native children. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, what reasons are advanced in favour of this measure? It is stated that the native children are undernourished. The hon. member for Cape Western quoted from a blue book in which it is stated that the diet of the native children in Bechuanaland consists of mealie porridge and kaffir corn, as proof of the fact that they are under-nourished. If a child gets his national diet, can it be said that he is undernourished? Does that hon. member not know that mabela and kaffir com meal constitute the national food of the native?

But that is not sufficient.

If it is not enough for native children, it is not enough for the adult natives either, and I want to ask the hon. member whether the State should go to the length of providing meat, vegetables and such things to the adult natives in this country as well? To look at the matter from their standpoint, if the school-going native children have to be fed at the expense of the white man why not feed the other natives, who are on the same diet as the native children, at the expense of the white man? In other words, at what stage does the hon. member suggest that the native should no longer be fed at the expense of the white man? Do they want to stop at the primary school, the high school or the university? I want to say frankly that no matter how good the intentions may be, I regard this policy of feeding native children at the expense of the white man as an extremely iniquitous policy.

It does not only come out of the white man’s pocket.

All direct taxation paid by the native is simply set aside for his own services. He makes no direct contribution to the other expenses of the country. When we think of the interest which has to be paid, the maintenance of medical services, the police force and, other services in the country, we find that the indirect contribution of the native is very small, much less than his pro rata share in all the services of the country. If the white man is undernourished we say that the economic policy of the country must be so arranged that every white man will be able to earn sufficient to enable him to take care of his family. If the circumstances are such that he is not able to take care of his children, that he cannot give them a proper home, they should not have to rely on charity. If we are consistently going to carry out the policy which is advocated by members on the other side, what will the eventual cost be when thousands and tens of thousands of nonEuropeans start attending school; how many millions of pounds will the white man have to pay out of his pocket in order to feed the natives of this country? I want to say again—and members who are resident in those parts where there are natives will agree with me—that the native only works when he is driven to it by hunger. But the difficulty is that we have members on the other side, like the hon. member for Cape Western, who live in these parts and who know precious little or nothing about the native, although they imagine that they know everything about the native.

You are not the only one who knows anything about the natives.

No, there are Other persons too who know something about the natives. I say that the mode of life of the native differs from that of the white man.

You cannot discuss that.

Take the natives of Basutoland, Swaziland and the Transvaal. I say that their mode of life is completely different and has been completely different for thousands of years from that of the white man. These gentlemen now want to make a white man of the native all of a sudden, and I want to put this question to those members who have put up the plea that we should feed the native children. If Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland are incorporated into the Union and if Northern and Southern Rhodesia are also incorporated, a step which is advocated by some people—and perhaps also Portuguese East Africa—do they propose to feed all those native children at the expense of the white man?

Is that how a leader talks?

Is this child’s play? If we are in earnest, we cannot confine it to one part of the country in the event of other territories being incorporated into the Union. I come from a part of the country where there are tens of thousands of natives, and I say again that the ordinary native only works when he is driven to it by hunger. While he has sufficient to eat, he does not want to work. Every farmer on the other side—I am not referring to members like the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who thinks he knows a little of everything and who really knows precious little—every farmer on the other side will agree with me that as soon as the natives reap a decent crop, the farmers are unable to get native labour, even where they are surrounded by natives, because the natives simply refuse to work when they have sufficient to eat.

That also applies to the white man.

No, it does not apply to the white man because the white man knows he has to put aside something for the day of tomorrow. The native does not realise that.

Then we must teach him.

That is simply the position, and we can appreciate what the result will be if we feed the native’s children. [Time limit.]

I come from a district where there are at least 80,000 natives, and I know what the conditions are in that district. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) told the House that the natives were not undernourished. He stated that we would not find a single under-nourished native on his farms. Of course, that is all nonsense. We know that that hon. member is usually wide off the mark. I know what I am talking about. I was district surgeon in those districts, and I know that there is an astonishing’ amount of undernourishment amongst the natives. The native is a great asset to our country as a source of labour, and if we do not assist him by means of proper feeding, we might lose that asset. The economic position of the native is such that he himself is unable to feed his family. Furthermore, he does not know what the right food is. He believes that mealie porridge is sufficient. A beast or a cow cannot live on mealie porridge alone. A cow cannot be expected to give milk if it lives on mealie meal alone. It is necessary to have more than mealie meal for a balanced diet. Many of these children who go to school are underfed. Apart from what the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) said here—and all the facts stated by him are correct—research work was undertaken four years ago by two medical men who toured the whole Union and in their report they stated, inter alia—

The argument is now advanced on the other side that we must keep the native hungry so as to force him to work. That is disgraceful. It is our Christian duty to see to it that people who are under-nourished and who perish of misery are given the necessary food. I am sorry I had to take part in this debate, because the debate may last very long, but’ I felt that unlike many members on the other side who speak on topics about which they know nothing, I had to say a few words in regard to a matter which is within my knowledge.

In 1919, as an official of the State, I investigated the health conditions of school children. I drew up a report and in that report I laid down the proposition that if a school-going child is under-nourished and hungry he derives no benefit from the money which the State expends in order to provide educational facilities for that child. I added that it was the duty of the parents to take care of the child and to give him sufficient food so that he could learn and derive some benefit from the money which the State expends in providing educational facilities. I added, however, that if the parents of the child cannot afford to feed him, it would be cruel to think of sending such a child to school not only under conditions where he cannot derive any benefit from the education which is given to him, but where he actually suffers as a result of attending school. I was obliged to resign from my Government position as a result of the report I submitted. I do not regret the fact that I wrote that report. What I said was quite true. And today we are confusing the two issues. It is quite true that if we feed the whole native population and tell them that they need not work so as to be able to feed their children, it will be folly; moreover, it will also be to the disadvantage of the native. On the other hand we have this position that there are numerous children at school who cannot derive any benefit from education because they are under-nourished. I am not at all satisfied with the method of feeding European children, and the same applies to coloured and native children. I am convinced that the wrong methods are being adopted. Notwithstanding the fact that I personally started twenty six years ago with a system which I considerd to be sound, I readily admit that the children must be selected, so that we can select those who are not getting proper food as a result of the fact that their parents cannot work. I stipulated that such children should not be given a few raisins and a piece of cheese, but that the hundred or hundred and twenty children who are selected in any particular town and who need it in order to keep them physically fit should get a full midday meal, containing sufficient proteins and vitamins, a sufficient quantity of all the ingredients which they need to build up their health so that they can develop a healthy body. That recommendation was carried out at one place twenty six years ago, and today, after twenty six years, the hall and the kitchen are still there and a midday meal is given to a hundred children every day. That is the correct way. No one ever inspected the place to see what was being done. When this feeding scheme was started, no enquiries were made as to the best method to be adopted. As far as native feeding is concerned, an amount of £380,000 is being made available under this vote. I do not believe that that amount is being used in the right way and that the best method of feeding is being adopted. But a bigger amount is being made available for Europeans and coloureds so that the children at school are enabled to benefit by the education. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), that the feeding of children must go hand in hand with the provision of employment for the parents. There must be an exhaustive investigation to ascertain whether the parent of the child can work, and if he can work and refuses to work, some method or other should be adopted to compel him to work. We have never succeeded in taking effective steps to compel the parents to discharge their duty towards their children. In saying that I want to compel the native, the coloured and the European to work so that he will be in a position to feed his children, I do not want to suggest that food should not be provided to children who need it at the moment. The provision of food only represents a part of the wage of the parents. The provision of sub-economic housing only represents a part of the wage of the parent. The provision of other benefits by the State only forms a part of the wage. It is subsidised labour. The policy of this Party is that the State should take steps to provide employment to everyone in the country at a decent wage. In saying that we are not thinking of one section of the population only, but the whole population. That does not mean that the State should feed the whole population. It means that the State must provide employment for the whole population at such a wage that every parent will be able to feed his child properly.

What wage do you suggest?

I say again that what we are now giving represents part of the wage. Let us give a part of the wage in that way, if it is necessary, but let our policy be the universal provision of employment to the whole population. Such a policy can only lead to increased production and better conditions in the country. If a parent adopts the attitude that he need not work because his child is being fed, I say that it is the duty of the State to force the parent to work. That is the way in which this problem must be tackled. Unfortunately the State is not tackling the problem in that way at the moment. Food is being provided to the children, but the parents are not being compelled to work. I have a great deal to say in regard to the feeding of European children as well as the feeding of coloured children, but that is not relevant here. I do not want to say much in regard to the feeding of native children because I do not know much about it. I know more about the feeding of Europeans and coloureds. But that does not detract from the duty of the State to see that children who are to receive education are physically in such a condition that they are able to derive benefit from that education, and if children are allowed to attend school without having had a meal, they cannot derive any benefit from that education.

You ought to come and sit on this side.

I believe that we ought to go much further and that we should compel the parents to work if they are able to do so. That is a power which the State should assume. We must—and that is the policy of this Party—see to it that employment is provided to all sections of the population at decent wages. It should be our aim to see that the children are fed properly along those lines, and those children who cannot be fed properly in that way should be fed properly in some other way by the State. I am prepared to defend the policy of this Party against the policy of any other party, or for that matter before the whole nation.

That is not what they said on the other side.

It is the policy of this Party to guarantee the whole population a decent livelihood. My hon. friends may differ from me in regard to the method to be adopted, but because I have maintained all these years that the children at school should be enabled to benefit by the education they receive, I cannot vote against this amount, although I do not agree that the right method is being adopted at the moment. We can improve the position in the future by adopting a method which will be to the advantage of the natives and the Europeans and by arranging the feeding on such lines that it will contribute to the general health conditions of all sections of the population.

I do not think I can allow the impression to be created that this side is merely adopting a negative attitude in connection with this important matter. The discussion which has taken place here, has brought to light many important aspects in connection with this question, and we want to avail ourselves of every opportunity to emphasise our policy in so far as it relates to questions of this nature. Two particularly important points have been emphasised, but before dealing with them, I feel that I ought to sound a note of warning against the effect of the speech of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). He laid down a dangerous proposition. I do not want to suggest that he did so deliberately, and perhaps it emanated from his particular attitude towards the native, but the fact remains that he emphasised that we were making an attack on the non-European population. Such a statement on the part of a member in this House is particularly dangerous and undesirable, and it does not become the hon. member. The question which has been raised here is the effectiveness of education, and it is dangerous and unwise to make a statement that this side of the House is losing sight of the real issue and that it is simply making an attack upon the non-European section of the population, and I want to go further and say that it is a foolish statement. Along those lines we create a feeling of enmity between European and non-European and such a statement will not only have repercussions on one section or another, but on the whole population, and no member of the House ought to make statements here which will bring about that feeling of enmity between European and non-European. For that reason we want to consider the merits of this case. I want to deal with one aspect which has been raised. There is the home aspect, the responsibility of the parent, whether it be a European or a non-European. The policy of the State must be to encourage the independence of the parent, to increase his sense of responsibility towards his offspring. The State does not discharge its responsibility unless it sees to it that the sense of responsibility, the sense of independence on the part of the parent, European or non-European, is maintained. With regard to the question of the contributions, I think many methods can be employed to let the parents contribute, even if it is only a small contribution. Take the contributions, for example, which have to be made by Europeans in connection with the Good Hope schools. There the parents have to make a small contribution, and it is a sound principle. If the assistance of the Departmene of Native Affairs is invoked to devise a scheme whereby means can be created to enable the natives to contribute something, it should be possible to devise such a plan. It can be done if there is the necessary co-operation between the two departments, and in that event something of a constructive value will be contributed in order to increase the independence of the native, which is one of our greatest problems. But I have really got up to draw attention to the economic implications. I must confess that I listened with some astonishment to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Roodt). I can understand that he feels unhappy at the thought that there are school-going children who are under-nourished. The humanitarian feelings of everyone of us are shocked at the very thought. One does not want people to starve, and in a civilised community particularly, one does not want children to starve. But eventually the hon. member himself realised the dangerous implications of his argument and he then started to fence. Instead of facing the consequences he tried to fence and get away from his former attitude. This side adopts a clear standpoint, namely that it is the responsibility of the State to make provision for every head of the family to be independent. That is the foundation. We cannot get away from that. But one feels, as the hon. member for Vereeniging felt, that if that is the attitude, it means that wages must be increased. The first requirement is the general provision of employment, and, secondly, the wages must be such that the wage earners can be independent. The hon. member himself then asked how that would affect industry; and at that point he started to fence and fail back. We must face the implications in this connection. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) put the matter clearly. Instead of making a contribution by means of the payment of better wages, as is our duty, we want to do it by means of alms. That is the wrong method. One cannot build up a sense of independence by means of alms. I agree with the hon. member for Stellenbosch that we cannot adopt the attitude that this matter does not concern us. Where we spend money on education, whether it be for Europeans Or non-Europeans, we must see to it that the pupils are in’ a position to derive some benefit from the education given to them. But the method which is being adopted to attain that object is wrong. In this connection a second great responsibility rests on the State. The system is not a good one, and it is necessary therefore to institute investigations in connection with the economic system. This method is exclusively the product of exaggerated capitalism, because our first concern is to make profits, instead of looking at the human power which is used to yield those profits. For that reason it is an equally important duty, and I think the primary duty of the State, to investigate the proper organisation of the economic life, the organisation which must have as its basis an increase of production and earning capacity and an increase in the income of the workers. But, of course, coupled with that, there is the implication that the living costs will rise, and when the costs of living rise we will again be faced with the other problem of further increasing the wages. This matter is of such importance and of such a far-reaching nature, that the State, in my opinion, will be neglecting its duty if it postponed this matter indefinitely. We accept the responsibility for the general provision of employment for those who want to work, but we shall be neglecting our duty if we do not investigate and place on a sound footing the factors which I mentioned a moment ago. We shall only prevent ultimate confusion and chaos if we regard this matter in the right perspective and examine it from the economic standpoint and place it on a sound economic footing. It is necesary to place the income of Europeans and non-Europeans on such a level that they will be able to lead an independent existence, and at the same time prices must be controlled so as to avoid ultimate confusion.

You find it very difficult to drag your Party out of the mire, don’t you?

It is not necessary. The position is that we are not dealing with a Party dispute, but we cannot evade our responsibility, and we must face the facts.

I am very pleased that the previous two speakers dealt with this matter objectively, and having regard to what they said, I should like to put the matter as I see it in the form of a few propositions, and as far as that is concerned I want to try as far as possible, to link up with what was said by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). From what he said it appears that the first proposition is that the State commits an injustice in allowing undernourished children to attend school. That applies to Europeans and non-Europeans. It is wrong on the part of the State to allow that. That is the first proposition. The second proposition is that the greatest and the major responsibility is the responsibility of the parents, and the best position by far is when the parent is able and willing to bear the responsibility. Unfortunately there are many parents who are unable to do it, but then again there are parents who can bear the responsibility but who do not do so properly. There is also that aspect of the matter. There are parents who are able to feed their children properly but who, for some reason or other, sometimes through ignorance, do not do so. The ideal system is probably parental responsibility and one does not like to depart from that. I stated that this morning. But now I come to the third proposition, and that it that one cannot await the realisation of one’s ideal, but one is sometimes forced to act in the light of the existing facts. In the light of the existing facts, the position is that a large number of school-going children are under-nourished. That is an unfortunate fact. The ideal is a decent living for everyone. There has been more extensive employment in South Africa in the past few years than ever before, but notwithstanding that there are still very large numbers of under-nourished school-going children, and unless we are prepared to take into account the facts, the State commits an injustice towards those children. It is right that we should try to change those conditions. Here I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) that we should endeavour to create a national income which will guarantee everyone a decent living, but at the present time we have no such national income, far from it. It cannot be accomplished by the mere stroke of a pen. No, on the contrary, our national income is not at all of such a nature that every parent is able to feed his children properly. Then there is the further fact that some parents who are able to do so, do not do it. We must take that fact into account, and if we are not prepared to make provision of this nature, not only for Europeans but also for non-Europeans, we are committing an injustice. If we accept these three propositions, and I think the hon. member for Stellenbosch is prepared to accept them, I think I am right in saying that at this stage we cannot refuse to vote money in order to provide meals for school children. I do not want to suggest that the system we are following is the ideal one. The hon. member for Stellenbosch stated that he was not altogether satisfied that the money was being spent in the best way. I am prepared to say that too. It is a new system. As far as natives are concerned, it was practically introduced for the first time last year, and we are still making experiments. Our intention is, as hon. members know, to create an advisory board in connection with the financing of native education. This is a body which can give its attention to the matter and which may be able to cause special investigations to be made in this connection, and since this system is still in the experimental stage, they may be able to suggest improvements, and I hope that in that connection we shall also have the benefit of the knowledge of the hon. member for Stellen-bosch in order to improve the system. But in the meantime it must be clear from the speeches to which we have listened that we will be failing in our duty if we refuse to vote the money which is being asked for.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) stated this morning that in effect the speech of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) did not actually reflect the Party’s policy, and that if we got into power we would not in any respect alter the existing policy of the Government. I just want to say that the hon. member for Boshof confined himself strictly to the economic policy of the Nationalist Party, which we are prepared to carry out if we get into power, as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) also stated.

What does the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) say?

The objection of the hon. member for Hospital is that, according to him, we are raising this matter for the first time today, and he asks why we did not raise it last year or years ago. Those are the old tactics. I have repeatedly objected to the fact that when we deal with great national matters, hon. members on the other side ask: “What did your leader do in 1929?” That is no argument. That is my objection to the Party on the other side, that it lives in the past and cannot get away from it. The Nationalist Party wants to adapt itself to the development which is taking place in our country. The hon. member adumbrated another dangerous proposition which is tantamount to a statement that we are doing an injustice to the natives in our country. He stated that we did not want the natives to receive medical training. I do not want a wrong impression to get abroad as far as the Party’s policy in this connection is concerned. We say emphatically that we do not want to retard the process of development of the native in South Africa. We do not begrudge the native training in any branch of our national life; we do not begrudge the natives their own medical men; we do not begrudge them their own nurses or other personnel, but that must be on the basis of separateness. We do not begrudge the native his development, but he must develop through his own efforts and on a basis of separateness.

The hon. member is now repeating arguments which have already been advanced.

I just want to make sure that this misrepresentation does not get abroad. We are dealing here with an item of £380,000, and I think the Minister himself will admit that this policy on the part of the Government has already invoked adverse criticism in the country. It was stated here this morning that the natives were flocking to the cities from the reserves, and that one of the reasons was that they need not concern themselves about the education of their children in the reserves, because the children are fed at school, and consequently they feel that they are at liberty to go away to the cities. There is a great deal of truth in that argument. I can tell the Minister—and I think he saw the report which was issued this week by a city councillor of Johannesburg—that the influx of natives on the Rand is still approximately 6,800 natives per month. A special sitting of the city council was convened to discuss the matter. We do not say that school feeding is the main cause, but it is one of the causes. We are relieving the natives of all sense of responsibility in connection with the feeding of their children. For that reason we are opposed to this. Surely it stands to reason that when these native children grow up they will not have the respect for their parents that they ought to have, because they will realise that the State took care of them. What has the child got to do with the parent? The State takes care of him. We are undermining the native’s family life. That is one important point we ought to bear in mind. As far as the Rand is concerned, I want to admit that the conditions in the urban locations leave a very great deal to be desired. But what do we find in connection with this matter? In the past the native women in the majority of cases have worked together with their husbands, one of the main objects being to provide food for the children. Today that responsibility no longer rests on them. We find hundreds and thousands of cases where the native women no longer appreciate the responsibility of assisting their husbands to provide for the education of their children. A very small number of native women are employed on the Rand today, although the wages have been trebled in recent times. One of the causes is the feeding scheme. We do not want anyone to starve, but we on this side of the House tested the Government the other day when we asked that the Government should accept the responsibility for the provision of employment in South Africa. That was rejected. Every member on the Government side voted against it. When we speak of social security, the greatest measure of security which we can give to the nation is surely to be found in the provision of the necessary employment, so that the man and his family can lead a happy existence. The Government rejected that. We feel therefore that we should press this matter until the Government realises that it is its duty, instead of giving alms, to see that its policy is so revised that it will provide sufficient opportunities of employment at living wages to all those who want to work, Europeans and non-Europeans. Even if there are people who do not want to work, they should be committed to work colonies and taught to work, but the Government must accept the responsibility for the provision of employment.

I should like to resume where I left off a moment ago, and that is to deal with the statement that the natives are undernourished and that for that reason we are obliged to spend an ever increasing amount in order to feed native children who go to school. I say again that I definitely deny that the native population in South Africa as a whole is under-nourished, and to such an extent that it is necessary to feed their children. People who say that know precious little of the mode of life of the kaffir. Take the farm for example. On practically every farm there is a small kaffir school today, and now we are going to introduce the iniquitous policy of giving food free of charge to the native children on the farms who come from all directions. There is not a single kiffir who need be undernourished. Of course not. There is more work in South Africa than all the kaffirs in South Africa can do jointly. What is the position today? We are being told that thousands of kaffirs have to be imported from other territories every year, because there are not enough workers in our country. That being so, one can imagine what nonsense it is to say that the kaffirs in South Africa are undernourished. I am not referring to those who are sickly and who cannot work—I shall come to that in a moment—but I say that if any kaffir is undernourished, he is undernourished simply because he does no want to work. They flock to the cities in their thousands, while the farmers cannot get labour and the municipalities can no longer cope with the problem. Only the other day one municipality published figures from which it appears that approximately 50 per cent. of the kaffirs in the urban locations are not working. They sponge on the others. And where that is the position in any city, there is a shortage of labour in that city—in the mining industry, in industries generally and even in the domestic sphere, quite apart from the position on the farms.

Which municipality are you referring to?

The name has escaped me, but thousands of kaffirs come in from the northern territories, and as far as Cape Town is concerned, tens of thousands of kaffirs have flocked to the city, and the Minister knows how acute the problem is here. The natives do not come here because there is no work for them elsewhere in the Country. I do not think the Minister will say that they flock to Cape Town because there is no work for them elsewhere. No one will dare to say that.

Does that also apply to Europeans who are undernourished?

If there are Europeans who are undernourished, the fault lies with the Government. There are many reasons. In the first place, because we allow natives to come here from other territories and to deprive the local natives of a living.

Was there ever a time when everyone was well-nourished?

My contention is that it is not true that the natives on the farms and elsewhere are undernourished. People who say that know nothing about the mode of life of the native.

Is the food good enough to prevent them from migrating to the cities?

What the hon. member apparently does not realise or does not want to realise is that not only on the farms are the natives refusing to work, but also in Boksburg. Only a certain proportion works, and then only when they are driven by hunger. The native is not like the European. One might almost say that he is still living in the pre-historic period; he has not yet learned to make provision for the day of tomorrow. But I want to deal with one proposition which was laid down by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. He correctly stated that the policy of our Party is that every person in South Africa must be offered a decent livelihood. That is so. He also explained what the object of our policy is, namely that the State must so arrange the economic structure of the country that every man who is able to work will have employment. The hon. member for Stellenbosch has expressed the opinion that this contribution must be regarded as part of the wages of the native. If this contribution were only in respect of paupers the proposition of the hon. member would be quite correct. But I think he sees the matter in the wrong light because he forgets that this amount of £380,000 which is being made available will not go to paupers only. It cannot therefore be regarded as part of the man’s wages. If we make available a certain amount for free meals and the son of Sir Ernest Oppenheimer is at school and is given a free meal, are we then to regard it as forming part of Sir Ernest Oppenheimer’s wages? Of course not. The same applies to the native. How much of this will really go to native children, the parents of whom are not able to feed them? Precious little. In other words, if the proposition of the hon. member for Stellenbosch is correct, it must only go to a small portion who, owing to illness or some other cause, are not able to feed their children. My Party and I have not the slightest objection to the State extending a helping hand where people are sickly or too old to take care of themselves, but this measure goes further; this sum of £380,000 is not limited to people who are sickly or who cannot work; this contribution goes to rich and poor alike, healthy and sickly; it goes to natives who do not want to work; it goes to natives on my farm and on other farms. On my farm there is not a single kaffir who has not got sufficient food from the 1st January to the 31st December for himself and his children; but every individual, rich or poor, healthy or sickly, will get this. We cannot regard it as the State’s contribution to people who do not earn enough to enable them to provide food for their children. And we are opposed to this sum because the money is being spent so unjudiciously and because contributions are also being made to those who are not entitled to it and who are in a position to meet the needs of their families.

We hear a great deal to-day about humanitarian feelings, but if we give free reign to our humanitarian feelings, I want to know where it is going to lead to, and when we are going to exceed the carrying capacity of South Africa. I do not think there is a lack of sympathy on any side of the House for people who really starve, especially when the people who starve are children. But we in South Africa are a handful of Europeans as against a large number of non-Europeans, and in recent times we in South Africa have been trying to give all sections facilities which even rich nations can scarcely afford to give their people. No matter from what angle we argue, we have not got the financial means to give our people the services we should like to give them. We are going further every day, and your humanitarian feelings are now driving you to the point where you are practically losing your reason. You are spending money at such a rate that you will not be able to afford it in the future. We have 2,000,000 Europeans and 8,000,000 non-Europeans. Is it humanly possible for these 2,000,000 Europeans, no matter how anxious you are to do it, to bear the expenditure in the future, to make available the necessary funds in order to provide all the necessary facilities for these 10,000,000 people? We adopt the attitude that we do not want to oppress the native. We have said time and again that we adopt the attitude that since the native belongs to the poorest section of our community, the State should contribute to the provision of facilities for him. We cannot get away from that. As far as the school feeding of native children is concerned, this side is also prepared to contribute to a certain extent, but we feel that in the past we spent millions of pounds in the Union of South Africa in order to give the natives their own reserves, their own territories. We do not want to oppress the natives, but we feel that the time has arrived when the natives themselves should start to contribute to the facilities which they enjoy in our country. Where is it going to lead to if we are going to give every school child a free meal once a day? I agree with the hon. member for Stellenbosch that the wrong method is being adopted at present. A meal is being provided not only to poor children and undernourished children, but to everyone. It has been said that if we give free meals to the poor or under-nourished children only, we shall give the poor children an inferiority complex. For that reason it must be given to everyone. We know that there is a great deal in that argument, but personally I feel that we cannot afford to give everyone proper meals. We are now being asked to vote £380.000 in order to give free meals to native children at school. We are now going to apply the principle that every native child at school should be given a free meal. Do we realise that only small numbers of native children are attending school at present? Do we realise that in four or five years’ time the number of school-going native children will be three or four times as great as today. Can we afford it to give a free meal per day to every school-going native child? If the State had come along with a proposal to give a free meal to the undernourished section of the native children, there would have been something to say in favour of that proposal, but when we are asked to vote such a big amount as this in order to give a free meal to every native child at school whether he is undernourished or not, I say that we are being asked to create a precedent which is going to impose an unbearable burden on us in the future. When the native children go to school in their millions, we shall not be able to afford to give every native child a free meal. We believe that the time has now arrived when the natives themselves should contribute a certain portion. The whole system of school feeding is still in the experimental stage, and for that reason we have indicated that we are going to vote against this scheme, not in the sense that we are opposed to the scheme of feeding native school children, but because we feel that it is wrong to feed them indiscriminately, whether they are undernourished or not. We are in favour of feeding the under-nourished section of the school-going children but not all of them. In the second place we feel that it is not right to expect the Europeans only to pay for the feeding of native children. In that sense I shall vote for this amendment.

Superficially regarded this seems to be a very good cause and a very humane cause and perhaps a very Christian cause. When we look at the implications of this matter, however, we are forced to the conclusion that it is everything but Christian. The difficulty that we have with this Government is that it blindly applies to the native population every policy which is applicable to the Europeans, irrespective of the circumstances. It is not always the right policy. We must look at the effect of this policy on the native population. We must not forget that to a large extent the natives are still a primitive race. There is the fact that the domestic life of the native is based largely on the question of food. It is one of the corner stones of the domestic life of the native. It is because of that fact that the organisation in his kraal is so arranged that every hut has its separate piece of land; that piece of land is cultivated and whatever is produced on it is the property of the owner of the hut and even the head of the kraal has no right to alienate that property. That is the attitude which the native adopts. His whole domestic life is based on the question of food. When he leaves the kraal to go and work, he is driven by hunger. It has correctly been remarked here that the native does not think of the day of tomorrow. Just look at the reserves. We find this phenomenon in the reserves that whatever the natives produce this year they exchange at the shop and at the end of the year they buy back the very same food from the shopkeeper at four, five or six times the price they received for it. That shows that the native does not look at the day of tomorrow. Now we come to this very important matter that the whole foundation on which the domestic life of the native rests is being thrown completely out of gear as a result of this scheme and his domestic life is being totally destroyed. We are committing an injustice towards the native. Let us look at the conditions governing the life of the European. We know that in the life of the European there are certain sanctions which compel him to look after his children. In the first place we have social sanctions. The parent who does not take care of his children is held in contempt by the whole communitv: and in the second place we have our religious sanctions. In the third place we have our legal sanctions. If the parent does not take care of his child, the State compels him to do so. But what sanctions are there in the life of the native? There is nothing of the kind. By means of this measure, the Minister is destroying that obligation which has so far rested on the native to take care of his child. What remains to compel the native parent to take care of his children? Let us look at the conditions in the citv. Today we have this phenomenon, especially in the cities, that there are thousands of children roaming the streets. Who are their fathers? No one is able to say who their fathers are. That licentiousness takes place, and the man simply walks away leaving the poor native woman to look after the child. That is the state of affairs which we find in the cities today, and this type of measure encourages that immorality to a very large degree. But what is more the object we may have in mind in making available this sum is lost sight of altogether. As has been said repeatedly, it is not the policy of this’ side to leave neglected children uncared for. On the contrary, if there is one section of the population which has done its duty in that respect, it is the Afrikaans-speaking population more particularly. I have in mind for example, the time when famine prevailed in the Eastern Province amongst the natives. At that time my forefathers sent wagon loads of food to those parts to save the people. One could cite numerous examples from history to show that the Afrikaner nation did a great deal of good work in this connection. But here we are dealing with a very dangerous principle. The great difficulty is that the greatest proportion of the native children who suffer from malnutrition today are particularly the pre-school children. The child at school to whom food is given is usually the child who does not need it. The child who really needs it because his parents are not able to take care of him, does not come near a school. He roams about, getting up to mischief and looking for food. I say that we are losing sight of the whole object in making available this amount. It is only those children who are being taken care of to some extent who are going to derive any benefit from this amount. Let us rather devise a system under which the children who are really in necessitous circumstances, who are not properly cared for and who are neglected, will be properly cared for and properly fed, instead of creating a system which will, in fact, promote a large-scale neglect of those children. I say that by means of this measure we are totally destroying the family life of the native; we are totally breaking up the family life of the native. Just look at the conditions on the farm. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) cast a reflection on the farmers of Middelburg a reflection which is unforgivable. He stated that he could bring evidence to show that the natives in that area are undernourished. Let me say here that I know the farmers in Middelburg, and I can testify to the fact that that reflection is unjustified. There are many poor people in the Middelburg district, but, as in other parts of the country, the farmers of Middelburg have always looked after their native labourers well. We do not find that state of neglect in the platteland so much; it is more particularly in the cities that we find that there are large numbers of children who are really living under critical conditions, and it is our Christian duty to take care of them. But I repeat that the greatest proportion of the children will’ not benefit by this amount. They will derive no benefit from it. The whole object is being missed, and that is why we on this side criticise this measure, and that is why the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) moved that amendment. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad wants to see that we at least call into being a sound system, a system which will ensure a livelihood for the natives, and that the children of the natives are at least trained in the right direction, that they are given a sound start. That is what the amendment contemplates. There is not the slightest justification for the accusation that we have no sympathy for those native children. I refer again to the past of my nation which has repeatedly proved its sympathy by extending a helping hand to the natives from time to time when they found themselves in straightened circumstances. But I cannot vote for this policy which destroys the whole social structure of the native. Today we have this state of affairs that native women are complaining more and more that their husbands do not want to work. In the past those native women, too, have had to work in order to feed their children, and now that even that incentive for the native women to take care of their children is being removed, we shall be faced with the position that a large proportion of these women will no longer work. That is the state of affairs which is being created as a result of this policy. I say again that it is dangerous policy.

I should like to say a few words on the following subject. I am one who grew up in the Western Province and who for many years thought on the same lines as many people of the Western Province think on the native question. With all modesty I want today to say that at one time I cherished that attitude and adopted that attitude in regard to the native because I did not know him in the least. Later I moved my home from the Western Province to the North, where for the first time I came into actual contact with the native, and there I learned that there is a great difference between the coloured man and the native. I will admit at once that I am not in favour of this policy of feeding native children, because it has a detrimental effect on the natives themselves. The native has many good qualities and traits. His first fine trait is his loyalty to his tribe. In the second place, there is his communal farming, and his third admirable characteristic is the way in which he provides for his family. But these laws that the white man in South Africa is imposing on the native have, when one considers all the circumstances, a detrimental effect on him. On the one hand there is the position that in the past we granted lands to the native to work for his own benefit. But what do we find? They simply will not work. They have always left it to the women to do the work and to care for the children. Now the Government intends to give the children a free meal at school and the result of that will be that now the women will no longer work. What is more, the native himself does not remain in his own territory. He comes to Cape Town in great numbers and lies around idle. The white man is enforcing measures of this nature and the good characteristics and attributes of the native are being lost. Some people on the other side of the House—let me say this straight out—there are English-speaking people in South Africa who do not hesitate to suggest that the Afrikaner is not well disposed towards the native and the coloured people. Let us look at the practical results. I was only speaking this morning to a man on the matter. I have certain parts of the country in mind and I am thinking of my own case where coloureds and natives have remained with the same employer for as long as twenty years. I know of cases in the Western Province, in my own family, where coloured families have remained with one employer for 40 years. I want to ask the House whether they would do this if the real position was that Afrikaans-speaking people did not treat them well. But let us look at how the Voortrekkers treated the natives, and let us compare it with the treatment non-Europeans received in other countries. ’Look at Australia and America.

How have you treated your own white people?

I think it is time that one had an intelligence test in the House. I think we should comply with certain requirements, and that is that any person who wants to become a member of Parliament should at least fulfil this requirement, that he should be able to pass a Standard I examination, that his intelligence should at least stand on the level of the intelligence of a child. Then you could perhaps take notice of such a member. But to continue— on the one hand you have the European population and on the other hand you have the non-European population in this country. I do not believe there is a single person in this House who would not bestir himself if he noticed a coloured person or a native starving. There is only one European to four natives. The natives are under our trusteeship, but we should so exercise our trusteeship that we do not ruin ourselves. It is clear to me that no one wants to deal hardly with the native, but the difficulty is that in South Africa we have no agreed policy in respect of the native; that policy can only be one of separation in every sphere. I shall not go into that now. We have heard today that there is friction going on between the Europeans and the nonEuropeans. I repeat I do not want to go into that now, but if we want to maintain European civilisation in this country we must institute a policy of separation. Then it will not be necessary to have all these discussions in the House. That is the only policy we can have, a policy of separation.

Amendment proposed by Gen. Kemp, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—32:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—69:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eks teen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 19.—“Native Education”, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 20—“Transport”, £375,000.

I think it would be as well if I made a statement on this vote before the House proceeds to consider it. First of all, I would like to explain that there appears to be some little dubiety in the minds of members as to exactly what can and what cannot be properly discussed on the Transport Vote, as distinct from the Railways and Harbours Vote. The confusion in this matter arises, I think, owing to the fact that the Department of Transport, which is one of the Departments of the Ministry of Transport has the same name as the Ministry. If it were not for that fact, it might be more easy to separate the various functions. When the Department of Transport was created we tried, as a matter of fact, to find another name for it because of that possible confusion. But it is important to remember that although the Ministry of Transport today controls two Departments, one of Railways and one of Transport, the Transport Vote is only a relatively small part of the Ministry. Of course, if you examine the actual matters on the Transport Vote, I think that in itself will indicate exactly what can be discussed on this particular vote. You will see therefore that one of the purposes of the Department of Transport is to administer the Aviation Act. That has nothing to do with the operation of the Government’s airway services. That is purely a railway function, and before the railways can function as an airway carrier they must have their planes certified, their pilots certified, and their aerodromes certified by the Department of Transport, by the experts of the Civil Air Board. In effect therefore you have two departments, for this reason, that the Government not only controls transport activity in the country, but is itself a transport owner and operator. Now, the one function of the Department of Transport is the function of controlling the railways, purely as an operator. I think that is clear.

It is not at all clear.

We have also Road Transportation Boards. We know what they do. They do not operate road transportation; they control it. They issue certificates or exemption certificates, to those who want to use the road for purposes covered by the Road Transportation Carrier Act. We have also the Road Transportation Council, but that is only a wartime creation and will not last. It is simply a creation built up to ensure that with the very limited transport we have available during the war there will be fair distribution amongst all the interests and that such transport as is available shall be issued in strict order of their relative importance to the economic situation.

Why did you take the Shipping Board away from this vote?

The Shipping Board is purely concerned with freights. It does not run ships. Later on this House may be asked to pass a Shipping Act, and in that case the probabilities are that the control of shipping will be put into the hands of the Department of Transport also, but the Shipping Board is only concerned with freight rates. The Department has nothing to do with rates, commerce or traffic. It only deals with the means of transporting traffic but not with the rates of freight charged in such traffic. That is properly the function of the Department of Trade and Industries under the Minister of Economic Development. That is the reason. The National Roads Board also comes under the Minister of Transport. It is a statutory body and a good deal of the work of that Board is really the work of the Provincial Councils. They only provide the funds and make the plans but the work is done by the Provincial Councils. We also have had the Perishable Products Export Control Board, but while we still administer that, I am inclined to the opinion that the Board might come under the Minister of Agriculture. Although both these departments come under the Ministry of Transport they have completely different and clear functions. The position might be similar if, as a matter of fact, all the affairs of the Department of Transport came under the main estimates, but that, unfortunately or fortunately, is not the case. The railways have their own Budget and that makes the confusion possibly rather greater. The Department of Transport must come under the main Budget, but the Railway Budget is to be dealt with separately under its own constitution, and as provided for in the South Africa Act.

Can the Minister tell us under which vote we can discuss national roads?

As far as it is competent for the Minister to discuss it, it can be discussed under this vote, under the Department of Transport but not under the Railways Vote. Again, this is not a question of operation but of control. There is control on the one hand and operation on the other. This brings me to a further question. On my Part Appropriation Railway Vote I made a statement to this House on the civil air situation as it had developed up to that time. I dealt in detail with the Chicago Conference and with the other conferences that had been held, and I brought the position, as far as this House is concerned, before the House at the earliset opportunity, and I brought them up to date, up to the time when I told them that we were going to hold a Pan-African Air Conference. But as that had not been held it was not possible for me to tell them about that at that stage. Strictly speaking many of the matters discussed at the air conference were matters for the Railway Administration but as at that conference we did in fact discuss the Chicago Conference and other conferences which would undoubtedly have a bearing on the Aviation Act, I felt that it was appropriate for me to make a statement on the Pan-African Conference; not on the operation of the airways, but on the work done at the conference, on this vote, for the reason that my Railway Vote is so late in the Session that it might suit the convenience of members better to dp it now. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that you are agreeable that I should make that statement on this vote, and therefore I shall do so. Now, I want to tell the House very briefly what happened at the Pan-African Air Conference, and to give it as many details as I have at my disposal as to what was done there.

And also the secret clauses.

I do not know that there are any secret clauses, but if there are any secret clauses they will only be affecting other people, and until we have discussed them with the other people it would probably not be wise to discuss them in public. But there are no secret clauses that do not affect foreign countries or will not affect foreign countries, and there are one or two matters which are still under discussion with foreign countries, and naturally one would have to see what their reactions to them are before we can discuss them in public.

Are they the only secret ones?

I do not quite know what is referred to by “secret clauses”.

Those that you cannot tell us about yet.

I am not going to give you the agreement clause by clause. Most of the clauses were published. I will give you a statement covering the work of the conference, which I think will be much more interesting to the hon. member and to the House than the mere detailing of the clauses. Speaking generally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this clear at the outset, that the Pan-African Air Conference—and that is the one I am referring to right through—acted in harmony with the obligations undertaken by the South African Government and discussed by the Government at the International Civil Aviation Conference at Chicago. Although the International Civil Aviation Conference agreed to certain things in Chicago which have not yet been ratified, we are working in conformity with its provisions. It will be recalled that in my earlier statement to this House I pointed out that we in South Africa stood for the establishment of a multilateral agreement amongst the powers of the world. That did not meet with acceptance at the Chicago Air Conference. The general view was that we should not have a multilateral agreement, but that all the agreements should be the subject matter of bilateral agreements between the different States. We have accepted that position for a moment but we still want to work towards the end of securing an ultimate multilateral agreement. We want that because it is our firm conviction that for a small country like South Africa multilateral agreements are much better and safer than unilateral agreements. But that was not agreed to at Chicago and as an intermediate arrangement the position has been left which makes it possible for every country to have its own unilateral agreements with other countries. Notwithstanding that fact we have found that in Chicago the same view which we have held was held by the British Government and by other Commonwealth countries, and in conjunction with them we are still working to formulate proposals which we hope may be ultimately extended for a multilateral convention covering all states subscribing to such a convention. To that end we set up an organisation at this conference, the Southern African ’ Air Council, which will work in conjunction with the Commonwealth Air Council not only to formulate such proposals but to propagate them if it can. I will give details of the Southern Africa Air Conference a little later on in my remarks. Now, one of the first things the conference did was to come to the conclusion that the civil aviation needs of Southern Africa can best be served by full co-operation in organisation and operation between the Union and the neighbouring States, including the Belgian and Portuguese neighbours. To that end it established, as I have indicated, the Southern Air Transport Council, and have also proposed the establishment of an Operators’ Association, to which all the States operating in Southern Africa will be welcome to become members. The conference did not frame the constitution for that association for the simple reason that it felt that the best thing to do was to negotiate with the countries concerned, particularly Portugual and Belgium, and possibly with France, for an association, and when they agreed to become parties to it all the members of the body could frame their own constitution. We felt that we did not want to face our neighbours with a fait accompli. We only wanted to express the ideas we had and if they were prepared to be parties to these ideas, we could then go to them and form a general operating association which could run all the air services as operators in Southern Africa.

Does that refer only to the regional lines or to the trunk lines?

The trunk line is something different from the regional line. I will deal with that later. I am only talking now about the Southern Africa area, and when I speak about Southern Africa I am speaking roughly about the area south of the Equator. There is one trunk line route, but the details of that was not discussed at this conference. That is a matter purely between the United Kingdom Government and our Government. The great point about the Southern African Air Council is that it is purely an advisory body. It can advise the Governments who are members of the council. The Operators Association has power to frame time-tables, or will have the power to do so, because it is not yet constituted, and to adjust services according to the needs of all the territories, and it will not be allowed to deal with any matter of policy so advanced without the authority of the Governments concerned. Now, to give substance to our intention to meet our foreign neighbours we formed this Operators’ Association, In addition the Operators’ Association will have amongst its membership in addition to the States present at the conference, representatives of S.A.B.E.N.A., i.e. the Belgian Air Line Service. If anyone asks me to give the name in full I will do so in writing. It will also include D.E.T.A., the full name of which I will also give in writing. These two companies will also be members of the Operators’ Association if they so wish.

Have they been invited?

Then we will also approach Air Afrique, which runs a service in the more northerly parts of the Southern Africa territory and Madagascar. We are asking them whether they will come into the scheme. It takes a little time for these things to be finalised. We can treat with our immediate neighbours, to the north, but when it comes to the other neighbours in the east and the west, those negotiations have to be conducted in Brussels and in Lisbon, and in the case of Air Afrique also in Paris. These things take time. Now, I have indicated, I hope, clearly to the House the political and general set up. I would like to come now to the more intimate and domestic matters affecting us. As the great bulk of the air traffic, the international air traffic, outside the Southern Africa zone, has its destination in the United. Kingdom—I think it was calculated that nearly 86 per cent. of the total goes to the United Kingdom—it was felt that as far as the main traffic route to the north is concerned, which would connect up with their services passing east to west, we should come to an arrangement with the United Kingdom Government. It would be quite competent for us, under the arrangements we agreed to, and under any kind of agreement which we will have no difficulty in making, to run our own services to London, and for the United Kingdom to run their own service to Johannesburg. We could do that, but we considered we should do it in consultation together, so that we do not run services which are not justified and which compete unnecessarily with one another, and so far as possible we should have the same organisation right along the route which could deal with both our services. I think that will appeal to this House as a commonsense arrangement, making for the utmost economy, and without which the best will in the world, we would have found it difficult to make ends meet. This matter was discussed at the conference, but it was primarily, as I have said, a matter between the United Kingdom and the Union Government. We are the only parties concerned in it, and a little later on I will give the actual details of how we propose to work that service. The effect therefore of the arrangements we have made with the United Kingdom Government in regard to this service, is this, that we will run the service all the way through to London; they will run a service all the way through to Johannesburg; the revenue of these services will be pooled and divided on a 50-50 basis, and the expenditure incurred by either party will be entirely left to that party to pay itself. Thus, we will have to pay for our own machines, repairs, fuel and other expenses but the revenue accruing will be divided 50-50. We have taken 50-50 as an approximation of the traffic interests both countries have in this particular line. It may be that as time goes on we will find that that is not quite an equitable division, in which case it may be modified, but as it can be said, speaking generally, that everyone who goes one way by air will also come back by air, the chances are that it will be 50-50. In addition to that South Africa undertakes, from south of Nairobi, to provide all the facilities and arrangements for which operators are normally responsible. South of Nairobi South Africa is responsible for all the facilities and other arrangements at the air fields they may have to alight it which normally an operator is responsible for. On the other hand, the United Kingdom undertakes that at Nairobi and north of Nairobi it will be responsible for those facilities. When I spoke about the United Kingdom, let me also make this point, that the United Kingdom does not, like ourselves, act as a government but operates through a chosen instrument, the British Overseas Airways Corporation. We negotiate with the Government, but it works through the B.O.A.C., so that the arrangement is come to between the South African Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

The fare will be the same on both lines?

Yes, it will be the same by mutual arrangement. The House will appreciate that this in effect amounts to a partnership in working, but has nothing to do with the drawbacks of a partnership in financial arrangements. In other words, while we work together we share on a 50-50 basis; we take half the revenue and do with it what We like. We pay our own expenditure and there is no question of our paying the losses of someone else, or of anyone getting profits out of our own operations. I hope I have made the position clear. I will give some further details about the actual working of the route later, but I hope I have made the general picture clear as to how we will work the trunk route. The only parties concerned are the United Kingdom and the Union Government. The other countries on the route will not enter into it at all. But in addition to this service it was agreed that all local services within the Southern African area would be provided by the different territories through which the trunk route passes, and that those services would not only meet the local needs of those territories, but would be integrated not only to the trunk route but also with any regional trunk routes which we might establish going through those territories. So that there are three categories. There is the main trunk route to the north, going through Salisbury, Nairobi and Khartoum.

Can we operate only regional routes south of Nairobi?

I am just coming to that point. The hon. member is a little impatient if I may say so. As I was saying we have a trunk route going right through and passengers will alight at Nairobi if they do not wish to go to Salisbury but want to stop at an intermediate port, and therefore it is necessary not only to have a trunk route but a regional trunk route following the same route, and that is what I term, for want of a better expression, the through regional service. I will deal with what services we propose to have in that connection, as far as the Union is concerned; in addition to the trunk route services there will be intermediate services, the equivalent in railway language, of the express train and the slow train. That will be run by us between here and Nairobi, stopping at other ports as well but going over the main route. This regional service will not only be confined to from Johannesburg to Nairobi. That is a service which we propose to run, but it will go, in addition, as far as the Union is concerned, to Johannesburg and from Johannesburg to Bulawayo, Salisbury, Elizabethville, Leopoldville, Loando and Lobito and to South-West Africa, and round the other way also. That is again a regional through service, right through the whole centre of Southern Africa. This service will be primarily run by the Union, at any rate in the early stages. It will be some time before we have any competition.

What do you mean by “primarily”?

I would like to explain it. If we are running the service from here to Leopoldville, it is quite certain that S.A.B.E.N.A. will want to run a service from Leopoldville to here, and we would have to agree. These services are reciprocal, and when I say that as far as we are concerned we will run it, I am really saying that Southern Rhodesia and Kenya will not run such services. We will primarily run our regional services, but there will be other services through other countries, and it is sure that whatever we ask of Portugal they will ask of us. S.A.B.E.N.A. are now running services through our country, but that is all to the good. It simply means that we are getting an excellent service throughout the South African area. There again, what I am telling you now is what are our intentions, because naturally I cannot say we will do it until we have made the necessary agreements with our foreign neighbours. Now, in addition to that we dealt with the question of domestic services only in so far as they related to these two forms of trunk routes. The conference was not concerned in any way with the domestic affairs of each territory, but we did lay it down that this Air Transport Council which we established will have the right at any time to make representations to any Government on any of these routes and to urge that better connections be made for them in the terr tories which are gone through. In other words the Transport Council will hold a watching brief—I will give you the exact terms later— to see that all the services are useful and properly integrated and that there are no gaps left in supplying the needs of any particular territory. I again emphasise that nothing can be done except with the approval of the governments concerned. Regarding the Operators’ Association, that will be a body which will have the practical work of operating these services. They will draw up the schedules and the time tables and do all the things that the management of the railways, for example, does. The machines will go right through so that passengers do not have to change machines, and as far as the trunk routes are concerned, the same machines will go all the way to England. There will not normally be a change of machines. The pilots will change over, but the nationality of the pilots will not be changed, naturally the pilots will have to have a rest, because the service will have to travel day and night.

You are keeping it very confidential. We cannot hear a word.

I am very sorry, the difficulty is I have so many sides of the House to address. I would like to give the House some details of these different organisations. First of all I should like to indicate exactly what the functions of the Southern Africa Air Transport Council are. They are defined as follows—

1. (a) Keep under review and promote progress and development of civil ah communications in Southern Africa.
2. (b) To serve as a medium of exchange of views and information between member countries on civil ah transport matters.
3. (c) To consider and advise on such civil aviation matters as any member government may desire to be referred to the Council.
4. (d) To furnish a link and to co-operate with the Commonwealth Air Transport Council and keep that Council fully informed of its deliberations.

The membership of the South African Ah Transport Council will be: United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, the British High Commission Territories, Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar. It will be an advisory body, but it will have full power to come to a decision, without reference to any other country, as to the nature of the advice it will offer. The member governments will be entitled to be represented jointly at Council meetings if they wish to do so. That is to say, if three or four territories desire to be represented at the Council meetings by one delegate they are at liberty to do so. The Council will meet at regular intervals. Special meetings, as necessary or desirable, may be held, and these will be convened at the express desire of any two members. The chairman for the time being will be designated by the country in which the meeting is held, because it is not proposed to hold the meetings all the time in one country, and on each occasion the country that is the venue of the meeting will make the appointment. Each country will bear the cost of its own representation on the Council. The governments will decide on each occasion whether representation will be on a ministerial or official level. Each country will bear the cost of it’s own representation on the Council, and of the committees and secretariat. A permanent secretariat will be established. As it was felt that this permanent secretariat should not be established until such time as the Council had met and decided on its composition, its duties and the financial arrangements, the Union Ministry of Transport will in the meantime act as the secretariat of the Councl.

Where is the secretariat to be established?

Temporarily it will be the Union Ministry of Transport that will be the secretariat. It is likely that will be continued, but it was felt the conference should not lay down anything definite on that point but that the Council should make a formal decision at its first meeting. So the position is accepted that until such time as the Council has its first meeting the Ministry of Transport in the Union will act as its secretariat; and already we have had a great deal of work to do. I am not able to supply the House with the constitution of the Operators’ Organisation. As I have explained, we do not want to prepare this until we have an agreement in regard to the membership of our foreign neighbours. The conference also dealt with the question of airmail traffic and with meteorological and tele-communication aids and other technical matters which, as the House knows, are of the very ’ highest importance as far as the air is concerned. Regarding the question of the conveyance of airmail, it was agreed that existing arrangements should continue for a period of 12 months. Under our present airmail contract we have mail connections with every part of the world. The aeroplanes that take our mails north sort these mails out for distribution by air to every part of the world, and it is very important we should continue that service. The basis upon which the airmail is now run will be continued for the next 12 months, and in 12 months’ time a new arrangement will be come to. As far as the subsidy is concerned, at the present time subsidies are paid for the conveyance of airmail by the Únited Kingdom, by ourselves and by one or two of the smaller States through which the airmail travels, and the arrangement, which will exist for a period of 12 months, is that the whole of the existing subsidy, that is to say the subsidy contributions on pre-war scale of the United Kingdom the Union of South Africa, Eastern and Central African Territories, together with half the contributions at the pre-war rates paid by Egypt (because Egypt also pays for the direct Egypt-London service), will be paid into the pool of the air services generally. As I have told the House, that pool will be divided on a fiftyfifty basis.

But that was done in the days when we did not have our own service.

Yes.

Then we will be paying the same although we have our own service.

On the contrary, we will be getting a great deal more out of the interim arrangement than we are entitled to. I think if the hon. member will study the statement I have made on how this is to be worked for the next twelve months, he will find we have far and away the best part of the bargain. It is not a permanent arrangement. That would not be fair. But it is in order to keep things going until it can be properly examined. It is agreed the mail payment will be paid on a fifty-fifty basis like the other revenue, which is higher than we are strictly entitled to. The capacity for the conveyance of airmail until such time as we can get more aeroplanes—because that is the bottleneck at the present time— will be limited to 950 lbs. per plane, and if the post office supplies more than that some of it will have to be held over, unless by chance there is room on the plane. There is no guarantee that we will convey more than 950 lbs. of airmail matter in any one plane. Regarding the question of meteorological and tele-communication aids, which are today of far greater importance than before the war, because there have been the most remarkable developments in airmail navigation and in the use of wireless and other tele-communication methods to make for safety, it is of the highest importance that everything we do here should be up to date and continue to be up to date. The conference appointed a special committee comprised of the technical experts under Brig. Schonland and they finally made the following proposals which were agreed to. They suggested that arrangements for the employment and co-ordination of meteorological services, communications and flying aids in Southern Africa developed during the war should continue for an interim period until a more permanent organisation is possible in time of peace. That in effect means that until such time as we can set up the peace organisation the defence organisation will be made available to these services, and will be used for these services, so there will be no hitch and no delay. The one will gradually develop and merge into the other, and we have agreed as far as the defence equipment is concerned it will be made available to the civil air service. The committee also recommended that steps should be taken to supplement these arrangements wherever necessary in accordance with any international arrangements or the needs of the service. That is to say, if at any one point the military establishment is not convenient, other arrangements will be made to adjust that by a new station or a new meteorological point. It was also recommended, and it is now being agreed to, that a formal agreement of the fighting services which at present largely control these arrangements and facilities should be obtained for their use by the civil air services and for the development of such facilities to include civil aviation requirements during the interim period. It was agreed that—

1. (a) A small standing committee of aeronautical tele-communication specialists should be set up under the Southern Africa Air Transport Council to bring to its notice and make recommendations on matters of a technical nature.
2. (b) That a similar committe of meteorologists should be established for the same purpose; and
3. (c) that these two committees should combine when necessary for the discussion of problems of mutual interest.

The committee also recommended that the South African Air Transport Council should utilise the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research which is being set up by the Union Government. Several other matters of a highly technical nature were also dealt with, which I do not think I need explain to the House now. But in this respect I would like to emphasise once more that on the technical side the work of the Chicago Conference will prove of the greatest value. On the technical side the work of the Chicago Conference leaves very little to be desired. As I have said, we want these arrangements to be as up to date and perfect as possible, and the Chicago Conference although it did not completely cover the whole field did excellent work. I think that covers the main scope of our discussions, and I would just like to say a few words in regard to the details of our trunk service and one or two other matters. Regarding the Union-United Kingdom Trunk Service, this service will initially be one per week in each direction increasing shortly to two per week, and thereafter as may be desirable or as may be needed. South African Airways aircraft will be based in the Union and the B.O.A.C. aircraft in the United Kingdom. In that connection I should like to mention a matter that I noticed in the Press the other day, and which I think, as reported, scarcely does justice to the South African pilots. I am inclined to believe that the statement as reported can scarcely be quite the statement as it was made, and I want to make that point quite clear.

What did they say?

What they said was this. Lord Knowles stated that the service which will be begun in July will be run on a partnership basis, the two countries sharing expenses and profits —that is as I have explained—

This statement, if it is correctly reported, or should I say the statement as reported is not a correct reflection of the situation. South African pilots have just as much experience as those of the United Kingdom.

Are they paid as well?

I cannot answer that question from knowledge, but I shall be surprised if they are not paid better.

They are not satisfied.

If the hon. member will speak on this at the proper time I will deal with it, but I shall be glad if he will not interrupt me when I am making this statement on the general position. There will be no difficulty in the Union of South Africa providing air crews from South Africa in time for these services, and there is no question of the B.O.A.C. assuming full responsibility for the South African part of the scheme. In any case our bases will be ready, but if our bases were not ready how could the B.O.A.C. supply them? The suggestion made in that statement that the South African pilots will not take long to learn this job as they have gained much experience in the war is, I think, a little unfortunate. Our South African pilots have been flying as long as the British pilots, and in justice to them I put these remarks on record.

They know this route through Africa much better than any other pilots in the world.

Subject to alterations, the route between this country and London will be Cape Town, Johannesburg, Salisbury or Lusaka Nairobi, Khartum and Cairo, and a Mediterranean staging post. In what State it will be is not clear, but there will be some post either in Malta, North Africa or at some point in Italy. ’ There will be this Mediterranean staging post and an air station near Bournemouth in England, which will be the United Kingdom destination for these craft.

May we have an indication of the fare?

No; I think the idea is to keep the fares as at present, certainly to begin with. But I think it is a little premature to get down to fares. I think one can accept the fares will not be higher than they are today. The port from which these services will be run in South Africa will be temporarily at Palmietfontein, which is near Johannesburg, but a permanent airport will be established, not at Palmietfontein but between Pretoria and Johannesburg, and that port will be the international port for South Africa and it will be capable of taking the largest planes. Whilst a service of under 50 hours to the United Kingdom is the target at which it is proposed to aim the service in the initial stage will take about 70 hours to operate. That is until we can get some night flying aids and other installations established. Until then it will not be possible to go right through on the 50-hour schedule. To begin with the service will take 70 hours, and that will provide rest periods for passengers and crew at Nairobi and Cairo. This timing, of course, can be progressively improved as additional aircraft and crews become available. South African Airways will look after the interests, both commercial and technical, of the B.O.A.C. within the territories south of Nairobi and the B.O.A.C. will, in turn, function similarly for South African Airways in the Northern Territories, north of Nairobi, and in the United Kingdom. That is to say each party to this working agreement will look after the other party’s interests in their own territory. They will be the agents and they will do everything for the other party. It will be appreciated that the establishment of this service again will require agreement between ourselves and one or two other governments, notably Egypt, and steps are being taken in that direction at the present time. Coming to the question of machines to be used on this route it would be appreciated that it is essential that the same machines be used by both parties. The question of trained mechanics, in fact every aspect of the question you look at, dictates that the same machine should be used. Otherwise there would be enormous waste in regard to men, material, spares, and everything else. It has been agreed that ultimately these services will be run by modern Tudor civil aircraft. As these machines, however are not likely to be in service by the time it is hoped to inaugurate the service it has been agreed to operate temporarily with the latest type of York civil aircraft. I should like the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) to listen carefully now. The period over which these York machines will be used is a very limited one, so far as we are concerned possibly not more than two years. At the outset it would obviously be uneconomical for the Union Government to buy York machines which only have that useful life so far as we are concerned. This difficulty has been overcome by what I regard as an extremely generous offer by the United Kingdom Government. The basis of this offer is this. It provides that York machines required by South African Airways in order to enable us to operate our part of rhe trunk service, on which we get half the revenue, will not be purchased from the United Kingdom, but will be chartered from them on a basis which I shall now indicate. The basis of the charter is as follows: The life of these machines will be taken as seven years, depreciation will bé charged annually on a seven-year basis. That is to say, we will depreciate them at the rate of one-seventh per year. Although we shall only use them for two years we will only take the charge of one-seventh of their depreciation per year. The interest on the capital involved will be calculated at 3 per cent. That is to say, the Government will pay for the charter of these machines on a basis of the interest on capital involved in depreciation at the rate of one-seventh each year. The rate of interest will be 3 per cent. on the capital involved. When we are finished with the machines they will be taken back by the British Government and we shall have no further commitment in regard to them. Any capital loss sustained on these machines, if the United Kingdom cannot use them themselves, as they probably will not be able to as they have many other machines, will be borne by the United Kingdom Government. It will, in addition to that, be necessary for us as we are operating these machines, to purchase a supply of spare parts so that we can maintain them while they are running for us. But if we have any spares left, the United Kingdom will take them back at cost. I think the House will agree that this is an extremely generous and fair offer. We are being enabled to start our share of this service on a financial basis as far as the machines are concerned, which is cheaper than if we owned the machines ourselves.

What is the life of a machine?

The life is calculated as seven years. I may say that the British Government have agreed to write off these machines in seven years, though if they belonged to the South African Airways we would write them off in five years, so we are getting them at a lesser charge than if we got them for ourselves on the basis of our own charter.

How many of these machines will we get?

It will depend on the number of services. At the beginning, with a weekly service, we shall have one or two machines, but as the services multiply the number of machines will be increased. As I have been saying, this is an extremely fair offer from the British Government, and it enables us to operate at the start on a more favourable basis than if we owned the machines ourselves, while it has the outstanding advantage that we have no capital commitment beyond the period for which we actually use the machines. A part of this arrangement is that we shall be able to purchase the necessary Tudor machines for ourselves to run the service on a permanent footing. The House will be interested to know that what this arrangement will mean in effect is that the annual charge for these machines will amount to no more than £8,750 per annum as nearly as can be calculated. I think I have more or less come to the end of my remarks. I should just like in summing up to say that so far as this Air Conference is concerned — and I hope in deference to your ruling I have confined myself strictly to the conference, because I am not touching the South African Airways and I hope, Mr. Chairman, if I do you will pull me up—this conference came to decisions as to the immediate post-war civil needs of Southern Africa and took all necessary steps in order to ensure that these needs will be met. It established the relationship between domestic and regional air services in the Northern Territory and in the trunk routes proceeding to the North. It created machinery to continue the work of the conference, because we do not have a conference every year. But it created through the Council a machine that will carry on that work and meet all developments that may take place. So far as postal arrangements are concerned, as I have indicated they have been adequately and fairly met. The supply of machines and equipment has been met not only adequately and fairly but generously; and all the meteorological, telecommunication and flying aids have been provided" for. There has been no hitch anywhere in regard to the functioning of this service once we are ready to begin. I may just mention as showing to what extent the South African Government got its way at this conference that if anyone has any doubt on the point I would commend them to read a paper that was read by me to the Associated Technical Societies of S.A. in October of last year, when the original conference was to have been held and was not. I read this paper instead. I suggest that hon. members should read that paper, which indicated what we in South Africa should ask for and what we in South Africa stood for, and after reading it they will be able to say whether there is any doubt that at the Air Transport Conference the South African point of view was adequately met. I shall be surprised if they have any doubt about that after reading that paper.

I should like to have the privilege of speaking for half an hour. One would have liked to have an opportunity to study this somewhat complicated statement of the Minister. Because I did not have such an opportunity I should like to confine myself to remarks in respect of a few general matters in connection with the conference about which the Minister made this statement. The conclusion one can draw from the Minister’s statement is that half of what happened at the conference was not told us by the Press. As one hon. member remarked here, not only were we sold out, but we were sold for seven years. The conclusion to which one comes on what the Minister told us is that South Africa not only came out of the conference weak, but weaker than anyone could learn from the Press reports. The Minister told us that there will be a British route and a South African route, but at the end of his speech it was very clear that there would be only the British route. The few remarks I wish to pass are contained in these few questions. The first is, why was this conference held so prematurely; and the second is: Why, if you are in favour of eventual co-operation in the Southern portion of Africa—and the Minister says that that is the purpose— why first hold a conference with only a few of those powers concerned? My first question is: Why be so premature; why hold a conference while the whole international world, as regards aviation, is still in a state of flux? The position of aviation in the whole international world is still in the stage that it is being discussed. The discussions have not gone half way yet. An impasse was reached at Chicago. It seems that the international world has not yet made up its mind about aviation, and aviation is one of the matters which must be dealt with on an international basis. If there is one matter which in future can bind the world and which should be treated on an international basis, it is aviation.

What about Chicago?

Chicago is really clear proof that the international world has not yet made up its mind in connection with aviation; it has not yet come to a firm decision as to what direction it should go. I say that we have a state of flux in the international world, and that it has not yet made up its mind about aviation. Aviation will be one of the matters of the greatest international interest for the future. But here the South African Government, put on the run by the British Government, decides to hold a premature conference. Why? I can only draw one conclusion, and that is that the Government is not satisfied with the idea held by this side of the House, namely that South Africa must act like a sovereign independent country. The Government wants us to revert to the position existing just before the war, and the line of action then adopted by them, and that in international matters we should act as part of the British Empire. Well, I do not blame them for that, because it was always their policy and is still their policy. But then the Minister of Transport must not come and tell us here that South Africa acted like a sovereign independent country. He does that, while the Government saw to it that before each world conference South Africa was first firmly bound to the British Empire. At each international conference attended by South Africa during the last few years, it was always previously seen to that we formed part of the British bloc, that we were first bound to the British Empire. The Minister spoke about Chicago. What happened here also happened there. Before the conference at Chicago the representatives of the British Commonwealth first had to meet and reach a preliminary agreement in order that they might attend that conference as an entity. What happened to South Africa’s sovereign independence? I put that question to the Minister. Before all those conferences the same thing happened which now happened here, and it will also probably happen again, in regard to other conferences; it will, of course, also happen at San Francisco. The British bloc must first be formed and agreement arrived at amongst the British Commonwealth of Nations, and then agreement must be sought with the other nations. Because, if that is not the case, why must there first be a preliminary conference between a section of the parties concerned in a matter, so that they can later approach the matter in a bloc against the others? By way of an interjection I asked the Minister of Transport whether the other nations in the southern portion of Africa accepted the invitation to serve on the Board. His reply was that they were still busy negotiating. I put this question: Which countries with self-respect will watch other countries first forming a British bloc, forming a contract for partnership, and then allow themselves to be called in? I cannot imagine that any country with self-respect will participate in such a matter.

They agreed to the procedure.

I accept the Minister’s statement that they agreed to the procedure. The meaning of his reply to my interjection is, however, that they have not yet agreed to take a seat on the Aviation Board. I should like to see in what position they are put in at a later stage being asked to participate in an agreement after some of the parties to that agreement had already formed a partnership. It is significant that the Minister used the term “partnership.” It is a partnership between the British Government and the South African Government. Now the other nations know that there is such a partnership. For that reason I put these questions, why the Government was so premature in holding this conference and why such a conference was held if the Government intended to come to an agreement with the southern states of Africa in connection with aviation. Why did he first call together one group and why is he now trying to include the other group also? I think Lord Swinton gave us that reply. It is clearly evident from the statement he made while he was here—

That is the whole matter. The Minister used a lot of time in explaining that the principle of 50-50 would be applied. That sounds very much like the one-horse and one-hare story. The reply to it is this. If the owner of a taxi fleet has 20 taxis it is obvious that he will buy the same make of car. It is obvious, because if he needs spare parts he can buy them at a lower price for all twenty of them. It will, of course, be stupid for South Africa and stupid for England not to use the same aircraft if they enter into an agreement of a partnership. The only point of difference is that in this case the aircraft will be British aircraft and that Britain will build the aircraft. We must get them from there.

I suppose you are sorry that there are no more Junkers.

The result of the conference amounts to this, that we entered into a contract which will fit in with the general structure of the air mail scheme of the British Empire, and not only will it fit in in the general structure of the British air mail scheme, but also in the general structure of the British Empire’s aviation. If it were not for the fact that a quarrel is brewing between America and Britain in connection with the arrangement of aviation, the matter would not have been of such a flagrant nature. But because we know that there is a smouldering quarrel between Britain and America about aviation, I say that this conference was premature. It is not only premature from the point of view of international actions, but also because we know that between those two countries there are difficulties which have not yet been solved. It is such a pity that South Africa, which is such a large country, with beautiful prospects for aviation, it being so far from other countries, has now bound itself to Britain for such a long time, and that it did so to the detriment of South Africa.

Prove it.

If the hon. member would just listen a little he will hear it. The first reason why I say that the Minister did it to the detriment of South Africa is the following: South Africa is putting itself in the position where, in spite of the fact that it has its own air service from Johannesburg to’ London, it must pay a subsidy of £98,000 for the air mail. That is the interest on 2½ million pounds. What could our aviation not have done with that 2½ million pounds? Secondly, South Africa puts itself in the position where it cannot buy the aircraft it needs for this route from Johannesburg to England in the open market, and that it is therefore not buying the aircraft it would have bought if it could buy in the open market. I should like to stress this point, because it is the crux of the matter. South Africa is put in the position by this contract that it must buy and use aircraft which otherwise it would not have used if it had a free hand. South Africa will suffer this damage as a result of this conference that it must buy or use aircraft which otherwise it would not have used. The third point is this, that South Africa could have operated the whole route between Johannesburg and London, but as a result of this agreement it must give half of it to the British Government. It is an agreement, and it cannot now operate the whole route between Johannesburg and London. It must give half to the British air service. If that is right, and that is the statement of the Minister, we can only draw this conclusion, that we are doing a tremendous disservice to the men trained in our air service who will be our pilots in that service. Our air service between Johannesburg and Rome is one of the best in the world. It is the most excellent and the best. Its accident record compares favourably with the best in the world. South Africa’s pilots on the air service between Pretoria and Rome, who were trained here, are amongst the best in the world. But what is the Minister doing now? When those men return to South Africa, our pilots, men who have had the best training, only half the number can be used for this service in comparison with what could otherwise have been done.

And you people called them red lice.

No, it is from the opposite side of the House that they were called skunks. I say that these sons of South Africa are the best fliers in the world, and what is the South African Government doing now? If we had used this route between Cape Town, Johannesburg and London ourselves, we could have used twice as many of our pilots and airmen as we can use now. We shall only be able to use half of them, and I repeat that they are amongst the most efficient and best in the world. It would then not have been necessary for many of them to return to the farms or to look for other work. This is one of the greatest disadvantages of this partnership to South Africa, namely that a large number of South Africa’s best trained pilots and airmen will have to be sent back to the farm and other spheres of employment because they cannot be used.

And you were against their being trained.

What did you people say about them?

It is no good those members over there howling. It is the truth. I challenge any member opposite to contradict the truth of this statement. Half of this route is being given to the British Government, with the result that we can only use half the number of airmen which we could otherwise have used on this route. Britain now receives the opportunity to use her own people on half the service. I say that if ever there was a Government which is wanting in its duty towards the sons of South Africa, it is this Government with this contract into which it entered. What is still worse is this: The Minister did not say a word about it, but according to the Press reports those pilots and airmen will not be trained in our country. During the war we trained the best pilots and airmen here. During the war Britain sent her people here to be trained. We trained men here who became the pioneers of the air services; but those pioneers in future will not be able to be trained here. They may not be used here to train others. No, the pilots and airmen for this service between London and Johannesburg must be trained in London. I will shortly deal with my last point, because my time is short and I must hurry. South Africa is obliged by this agreement to use aircraft which otherwise it would not have used if it could buy aircraft in the open market. I will admit that the open market is now limited. If Lord Swinton’s statement was correct, Japan and Germany will not be permitted to build aircraft after the war. All I can say now is that although the aircraft market is limited at the moment, Britain is still the weakest in that limited market. That is quite correct. When England during the war had to confine itself to the making of tanks, America concentrated on the manufacture of transport aircraft, with the result that she is now first in the world in that regard. According to this agreement we must now temporarily use Avro Yorks, and then we shall later change over to the new Tudor, and if we have not yet paid for the Avro Yorks, the British Government will take them over at its own price. I now take the Avro York and compare it with the best which is at present on the market and with which it must compete. There is the D.C. 4 Liberator. I shall be very brief in my comparison, but I think it is good to bring these facts to the attention of the House and of the country. The Avro York is the aircraft in which officials perished en route to Yalta. The Avro York is the aircraft which will not be accepted in America because it does not comply with the safety regulations laid down in America for aircraft. The Avro York is the aircraft in which Churchill does not travel. During all his travels during the war he used an American Liberator. At the moment he uses a D.C. 4 Skymaster. Why does he do that? Because not only does he want to use the safest aircraft in the world, but the best. That aircraft is amongst the safest and the best in the world, and its price is approximately the same as that of the Avro York. The British Lord Reith, who came to South Africa, did not come in an Avro York. He came in a converted Liberator, the “Commando.” as it is called. Why? Obviously because he wanted to travel in a safer aircraft. The converted Liberator is an old American aircraft but even that is regarded by them as being safer than the Avro York and therefore he used it. The Skymaster of America costs the same as the Avro York and it carries 63 passengers, while the Avro York carries just half of that. If we deduct everything from the Skymaster, there is 12,000 lbs. left for passengers and freight. If we take everything off the Avro York, then there is 6,000 lbs. over for passengers. The aircraft are of the same size. They use the same amount of petrol per hour. The expenses are thus the same, but the Liberator can earn double the income because it carries double the load. Because it carries 12,000 lbs. as against the 6,000 lbs. of the Avro York, it can earn double the income. The D.C. 4 Liberator of America weighs 39,000 lbs. Fully loaded it weighs 69,000 lbs. For one route it can carry 3,700 gallons of petrol and can stay in the air for 19 hours. It flies at a speed of 200 miles and the Avro York cannot do that continuously.

Where did you receive that information?

I just want to complete my comparison, and say that the Liberator can operate at a profit of 3d. per person per mile without any subsidy. That includes insurance and the salaries of the personnel. For the Liberator a single ticket between Cape Town and Johannesburg would cost about £9, because it can carry a double load in comparison with the Avro York. The Minister reckons on £20 with his aircraft, and I take it that that will also be the price of the ticket when Avro Yorks are used. For the 6,000 miles between Johannesburg and London, the ticket on the Avro York will cost about £150. If the D.C. 4 Liberator is used, it will cost £75— and it will probably be £75 without the subsidy, and it will make a reasonable profit. What profit will be made with the Avro York at a fare of £150 per passenger in addition to the subsidy? What is the result of what I have said here? If a man travels in an Avro York on the route between Johannesburg and London, he will have to pay £150 for his ticket, then the State must still help to pay for his ticket by means of a subsidy of £98,000 per annum. We do that while, if we purchased the best aircraft obtainable at the same price, we could handle the traffic at half the price. I come to my last point, which is the following. The Minister said that we would use the Avro York temporarily on a kind of hire purchase system. We pay the depreciation and they fix the price.

That is a new sort of business.

We use the Avro York temporarily and the British Government will take back the scrap iron at its own price, and we will then change over to the Modern Tudor. But it remains a product of the British government. That is the contract — it binds us for seven years to the British aircraft. This Government will long have been out of power when we still will be bound by this contract. That is what makes the whole position so unpleasant. By way of an interjection I asked the Minister what the life of an aircraft is. He said that it is 7 years. He knows it is not 7 years. The life of scrap iron is 7 years. But if we want to keep pace with developments in the international world as far as aviation is concerned, we must be able to buy the best aircraft every two years. But do you know what the result will be? The same as we had before the war. Before 1939 the whole world was moving pretty fast, but we were still struggling along at 75 miles per hour as a result of the contract we had with the British Government. I do not condemn these aircraft because they are British or American. My point is this, that we should compete in the open market, and that for that reason we should buy the best aircraft in order to keep pace with modem development. I say that at this particular time the American aircraft are the best, the fastest and the safest the world can produce, and therefore we should make use of those aircraft in the interests of South Africa. We do not do that, and why not? To help the British Government to gain an advantage over America, as regards aviation we must now prematurely be bound by this partnership. As a result of this partnership we are bound to Avro Yorks and modern Tudors. Why did South Africa not keep its powder dry? I say that it was in the interests of South Africa to keep its powder dry so that it could buy the best aircraft in the world for its own service. If better and newer aircraft are evolved, then keep pace with the rest of the world. If America had not been willing to supply South Africa or any other country with aircraft, there would still have been something to be said for the attitude of the Government in entering into this arrangement with Britain. But America is willing to help South Africa with modern routes and with aircraft at the same price as that at which we can obtain the other aircraft, and therefore this agreement of the Government is such a scandal. [Time limit.]

The Minister made a very important statement, and it is a pity that this House does not receive the opportunity to study that statement of the Minister thoroughly and to discuss it thoroughly. But we must now continue. I want to condemn this Airways Conference and the statement just made by the Minister in the light of two matters. The first is in how far it is a step forward in connection with this important question of getting the nations of the world to co-operate with each other and to understand each other better through aviation, and in that way to promote world peace. In the first place I want to approach the matter from that point of view. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has already partially dealt with it. In my hand I have the Aviation Act of 1923. The Act was passed to put into effect the decisions at the Paris Convention; in other words, here we have the position that after the last war of 1914-T8, the nations got together to try to regulate the question of international aviation, and their first step was a much better one than the one we intend taking after this war. After the last war the nations came together to see whether they could co-operate with each other, and they succeeded in agreeing about the great principle of International aviation. Here is the Convention for the Regulation of Aviation.

Do you regard the Paris Convention as a success?

Yes, it was, in so far that they at least agreed. This Convention was signed by all the great nations. It was signed by the United States of America, the British Empire, Italy, Japan, China, Belgium, Cuba, and then follows a long list of small nations. They at least succeeded in making an attempt to co-operate. After this war it seems to me that we will make a very bad start. Aviation is one of the chief sources of trouble amongst the nations, and if the nations do not learn to understand each other in the sphere of aviation, the hope of the world peace is negligible. Their first attempt at Chicago was to do what they had done at Paris. It failed. But we are on the eve of an important world conference, San Francisco. I should like to ask the Minister why he did not wait until after the conference at San Francisco before forming groups in aviation.

They are afraid of America.

It is possible that San Francisco might have created an atmosphere in which the next aviation conference would have been a success. Why be in a hurry, before San Francisco, to try to divide thé world into enemy camps who are inimical towards each other? The Minister ought to know that the moment one begins forming groups it will develop to competition between groups, bad feeling between groups, quarrels between groups, and I say here that we have taken the first step which will lead us to world war number three.

Do all countries do that?

That is my accusation against the Minister. The hon. member for Moorreesburg stated that he was premature. It is premature. If Chicago failed it does not mean that it is impossible for the nations still to come together in an attempt to agree. Why not postpone it until after San Francisco? Hon. members know that it was stated in the American Congress that the British White Paper on Aviation can only be regarded as a declaration of war on America.

It was stated by persons like you of whom nobody takes any notice.

In any case it was so important that they considered it necessary to blazon it all over the world. They regarded it as so important that it was cabled all over the world.

Tell us about the “kruit horing.”

It is the beginning of group forming, and group forming will lead to group competition. Group competition will lead to group quarrels and bad relationships, and we are asked to take this first step along a road which will lead to a repetition of catastrophes which are not yet behind our backs, and for that reason I condemn this premature air conference. Now we come to the second point. I should like to regard the matter from the point of view of the interests of South Africa. The hon. member for Moorreesburg raised certain considerations here, and those considerations were not based on loose statements. He quoted certain facts, and the great fact which emerged is the following, that as a result of this airways coference South Africa will be obliged to use inferior aircraft. It was made clear here by the hon. member for Moorreesburg that instead of binding ourselves to use a certain British machine, the Avro York, we should buy the best in the world. Those other machines can carry twice the weight with the same consumption of petrol, which means that we would have been able to take passengers, food, and goods to America at half the price which must now be fixed under this contract.

How do you calculate that?

It was not a loose statement on the part of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. It is based on technical and scientific facts made available to this side of the House. The Minister must not just give us a bare denial. The matter is so serious that we expect more from him than a bare denial. What we ask him, and that is what the country asks him in connection with this matter, is for the decision of highly placed men in our air force, who can give us a decision as to the type of machine we are going to use and the type of machine we can use if we institute our own air service. That is what we ask, the decision of highly placed technicians of our air force. Only when they say that what the hon. member for Moorreesburg says does not accord with the facts, will we accept it, not a bare denial from the Minister. It is a question of life and death for South Africa. [Time limit.]

The attack made by hon. members opposite was, of course, to be expected. The very fact that the hon. Minister entered into an arrangement with the British Government and the neighbouring territories in itself was quite sufficient for the Opposition to launch the attack which they made this afternoon.

But you could not understand the attack; it was made in Afrikaans.

I understood quite sufficient. They attacked the Minister because of the arrangements he entered into with the British Government in regard to the Avro York. The Avro York is a converted Lancaster Bomber, the bomber which swept the German fleet completely out of the skies, which not only swept the German fleet completely out of the’ skies, but which was also loaned to America before they had their own aircraft. These people who have been attacked and sneered at by hon. members opposite, were the very people who, when they stood alone in the battle with Germany, beat the Germans off and held the fort until the Americans could come in. The very fact that any arrangement was made to use any British aircraft was quite sufficient to damn the arrangement which the Minister made. Hon. members opposite go further and criticise the business side of the arrangement. Well, it seems to me that an arrangement has been made whereby we in this country take half the total proceeds obtained from fares and freight, and we are only responsible for servicing’ one-third of the route which the aircraft are going to cover. It seems to me that as we are only responsible for one-third of the expenses in connection with the route, and we are getting half the total revenue from here to London, the arrangement which has been entered into is a very sound business arrangement. But that is skated over by hon. members opposite. The arrangement about petrol consumption has also been raised. Hon. members opposite may be perfectly correct. I have not got the technical data, and I have no doubt that the Minister will answer that satisfactorily. Bearing in mind the fact that on the route to London we are going to get half the revenue, bearing in mind the fact that the air space for which we can claim sole responsibility is only from here to the Limpopo and that this arrangement has been made to travel through all the neighbouring territories, I say that the Minister in making this arrangement has rendered a service to the country; it is an arrangement which is a credit to the Minister, and it is also very much to the advantage of South Africa from the business point of view. [Laugther.] Hon. members laugh; very well. The Minister has been able to make arrangements for this air fleet of ours to travel all through Africa, through the neighbouring territories, and we are getting half the total revenue derived from the whole route to London. Is not that a very satisfactory arrangenment? Who do hon. members opposite expect us in South Africa to go to to be associated with in our air travel? Must we go to Germany? Must we go to Japan?

Don’t be silly.

What about America?

I know it is silly but it is far sillier for hon. members opposite to suggest that we should go to America, that we should ask Great Britain to supply this country with American machines for our service with Great Britain. The Minister has not in any way precluded any arrangement that may have been made in the future for a route from here to America, where we will no doubt use American machines. As the Minister himself stated, the arrangement he made, does not in any way preclude the operation of other lines to other parts of the world with other machines.

But you drive an American car because it is a better car.

I drive both ….

At the same time.

And I am also prepared to fly to America in an American machine, and when I am in Great Britain I use a British motor car, and no doubt I shall use it again. But if I enter into partnership with a country like Great Britain, I do not expect them to use American machines on a route operating between this country and Great Britain. I want to ask hon. members opposite this question: Has not the whole of their criticism been coloured by the fact that the Minister has entered into this arrangement with Great Britain? That is at the back of then’ minds, the fact that an arrangement was made with Great Britain. Before they even heard what the arrangements were, the hon. member had his notes already prepared. Before the Minister made his statement, they were prepared to damn the plan which the Minister put up.

So your idea is that we should come unprepared to the House?

I did not say that, but it is interesting that an hon. member should come forward with a speech fully prepared to criticise a scheme entered into with the British Government, when the details of that scheme have not been announced yet.

I invite you to come and look at my notes.

The hon. member gave us a lot of details. It is true that some of the details that the hon. member gave us were very interesting.

Next time we will come unprepared.

No, next time I will ask hon. members to come with an open mind, and not to come with a bias against everything British. They come to this House and try to criticise the aircraft of Great Britain, and the aircraft of Great Britain led the way in all the tests of aviation before the war, and if it had not been for the British machines turned out in the factories in Great Britain, Great Britain would never have got through the war, and it is only due to the inventive genius of the aviation engineers in Britain that they pulled the world through in the most critical time we have ever known, and we may say thank God today, that we had men in Great Britain who led the way.

That is what we get from hon. members opposite. They simply cannot judge a matter on its merits. When we bring facts and data to prove that the aircraft which we are going to use are inferior in comparison with the best available in the world, that is the reply of the hon. member. He comes here with sentiment. He sings God Save the King and waves the Union Jack. He then told us that the British aircraft chased the submarines out of the sea, but we do not wish to chase submarines out of the sea. We want to compete in the world market. We want the best machines we can find, with which to transport our goods in the cheapest possible way to the markets. Prove to us that those are the best machines. That is all we ask of the Minister.

Where did you get the facts?

I want to tell this to hon. members opposite. From the beginning of this session farmers came to me and said: “If the aviation question comes before Parliament, please see that the tariffs are such that it will be possible for us to take our fruit to the European markets by air”; and they showed me figures to prove that if one takes the best aircraft in the world ….

What aircraft is that?

…. if one takes the best aircraft in the world, one can pick fruit fresh from the tree, put it on the aircraft, and deliver it fresh and appetising in Europe within a few days, and then the freight rate will be less than what the Union-Castle Company today charges to take it by sea.

And then it still arrives there in a rotten condition.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg gave figures to prove it. When the Skymaster has a full load it can make 3d. profit per mile per passenger.

It cannot.

Don’t talk nonsense.

Of course it can. It is easy for hon. members opposite to say it is nonsense. We ask for the best machine in the world in the interests of South Africa. The interest of our fruit farmers, just to mention one section, depends on it. I have said that we do not want a bare denial from the Minister. He must give us the decision of efficient men at present in our air force. If they tell us that everything is right we shall be satisfied. But I want to ask the Minister, and the House ….

Tell me where you got the facts.

In my hand I have a programme of the Southern Africa Air Transport Conference. The names are given here of the men who would represent each of these countries at that conference—the men who would represent England, the men who would represent the various states in Africa, and also the men who would represent the Union of South Africa. Amongst these printed names I find the names of three men for whom the air force in South Africa have much respect. I read their names: Lt.-General Sir Pierre van Ryneveld; he is a man who won his spurs in aviation; if there is one man who has the respect of the air force it is he. Then there is Major-General Venter, Director-General of the Air Force, and Brigadier Hingeston the Deputy Adjutant-General of the Defence Forces. Will the Minister tell us why eventually they did not attend the conference?

They did not know about this book.

Now Barlow is dumb.

Will the Minister tell us why the whole air force of South Africa, men who built up aviation in South Africa, still before the war—I do not refer only to the way in which they achieved prestige during the war—why they are not recognised in these matters? I just want to ask the Minister why they were not recognised in these matters? During the course of the conference technical advice was suddenly required. Why did they not obtain technical advice from our own air force officers? Why did Lord Swinton call someone from Southern Africa? Why were our own air force officers not called in? Or were they afraid that those people would tell us that we should not use the Avro York? I just want to ask the Minister why the air force boils with dissatisfaction in connection with the manner in which the whole matter was handled? Why do people who have spent their lives in the air force feel that there is no future for them in the organisation as formed by the Minister? They are already trying to get out of the air force. That is a serious state of affairs.

There is no future for them.

They say there is no future for them in that organisation.

Did they tell you that?

Men in the service today are busy looking for other work because they say that there is no room for them in the organisation the Minister is busy creating.

They say their salaries are too low. That is the reason.

They are men for whom South Africa has respect, for their services to aviation before the war. I refer to what they achieved even before the war.

And during the war?

Can’t you keep quiet?

I should like to put the further question to the Minister. Not only does he refuse to consult our best men in the air force, but he refuses to give them hope that there will be room for them in the service; not only that, but it seems to me that he wants to have nothing to do with the military institution which we erected during the war. The Minister told us that he is going to use Palmietfontein temporarily as an airport. Why does he only want to use it temporarily? I also think of Brooklyn; I think of Wingfield; those are airports some of which existed before the war. On each of them we spent nearly a million pounds. Not only here, but in other places. The Minister’s organisation hesitates to make use of it. The feeling in the air force today is that the Minister wants to have nothing to do with the air force as we know it today, and we should like the Minister to reply satisfactorily on this point, because there is a strong feeling in the Air Force that there is nd future for those men in the organisation which is being created. We have respect for those men. They are people who earned their spurs in the Air Force. They are people who spent their whole life in the Air Force. But it now seems to me that they are pushed aside to make room for others, and I can tell the Minister this, that if he intends to do an injustice to those people, there will be a struggle in this House such as has seldom been seen before. We will not permit an injustice to be done to those people who built up aviation in South Africa. [Time limit.]

I do not at this stage wish to enter into this extarordinary debate that has developed so far, beyond saying that some of the facts that had been quoted as facts to me, are the most astonishing things I have heard, and Í think it would be rather fairer of the Opposition before I take the trouble to reply to them, to tell me just where they got their facts. But what I do rise to put right at once, is the suggestion made by the last speaker that there was apparently something sinister in the fact that Gen. Van Ryneveld and Gen. Venter and Brig. Hingeston did not actually attend the sitting of the Conference, although they were put down as delegates. There is a very simple and straightforward explanation, and that explanation rests in the fact that originally when the delegates were decided upon, it was proposed to discuss as part of the conference work the security aspect of civil aviation. But as a result of the fact that the other members attending the conference explained they were not ready to discuss security arrangements, that they would have no delegates who could discuss security arrangements, it was decided to drop the security aspect of our discussions altogether. The moment this particular aspect of our discussion was dropped there was no necessity for any of these gentlemen to be there, to be present. But when he says we did not use the experts from South Africa, well we did have meteorological problems and we did have tele-communication problems, although we did not have security problems, and the Defence Department was represented by Col. Collins, Col. Sellick and Brig. Schonland.

He is not an airman.

We were not concerned with airmen at that stage. I am not going to pay any attention to the nonsense about American machines being better than the British. Britain was making fighting machines and other machines before America, and they are still making the best machines in the world. It is only that these people have fallen victims—so simple are they—to the effect of American propaganda and believe everything they read.

Is that a very kind thing to say?

It is a much kinder thing to say than many of the things you have said about Britain. I only want to say this in regard to the hon. member’s remarks about our air force men having no future because of the fact that I am not prepared. That is what the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) says. But what does the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) say? He asks why am I moving so quickly? Why am I doing this? Why am I not waiting until the International Conference has been held at San Francisco? Why do I not “wait and see?” Why do I not wait, and wait and wait, so that everybody else can make all their plans before we move at all? And because I am preparing now the future of our airmen, because I am preparing now a future for these very gentlemen that he is talking about ….

And what a future!

It is the best future that South Africa can offer them. It is the best future we can offer our airmen. So scornful is the hon. member of his own country that he says no airman who gets a job controlling air services in South Africa has a future. That is not Very patriotic.

I have explained.

You had better explain.

I have explained.

It is because I am determined that we shall be on the air map as soon as other people. Why should we be waiting for America! What is America doing? America is fixing up agreements all the time. It has made agreements with South African states, with the states of South America, with states in Northern Africa, and it is negotiating with us now. Are we to wait until America has completed all her negotiations before we negotiate anything? That would be the way to failure; that would be to let down our airmen.

I think the Minister of Transport has never been so unconvincing as he was in the reply he gave a moment ago. The statement he made regarding the absence of experienced officers of the South African Air Force at the Air Conference will certainly not convince anyone. To say that the programme was altered later—that may be true—but the altering of the programme has nothing to do with the absence of important persons who ought to have been there. The future of civil aviation was discussed there and the officials with technical experience should have been present. They should, if necessary, have pooled their experience to reach the best decision. One of the decisions taken is with regard to aircraft. The Minister spoke about that. I have no technical knowledge enabling me to speak about the various aircraft, but the bare fact that the Government beforehand bound the Union to the purchase or hire of certain types of aircraft for a certain period is enough reason why the most experienced men of our own air services should have been present in order to give advice. We have no objection to the people who were present, but that advice could not have been obtained from them as the Minister could have obtained it from other officials. I really rose to speak about the unfavourable light in which South Africa was placed by the Conference and the actions of the Government in connection with it. I object to two things. Firstly that we are protrayed in a wrong light by the name given by the Minister to the Conference. On more than one occasion he spoke about the Pan-African Conference. He used that word twice. He did not even have all the states of Africa there, and therefore it was not at all a Pan-African Conference. I do not even mention the northern states. He had no right to speak about a Pan-African Conference because not even all the states of southern Africa were present. I accept that the Minister used the phrase because he believes it, and he believes it because in the first place together with the Prime Minister, he wants to contribute something towards future world peace, and because he would like to contribute towards world peace he wishes to create the impression—not intentionally — that all the important states of Africa came together as a large group with the same interests to discuss common interests. It is wrong to let that idea be disseminated. It was not Pan-African but Pan-British. Call the thing by its right name. One aspect of my objection is that we are creating a wrong impression outside. It was not a great group with common interests which met, but a British group, and it creates a bad impression if a wrong name is given to it. The hon. the Prime Minister used very nice words in his opening speech at the Conference. In passing I just want to tell the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) that I spent hours and hours in summing up the Conference, and I read the speech of the Prime Minister with interest. They were beautiful words, words which will sound well outside, because in them was expressed the requirements of the world, goodwill, amity, co-operation. Beautiful words. But what do we find in contrast with that? That the world although it is tired of bloody wars of the past and although it wants something new and wants to get away from the practice of the past and from the causes which have already dumped the world into two wars, has not learnt enough wisdom to eliminate friction. We did not learn the lessons of 1914-’19, nor those of 1939-’45. We are again starting the same thing and are again busy causing friction in the world.

Why?

Because we are forming groups and excluding others. We are again busy in that direction, something which is opposed to the great principles expressed by the Prime Minister. That is lip service. In our words great principles are held out but we act contrary to that and contribute to the forming of groups which must lead to friction. But I have still greater objection to the impression created by the Minister—in fact he stated so—that he drew up the programme for the Conference beforehand. I have no objection to that. I take it that it is so. But then he and the Prime Minister knew that the Conference was not being held to make a new start as regards the oragnisation in Africa. I spent hours studying matters in connection with the Conference and I was surprised to note the remarks of Lord Swinton who was present at the Conference. About a week before his arrival here he was interrupted in the British House of Commons by Lord Brabazon. Lord Swinton replied—

Thus the matter was discussed according to Lord Swinton in Chicago. The partnership of the Empire had already been formed. The object of the Chicago Conference was to bind the world closer together. That failed, and now plans are being framed for the forming of partnerships. Therefore he gives the assurance that he is going to make the partnership closer. He continues—

Especially after the failure of Chicago—

Must we understand from this that the preliminary discussions had already progressed so far that the agreement had already been arrived at and that it was practically only a matter of ratifying the agreement? Was the position that the delegates in Cape Town only had to say yes to all the decisions which had already been taken? One can deduce nothing else from those words. The States were convened here just to say yes. The matter had already been discussed. And then he says further—

Hear, hear.

Yes, if hon. members on the other side will also put South Africa first, it will not happen here either. Then he says further—

The hon. members on the other side protest too much. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has protested, and one of the reasons this debate is taking place here tonight is that they on the other side wish to protect the interest of our flying officers in South Africa. Is that correct? Do you wish to protect their interests?

Yes.

Those are soldiers; they want to protect the interests of the soldiers who fought during the war. Let me say in May, 1940, the hon. member and his friends moved this resolution—

It was 1940 when we asked for pensions for these very men and they said no. Under no consideration would the flying men of South Africa have a pension if they went out of the country. That is the way the Nats, want to protect them. No wonder the hon. member for George hangs his head. The hon. member and his friends on the other side voted for that unanimously— that no soldier serving outside South Africa should have a pension. Perhaps the hon. member will remember it.

What was the date?

May 12, 1940. You can get Hansard.

May 16th.

I will; I do not believe you.

Now these hon. members have come along and they tell us what great friends of ours the Americans are to give us this wonderful machine. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) will remember he was once in a Cabinet which nearly broke on account of the gold standard, and that he applied to the United States of America, or his Government did, to lend us a lot of money. What was their reply? “Yes, certainly we will lend it to you at 8 per cent. on condition your bill is backed by Great Britain.” That is from our friend over there with his American propaganda. I was nearly caught by it. I went over to see him, and I said to him, “You are right and if you hit the bail I will hit it back.” The same man who gave him this stuff gave it to me; American propaganda. I investigated it and dropped it. My hon. friend the member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has fallen for American propaganda. They fall for it not because they like the Americans; they cannot like them very much, because if any party in the world insulted America it is our friends on the other side. They insulted the memory of the dead American President, and that has gone all over the world. It was said in the Senate in Washington. We have fought this battle with Great Britain. We are the allies of Great Britain, and I say: If we can, let us buy British. That must be the cry of this party. Why not? Let me just remind the House of one or two things, why we should buy British, why we should assist the British in every way possible. It is because these things would have happened if it had not been for the British. In 1942 the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) said—

If it had not been for British aeroplanes England could not have won this war. On the 30th August, 1940, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) said—

She had not, but the British aeroplane won it. He went on to say—

My hon. friends may well curse the British aeroplane for winning the war, and it is the British aeroplane that stopped them getting a republic. Then the hon. member for Wolmaransstad said—

Quite right, if it had not been for the British aeroplanes. Then my old friend the member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) said—

But the reason why it did not fall is because his two sons fought with the British aeroplanes to keep it from falling. Then we have this—

Well, the laugh is now on this side, and it will be on this side for many years to come, and those hon. members can back America until they bust, but the Americans will never forgive them for what they did last Friday. They put a stain on the escutcheon of South Africa, and if they think the Yanks are such fools that they on the other side can by urging us to buy American aeroplanes get in the good graces of America, well in the language of the Yanks themselves, they have another guess coming.

While the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) spoke, I sat and waited for him to tell the House what he told me outside in the lobby. I do not usually do this, but in this case I want to do so. Is it true that the hon. member told me that we should resume the debate on aviation at the first available opportunity, and that he congratulated me that I acted in connection with the matter some time ago as I did, and that he would use the first opportunity to speak as we spoke here, and that he is glad that I acted in the way I did in connection with the purchase of the Avro York, because he himself also wants to tell the House that he agrees that the Avro York is inferior?

On a point of explanation, every word the hon. member says is correct, every word. Whilst I was speaking I said to him that the same person was putting the stuff into his head as had been putting it into mine. But I was clever enough to see it. That was the statement I made before the hon. member got up. I can only tell the truth. Every word he says I said is correct, and I explained it when I spoke. I said the same stuff that had been given to him was given to me, but I cut it out.

My reply to the hon. member is this. He spoke of somebody who came to see him. I do not know who came to see him and I do not know what he spoke to him about. I only know that the information this side of the House has in connection with the matter is correct; and the hon. member, while he made his speech, did not say a single word about the facts. He cannot. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister rose while the debate had been proceeding for quite a time and that he did not say a single word to contradict the facts we quoted here. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) is busy leaving the Chamber. Before he completely disappears I want to tell him that he has been very ungrateful to America and that he should not have said such bad things about that country. It surprises me that the hon. member did not controvert the facts we mentioned in order to support his case. As regards the victory in the war he is now ascribing all the credit to Britain, but when he speaks about aircraft, he does not utter a single word of thanks or gratitude towards America. We do not hear a word about the Super-Fortresses. That would only have been reasonable. And those are the members who last week went out of their way in an attempt to make political capital out of the death of a high person, but today when they get the chance to say a word in favour of that country, a responsible Minister of the Crown gets up here and says: “What you said you got out of American propaganda.” And that after their actions last Friday. That is one of the things about which the hon. Minister will still hear much. He said that I must say what I meant when I stated that as far as aviation is concerned he sold us out for seven years. I will give the explanation, but the Minister himself first owes an explanation to America about what he meant when he said that we had fallen for American propaganda. Speaking about propaganda, why not speak about British propaganda? I do not say America has no propaganda, but it does not suit the Minister to speak about America as he did. As regards British propaganda, that is so flagrant, so obvious — so much so that they even almost forced the Prime Minister to receive an Avro York from them. If that is not propaganda, what is? When all the countries had already stated that the Avro York is an obsolescent machine, we receive an Avro York. It makes such a noise that one cannot hear one’s own words.

Who says so?

The officers who fly it.

Why is the whole world out for other aircraft, the British Tudor and American aircraft?’ Why should an Avro York be forced on to South Africa for £63,000? If that is not propaganda, what is? I wish to express the hope that the Minister will not again refer to propaganda. As regards our facts, the hon. Minister got up and said that what we had stated are peculiar things. He did not go further. We are waiting for him. Perhaps he will still have a chance tomorrow to contradict the facts we mentioned. The Minister wants to know where I get my facts. Let him say whether the facts are wrong, and why.

American propaganda.

Well, here are the facts. They are right or wrong. The Minister can rise and say that our facts are not correct, in which case I will take his word for it, but I give them to the House bona fide.

How must we accept them as facts?

The Minister can test them in the light of other data which he can perhaps obtain, and then he can tell us whether our data are wrong. I believe that they are correct. Now the Minister, in a few words he directed to us, says that he is negotiating with America and that there may also be American routes. What remains for America to negotiate about? The Minister of the Interior also made a statement at this conference. It was to the effect that the first requirements was uniformity, that we should have uniformity between the various neighbouring States of Southern Africa, and he also stated what the results would be of the uniformity we require. He further stated—

What is the result of that? Not only will British aircraft be used for the long routes, but also for the routes in South Africa and the neighbouring States. And it does not cease there, but according to the Minister of the Interior British aircraft will be used for our inland routes, which also means that British spare parts will be used and British tyres; and what remains over for America? If we take into consideration that our main route has been bound to Britain for seven years, if we remember that according to the Minister we are to use the same aircraft for the routes to our neighbouring States, and also the same aircraft for our domestic routes, and that all the spare parts and tyres must be British, what is left about which to negotiate with other countries? I think that the Minister owes us a reply about this matter. As regards our own men, the Minister spoke sharply. He said that he is the man who wants to protect our own pilots and to provide employment for them. Our reply is this, that they do not deserve what the Minister gives them this afternoon. Those boys were the first to develop the route between South Africa and Rome. It was an unknown route. The sons of South Africa were the pioneers who developed that route; and they deserve more than they are receiving. South Africa is a country with much space and which has enough to enable it to take a place in international aviation. It can give a large number of its sons good employment in aviation, but now half of that service is being given to another country for the use of its own airmen. South Africa is simply giving half the work of our sons to the British Government to use for its own people. In other words, when the Minister tells us that he is concerned about the future of our own people, in effect he says that he is only half-way concerned about their future, because where the whole route is available to South Africa, from Johannesburg to London and back, and where South Africa is able to manage it, he gives half of it away to another country.

We have no monopoly of it.

But you give it out as a monopoly. You give these people a subsidy. If the Minister enters into a contract and gives half the service to another country, plus a subsidy, he cannot say that we are not giving away a monopoly. [Time Limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think this is not the time to indulge in an attempt to make political capital out of the statement made by the Minister. There are more important points in this vote requiring the consideration of the House than the very feeble attempt of the Opposition this afternoon. I think the Opposition will concede that when we on this side of the House discuss the vote, particularly in Committee, we are more concerned about the bread and butter of the people than with higher politics, and the United Party is more concerned with the working man than the Opposition is. I want to deal with the provisions made in this vote for garage attendants, drivers etc. Before doing so I would like to refer to the salaries paid to the airways personnel. I interrupted the Minister—I hope he did not mind—but he was not sure of his facts and he asked me to raise it on another occasion. I can only submit this to him this afternoon that if information has been given to him that the personnel of the South African Airways are paid the same as the personnel of Airways in the United Kingdom, that information is not correct.

Order. What item is the hon. member discussing?

I am discussing the drivers and garage attendants. If I cannot discuss it ….

All I asked the hon. member to do was to tell me what item he was discussing. There is an item for drivers and garages and he may discuss it.

The salaries of two classes of people, garage attendants and drivers, and the personnel of the airways.

There is no vote for the latter.

I know.

Then the hon. member cannot discuss it.

Sit down.

If the Opposition want to take the Chair they should tell me. Respect for the Chair has always been proverbial in this House.

Order.

I will come to the point immediately, but I want to add this, that it will do the Minister a lot of good to investigate fully the position of salaries of men in the airways. Now I come to garage attendants and drivers. I think this is the first time that the Minister of Railways has taken charge of this vote. We cannot say and I am the last to say, that the Minister of Railways is unsympathetic towards The working classes. Last year he undertook to make improvements, and he improved the conditions of the railway staff during the recess, and I am sure that if his attention is drawn to the position of drivers and attendants at the garages, who are now under his jurisdiction, he will do the same for them that he has done for the other personnel.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1) he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 20th April.