I move the amendments as printed in my name—

1. (c) deposits with a permanent building society whose total assets as at the end of the last preceding quarter amounted to not less than ten million rand;

Perhaps I should briefly explain these amendments. The first amendment is designed to bring the position into line with the requirements of the Reserve Bank, that is to say, six months and not 180 days. The South African Reserve Bank Act refers to agricultural bills with a maturity of six months.

The second amendment is also the outcome of representations that we received from building societies and certain types of banking institutions. There are certain institutions such as executors’ chambers, trust companies, etc., which still have fairly large sums invested with building societies and if such deposits are not recognized as prescribed investments they will probably be withdrawn. At this juncture such withdrawal would probably create serious problems for the building societies and also bring about a certain amount of dislocation. Such deposits definitely cannot be regarded as liquid assets, nor are we doing so here. These are merely regarded as part of the prescribed investments which have to be kept. It is not unreasonable to make this concession. Building societies, as hon. members know, are allowed to make investments with banking institutions which have to keep a certain reserve balance with the Reserve Bank. In other words, building societies cannot invest with all banks; that is why we do not want to make this provision of general application, but where a building society has assets exceeding R10,000,000 we think it is a fairly safe institution for a banking institution to invest its money. That is the reason for this amendment.

This side of the House has no opposition to the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. It has in many respects improved the situation. Whether it is a practical one must be left to time to show. I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

During the second reading the hon. the Minister indicated that he was in agreement with this and in view of that I shall not enlarge upon the matter in any way.

I am prepared to accept that amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

If these words are deleted I do not think the Registrar’s discretion is in any way affected. If these words are omitted the clause still reads: “Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred upon the Registrar by this section, he may refuse to register an applicant provisionally if…”. If you look at paragraphs (a) and (c) you will notice that they say “in the opinion of the Registrar”. If these words are not omitted it would mean that in the discretion of the Registrar and in the opinion of the Registrar, as far as paragraphs (a) and (c) are concerned, he may do certain things. It seems superfluous to give him that discretion. At the worst it may be interpreted that he has an absolute discretion and not the normal type of discretion which he must exercise reasonably. I do not know whether the Minister agrees with my reading of this. Of course there is a right of appeal to the Minister. It is all a question of elegance. These words do not affect the discretion of the Registrar at all. I think it is rather unnecessary to give the Registrar discretionary power which reads “in his discretion” and “in his opinion”. On the other hand, I interpret that as an absolute discretion which I am sure the Minister does not want to give the Registrar.

While I am on Clause 4, I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the new paragraph 5 where provision is made that existing banking institutions shall be deemed to have been registered or provisionally registered in terms of section four. Sub-section (2) of Clause 5 reads: “For the purposes of sub-section (1) the Registrar shall, as soon as practicable after the commencement of the said Act, in respect of each such institution determine the class to which it belongs and in writing advise it of the class so determined”. Then it goes on to provide the machinery for such determination. What is not clear to me is this: What happens where the Registrar had made a determination and categorized banking institutions as belonging to certain categories and such a banking institution, through the development of its business, de facto falls within another class of banking institutions? No specific provision is made in this clause what happens in such a case? The Minister may say that by implication reapplication will have to be made to the Registrar to reclassify such an institution. Presumably there will first have to be a provisional classification for a certain period of time. I think it would be more satisfactory if specific provision is made in this clause as to what will happen in the case of a banking institution which, because of a change in its business activities, ceases to fall in one class of banking institutions and de facto falls in another class.

I am rather averse to taking these words “in his discretion” out of this clause. Those are the words used in Section 4 (6)bis of the Banking Act. I do not feel called upon to withdraw those words just off hand. The words “in his discretion” are the covering words for (a), (b), (c) and (d). It is only in (a) and (c) that you have the additional words “in the opinion of”. They do not appear in (b) and (d). It seems to me that the covering words are still intended to cover all these sub-sections. It may be a case of ex abundante cautela to insert in (a) and (c) the further words “in the opinion of the Registrar”. But that is the position as it exists at the moment. I shall look into the point and ascertain whether there is any sufficient reason to delete words which appear in the law at the moment. If necessary I shall move an amendment in the Other Place. At the moment I cannot accept this amendment.

As far as the other point raised by the hon. member is concerned he will notice on page 17, sub-section (3) (a), what happens if there is a change of classification. It reads—

That is the procedure that must be followed. They are given an opportunity of showing cause why they should not be cancelled or put in a different classification.

I can understand the hon. the Minister being cautious about making changes where wording has been adopted in earlier versions of the legislation. But I think the Minister is right in saying that the words have probably been put in for reasons of extra precaution. Having regard to the legislation as it stands, and the new clause which reads, “without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred upon the Registrar … he may ‘in his discretion’ …” I think the additional words “in his discretion” must mean “in his absolute discretion”. It will therefore militate against the other parts of the legislation which permit an appeal to the Minister in regard to such functions as the Registrar may exercise. I think the Minister will find himself in the position that should there be an appeal to him, he will have to say that the legislature in this clause gave the Registrar the right to decide the issue “in his absolute discretion”. But I leave the matter there as the hon. the Minister has said, that if after further consideration he can meet the point, he will do so in the Other Place.

I do not share the interpretation of the hon. member. I think the appeal to the Minister will always remain. I do not think that is derogated from by this particular wording. However, I shall look into the matter and if there is any derogation I shall put it right. My opinion at the moment, however, is that there is no derogation from the right of appeal to the Minister.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Cronje, put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

1. (2) For the purposes of the application of this section to a commercial bank, a remittance in transit shall mean the amount of a cheque or other order to pay drawn on one of its branches in the Union or on another banking institution in the Union or on the Reserve Bank, with which another branch in the Union of the commercial bank concerned has credited a client or which it has paid out but with which the first-mentioned branch or such other banking institution or the Reserve Bank has not yet debited a client, and includes the amount of a warrant voucher which the commercial bank has paid out but for which it has not yet received repayment from the Secretary to the Treasury.

It is at the request of the commercial banks that the definition of “remittance in transit” is being widened as indicated here. This is a concession to the commercial banks because in calculating their minimum capital and liquid asset requirements, they may deduct 50 per cent of such remissions in transit from their obligations towards the public. That is the first amendment. The further amendment in line 74, page 23, is also being effected at the request of the commercial banks. They want the new liquid asset requirements to become applicable in their case as soon as this measure comes into operation and not only a year later, because the new requirements represent a concession as far as they are concerned. I think this is a reasonable request. We have allowed a year, with a possible further year, in respect of other banking institutions which may perhaps be adversely affected by this provision. We are giving them an opportunity to adapt themselves to the new circumstances. But as far as the commercial banks are concerned this is a concession, and that is why they would like this provision to come into operation immediately. That is the spirit underlying the second amendment.

The third amendment merely represents a change in the wording for the sake of greater clarity. Then there is the other amendment in line 72, page 27. If there are company funds on savings account with a banking institution on the date on which this Act comes into operation, such funds may remain there but the Bill provides that no further amount shall be credited to such account. At the request of certain banking institutions we are now allowing interest to be so credited. I think this is a reasonable request and I am prepared to accede to it. The next amendment is in line 77, right at the bottom of page 27. We are quite prepared to agree to this concession. We have no objection to the amount on savings accounts exceeding R6,000 if it exceeds that figure because of the addition of interest. If this amendment is not effected it will mean that if the interest is added to the R6,000, it will be a contravention of the Act, but as long as the capital amount does not exceed R6,000 I am prepared to allow the interest to be credited to the account.

Then we come to the amendment in line 8, page 29. If on the date on which this Act comes into operation more than the maximum amount of R6,000 is on deposit in a savings account, that position may continue, but no further amount may be credited to such an account as the Bill now reads. At the request of the banking institutions we are now allowing interest to be so credited. This amendment is the same as the others which I have already explained.

The next amendment is in lines 23 and 24 on page 29 where we are deleting the words “on the application of the depositor.” These words are not necessary and in certain cases they may even be out of place.

Then on page 29 I am also moving the deletion of two lines because unless this is done the objects of the Bill as far as fixed deposits are concerned may be circumvented. If, for example, a depositor wants to get back his fixed deposit before the due date he will simply borrow against the security of the deposit, and if these two lines are not omitted the banking institution will then be able to repay his fixed deposit immediately. These lines are therefore being deleted to obviate that possibility.

There will be no opposition to the various amendments proposed by the hon. Minister. I move as amendments—

The purpose of my first amendment is to place beyond any doubt what the hon. Minister himself declared was the intention, namely, that deposits in sub-section (2) do not relate to “savings deposits”.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, I indicated during the second-reading debate that an unenviable burden was being placed upon a state official in this legislation. It imposes on him a new sort of quasi-judicial function to make a decision as to whether a concession should be given to the depositor of a fixed deposit to get withdrawal of his money. It is something entirely new to place a burden of that nature on a single official, or on any individual acting alone. I think it is quite obvious that two heads are always better than one and in suggesting the amendment to seek the aid of the auditor of the institution, I was influenced by the fact that in an earlier provision of the Bill the Minister himself had invoked the aid of the auditor to act in conjunction with the Registrar. I accept that the earlier provision is not on entirely similar grounds, as prevails in this clause, but I think the principle holds that there should be some similar sort of opportunity given to the Registrar to have assistance before he makes up his mind. As I indicated during the second reading, the auditor of the institution concerned is not only a person possessing special knowledge, but he also has fortunately got that independent approach to the problem that is desirable and he should be able to assist the Registrar considerably in coming to a fair and just decision.

As far as the first amendment is concerned, I am prepared to accept that. I explained yesterday that savings deposits were excluded.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, I am afraid I cannot accept that. As I explained yesterday we are now dealing with cases under sub-section (6) where it says that notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) as to the non-repayment, an institution may in its discretion repay before due date a fixed deposit or a deposit subject to notice. Then a certain number of exceptions are given, and finally, “in such other cases as the Registrar may approve, either generally, or in any particular case”. This is a case which would then have to be put up by the institution to the Registrar and they would have to satisfy the Registrar. But if we accept the amendment of the hon. member, it will mean that the Registrar could not act without the consent of the auditor. The words “in consultation with” mean definitely that the two must decide together. The auditor of any particular institution is an auditor of that institution and probably of a few other institutions, but the Registrar has to have regard to the situation right throughout the country, and the possibility is that he may have a uniform policy but the auditor who varies from place to place may feel that that uniform policy cannot be applied. If he refuses, then whatever the Registrar intends to do is nullified. I do not think in any case that is a proper function for an auditor. I think that where an institution puts up a case under this section it would carry weight with the Registrar if it is supported by its auditor. That can happen without any amendment here. I do not think it is necessary at all, and I think it would be imposing a function on the auditor which is quite foreign to his normal functions as an auditor of the institution. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

I move the following amendments—

These amendments deal with the discount houses as to where they may discount or buy or invest in securities, the type of loans they may effect and where they may make their demand deposits, and in each case the Registrar has the discretion to enlarge on which is already set out in the Bill. We propose merely that there should be notification in the Gazette, and I understand the hon. Minister is prepared to accept my amendments.

I accept both amendments of the hon. member for Parktown. As I said, where something is laid down of this nature it is not to be a holein-the-corner business, and it will also impose a certain amount of restraint on the Registrar, because he cannot very well give it in one case and refuse it in another case, and he will mind his p’s and q’s. So I think it is a salutary amendment.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance and Mr. Emdin and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman, put and agreed to, and the second amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman, put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

The proposed words are necessary for the complete elimination of the two defences mentioned, as far as building societies advances are concerned, namely Senatusconsultum Velleianum and Authentica si qua mulier.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move as an amendment—

1. (i) save with the consent of the Registrar, no person other than a building society shall be the registered or beneficial owner of any share in any such company and that a building society or building societies shall at all times be the registered and beneficial owner or owners of the majority of the shares in such company.

It is considered advisable that existing insurers be permitted to participate in any company to be formed by building societies for insurance, as they would be able to contribute the necessary technical knowledge and experience of insurance business.

I move—

I think this falls in the same category as the amendments we dealt with recently.

I am prepared to accept that amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

Sir, this will make it possible to credit closed company accounts with interest and render it unnecessary to pay out every cent of interest. That is the first amendment in line 38. Then I move the amendment in line 56, after “amount” to insert “other than interest”. It will obviate the issue of large numbers of cheques to depositors on interest dates, where the accounts have been pushed beyond the limit by the crediting of interest. In any case if an account shows any sizeable accrual of interest, such account can definitely be taken to be a genuine savings account. Then I also move in lines 22 and 23 to omit “on the application of the depositor”. While unnecessary in respect of the other sub-paragraphs it would be quite inappropriate in the case of sub-paragraph (e). It is hardly likely that a borrower falling in arrear with his instalments to a building society will apply to have his deposits set off against his debt.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

The words presently appearing would make it possible for a society in the case of a fixed-term mortgage to advance to a borrower the full amount of the transfer costs while the intention was to limit such advances to the same proportion as that applying to the main advance, namely 66 per cent. In this connection hon. members can compare sub-section (3) at the bottom of the previous page with this amendment here. This is only to set the matter right.

I move—

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move—

This will enable a building society to repay in respect of “dead” subscription shares, not only capital but also accrued dividends, which is as it should be.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—In line 19, to omit “fund”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

It is very seldom that I introduce a Bill in this House, but when I do so it is usually such a good Bill that it is accepted with acclamation and general satisfaction by both sides of the House. I hope that that will also be the position in the case of this Bill, because the object of this Bill is to eliminate certain hitches in the implementation of our somewhat changed land settlement policy which followed upon the passing of the 1956 Act and the 1963 amending measure and to remedy certain defects that we have found in the existing law. Sir, I referred to the somewhat changed policy in connection with land settlement, and I want to explain just briefly what I mean by that.

The whole policy in respect of land settlement has undergone changes from time to time, but it has undergone a rapid change particularly in recent years since I have been Minister of Lands. Initially land settlements were designed to provide a means of livelihood for people who had no other means of livelihood. Some very good people were placed on our settlements at that time, but sometimes the only qualification which a person had for becoming a settler was the fact that he was fit for nothing else so we made him a settler. Nowadays our object, however, is to select people who are able to make a success of the holdings which are allotted to them; who will be able to make a reasonable good living there and who will be able to earn enough to give their children a decent education. A few years ago we introduced an entirely new system in selecting candidates, with the result that there has been a great improvement amongst the new candidates who have been placed on these settlements in the last few years and that we have far fewer failures than we had previously. We did surprisingly well under the old system bearing in mind the circumstances. The number of failures was comparatively small. In fact it compared favourably with the number of failures that we have in farming in general in South Africa. Now that we are getting more suitable persons with the improved method of selection I hope that the position will improve still further; that our land settlements will be able to make a big contribution to the economy of this country, and that the State will be able to play an important role in placing on the land people who are good farmers but who themselves cannot afford to buy land.

With this Bill we are now trying to bring about certain improvements. Apart from the people who fall under Section 20, most of the people on these settlements are needy. Under this Bill we want to give them a better opportunity than they have had in the past to get into their stride. It does not help to give a person a holding if he does not have the capital to develop it rapidly into a profitable asset. If he does not have the necessary capital he simply struggles along without making any headway. We have endeavoured over the past few years to provide those people with the necessary means in the shape of capital, equipment, seed, fertilizers, and particularly knowledge. With the assistance of this Bill I think we shall now be able to make great headway in this connection. Sir, I referred to knowledge; this is something which is very important on our land settlements because where a land settlement is started under irrigation, it is usually started in an area in which the particular type of farming which is going to be practised there has never been practised there previously. Take Vaalharts, for example. Prior to the establishment of the land settlement there it was not an agricultural area but a cattle area. The people whom we place on these settlements have no knowledge of this new type of farming; that is why it is necessary for us to find out what would be the most profitable type of farming in that area and then to convey that knowledge to the settlers. But sometimes we find that it is necessary for us to bring compulsion to bear on them to apply the new farming methods. They are accustomed to farming in some other area and they refuse to apply the new methods. This Bill now provides that where we lay down a particular plan of farming, we can force them to conform to our plan.

I notice that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is back in the House. He was seriously ill for a long time, and I want to congratulate him most heartily on his improvement and express the hope that he will soon be fully recovered. I may say that we missed him while he was away. He is the sort of person whom one misses when he is not in the House. I think I can say—and he will not hold it against me—that we disposed of the business of the House rather more quickly in his absence. But he is a colourful figure in parliamentary circles; we noticed his empty bench and we are all pleased that his bench is once again occupied.

I want to come now to the details of the Bill. Last year we passed an amendment here which gave us the power, where a person had a farm which was uneconomic, to buy adjoining land or land in the vicinity and to add such land to his existing holding. What we do is this: We buy the man’s farm; then we buy the other land for him and we give him the two pieces of land, his old land and the new piece of land, under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. The fact that we are doing this is becoming known amongst the farmers—it has come to their knowledge particularly in recent times—and we have already had just on 400 applications for extensions. Fifty of these have already been approved of; 94 have been rejected and about 250 are still being investigated. I think that as this scheme becomes better known amongst the farmers, we will receive many more applications from people who would like to be assisted under this particular scheme. I may say that with this new scheme the Department will need considerably more staff; we have approached the Public Service Commission and the commission has given sufficient staff to make a start with the scheme. We trust that if more staff is needed we will get it so that we will be in a position to tackle this work which is going to expand considerably in the future.

It is interesting also to see from which provinces these applications emanate. I think to a large extent these applications indicate in which provinces we mainly come across this problem of holdings which are unduly small. Out of all the applications numbering just on 400, nearly 300 came from the Transvaal while only 47 came from the Cape, 34 from the Free State and only 11 from Natal. I think these figures prove that the problem is most acute in the Transvaal. As I have said, we are dealing with these applications and the Department expects a big increase in the number of applications. I think that by increasing the size of the holdings we will make a useful contribution towards the solution of the whole problem of uneconomic holdings. We have already done this on our own settlements, but these people are not settlers. I have often explained here in the past what we do to consolidate the holdings of people on our settlements who were allotted uneconomic holdings in the old days. I do not want to go into that again, because, as I have said, these people are not settlers. They will become settlers now but they were not settlers previously. Where the man’s farm is too small we buy it from him; we buy an additional piece of land for him and under Section 20 we give the consolidated farm back to him under the one-tenth-contribution system. We first deduct the one-tenth from the money which we pay to him and which represents the full value of the smallholding that he owns. As far as the balance of the money is concerned which is still owing to him we have to see to it that that money is sensibly spent. What we do is this: We say to him that he needs so much for working capital and that we will allow him to spend that amount under our supervision. He needs a certain amount to pay his loose debts; we give him enough to wipe out his loose debts because we want him to start with a clean slate. Thereafter, if there is still a balance, that balance goes towards the purchase price of his farm, but we must exercise control over the money which is still owing to him so that he does not misuse it; to see that that money is used for the development of his new farm.

The next change is in connection with the interest which is payable by a new lessee on the purchase price of his holding and the repayments that he has to make. We used to have two systems; we had the one system under Section 20, under which the man paid nothing at all during the first two years; the interest was added to the capital, and thereafter he paid interest on the accrued interest. Under the other system the lessee occupied the ground free of charge during the first two years. But I do not think it is necessary to draw a distinction between settlers who obtain land under Section 20 and those who obtain land under Section 31. The proposal which we are now putting forward is a very reasonable one which will assist people who fall under Section 20 in particular. We now propose to make them pay 1 per cent interest for the first year, 2 per cent for the second year, 3 per cent for the third year and 4 per cent for the fourth year, and thereafter the rate of interest which was the prevailing rate at the time of the allotment of the holding, plus the capital payments on the purchase price calculated over a period of 63 years. There are some people who say that it is not a good thing to make these people pay nothing at all the first year. Our experience has taught us that it is wrong to give the man something for nothing; we feel that an obligation should be placed upon him right from the start. It should be possible for every farmer to pay 1 per cent interest the first year, and if the interest is then increased by 1 per cent a year over the next three years he feels his ever-growing responsibility towards the State. Our whole policy in land settlement is to try as far as possible not to give people something for nothing. We try to help the man as far as possible so as to make a successful farmer out of him but we do not want to give him alms because that would undermine his character and once his character has been undermined it is very difficult to build it up again. The people who are given land on these favourable terms must be made to feel that they have a responsibility towards the State.

As I have said earlier, we plan the farming on our various settlements because the type of farming which is practised on these settlements is usually a type which has never been practised before in that particular area. There are many people who come from other areas who insist on continuing to farm in the way to which they were accustomed to farm in other areas. Many of them who go to Vaalharts still want to use the farming methods which they used at Calitzdorp although the circumstances are entirely different. We want to be able to plan the farming but at present there are no sanctions that we can apply to force a person to farm according to our plan, except to threaten to withhold an advance which he needs to be able to carry on. This Bill now provides that where we plan the farming on a settlement, we can force the people to farm according to our plan, which agricultural experts regard as the best for that particular area. We do not lay down hard and fast rules. We usually allow them a choice between two or three crops, but once they have made their choice they must abide by it. If a man makes a success of farming on his own, we leave him alone. This rule is applied to the borderline cases, in which we want to be able to bring compulsion to bear on them to farm in the way which we think is best. So far we have achieved a fair measure of success by bringing compulsion to bear on them, but in most cases we have not been able to do so, and we now want the right to be able to coerce them. This also includes the livestock which the man is allowed to keep on his holding; furthermore, as long as he is a settler he is not allowed to exercise another occupation. People sometimes ask to be allowed to go and do other work temporarily. Where a man has had a poor crop he may want to go and do some other work for a few months. We allow him to do so but we do not want people, as some of them do, to set up agencies on their farms for the sale of machinery, because that means that the man can very seldom attend to his farm. If he obtains land from us we want him to farm that land. Where a man is a probationary lessee, we have always provided him with livestock, equipment, seed and fertilizer from departmental stocks, but in many cases we have found that what the probationary lessee needs is not draught-animals but a tractor. We cannot give him a tractor from our own stocks because he has no responsibility for looking after it. This Bill now provides that we can give him an advance in order to buy a tractor which then remains our property until he has paid the purchase price by way of instalments. I think that is absolutely necessary. The probationary lessee has very little money; we want him to get on to his feet as soon as possible and if he has to wait a few years before he can buy a tractor he makes no headway at all. We are now making it possible for him to buy a tractor, but it remains our property until he has paid all the instalments, and the fact it is going to become his property makes him look after it better. I think the assistance that we are giving him in this respect is of great importance.

Now I come to another point. Our old laws provided that where the State sold land, the State retained the mineral rights to the land. But the position is rather different in the case of the man who buys under Section 20. That man himself selects the land that he wishes to buy and he comes to an agreement with the seller as to the price. He obtains an option which he then brings to us and if we are satisfied with the land and the price asked for it we buy the farm and keep it in trust for him; he pays the instalments and then eventually it goes back to him again. To me it seems a little unfair, since the man practically bought the land himself, that the State should retain the mineral rights. This Bill therefore provides that where we buy the man’s land for him under the consolidation schemes and then resell it to him again immediately, he will retain the mineral rights. Representations have been made to me to extend this to all those who buy land under Section 20 so that the mineral rights will vest in them. But let me make the position perfectly clear. I cannot go further and give back the mineral rights to people who acquired State land under Section 31.

We have two systems according to which the man may acquire ownership of the land; under Section 31 he is placed on a settlement as a probationary lessee and he has the right to obtain transfer after ten years if he is not in arrear with his instalments. The reason why we made it ten years is that we wanted to settle that man on the land; we did not want him to be able to buy land from the Government on very easy terms just for the purpose of speculating with the land. We wanted him to settle down and bring about improvements which would then induce him to remain on the land. One cannot make the period too long nor can one make it too short. In the case of people who fall under Section 20, who really buy the land themselves and for whom we only act as bankers really to help them, the period was five years. We now want to lengthen the period to seven years in the case of people who fall under Section 20. The reason for this is that they will now be paying a lower rate of interest during the first four years, and by way of compensation for that concession we want them to wait an additional two years before they can obtain transfer. On the other hand, in the case of probationary lessees, we want them to serve a longer probationary period because while they are probationary lessees they are subject to stricter discipline than they would be if they were lessees. We do not want to release them from their probationership as quickly as we do to-day. At the moment they usually serve a probationary period of a year or two. We want to have the right to make them serve a probationary period of up to five years. But the period of ten years, after which they can obtain transfer, only commences from the time they become lessees; it does not commence during their probationary period. That has been the position hitherto, but since we now wish to extend the probationary period in the interests of the probationary lessee himself it will not be fair to extend the total period of time that he has to be on the holding before he can be given transfer. What we now propose to do therefore for transfer purposes is to add the probationary period to his period as lessee. The total period in his case will now be ten years, but the period served by him as probationary lessee will form part of the ten years. Hitherto the total period has been 12 years in practice because he usually served a probationary period of two years and then had to wait a further ten years. We now say that he will have to remain a probationary lessee for five years but that period will count towards the ten years after which he can be given transfer.

For the rest the Bill deals mostly with matters of an administrative nature which I need not deal with in detail, except for one or two things. Members of the Land Board are appointed for a period of three years. In the case of all the other boards the members are appointed for a period of five years. Members of the various boards are also entitled at law to gratuities and pensions. Where their period of office is three years it is more difficult to make provisions for gratuities for them, and it is now proposed, in order to bring the position of members of the Land Board into line with what is the general practice, to appoint them for five years instead of three years. But then I want to be able to apply a sanction; I should be able to dismiss a member of the board before the expiry of the five years if he no longer does his work properly, and then I also want to have the right, if I think that he will be too old to do the work, to reappoint him for a shorter period than five years after his first period of five years.

Are you laying down any age?

It is very difficult to lay down any age. We saw a little while ago that there was a Russian who reached 124 years of age and who had 75 children. That man, in a normal lifetime, could not have fathered 70 children; he must have remained active after the age of 70 years referred to in the Bible. I am not suggesting that I would have appointed that Russian when he was 124 years of age, but he must have been a young man still when he was 70. Our general rule is that a man must retire when he reaches the age of 70, but if we come across a man who is still very industrious at 70 there is no reason why we should not retain his services. Every case must therefore be dealt with according to the circumstances.

There is one other point. The salaries of members of the Land Board are laid down in the Act. The Land Board is about the only board in South Africa where the salaries of its members are laid down by law. It becomes necessary from time to time to make adjustments to the salaries of members of boards, and the salaries of members of other boards are adjusted but the members of the Land Board have to wait until a special Bill is introduced in Parliament if their salaries have to be adjusted. In terms of this Bill I will now be able, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to lay down the salaries of these people. Sir, these are the most important provisions of the Bill. The other amendments, as I have said, are of a consequential nature, except one, which refers to a matter which has been a source of grievance to the Department of Lands for a long time. In certain Departments such as Agriculture, Lands and Water Affairs it is necessary to establish small centres for the departmental employees. If the Department of Water Affairs, for example, builds a large dam for a land settlement scheme, a camp is erected there (which later on becomes almost a small township), to house the officials of the Department of Water Affairs who have to exercise control over the water. The Department of Lands must also establish a township on the settlement for its own officials, who usually outnumber those of the Department of Water Affairs, because the remaining work there has to be carried out by those officials. The officials of the two Departments are treated differently; the officials of the Department of Water Affairs, quite correctly, are given houses at a lower rental than our officials, because they build those houses and the Minister then determines the value of the houses for letting purposes. The officials pay a lower rental for those houses than they would pay for houses of that value in the city; it is only right that they should pay less because they are deprived of the facilities of city life; they are frequently stationed out in the bundu. One way to induce an official to go to such a place is to offer him a good house at a lower rental than he would have to pay in the city. The Department of Water Affairs also has the right to build tennis courts for its officials—something which is absolutely necessary. No private undertaking would ever send its employees to such a place without providing these facilities for them. The Department of Water Affairs also builds a swimming pool for its employees, again something which is very necessary, particularly in the warm areas in which they have to go and work. The Department of Lands, however, cannot do this. In terms of our Act the Department of Public Works has to determine the value of the houses—not what they cost to build but their value—because these houses are usually built at a much more lower cost by the Department of Lands than they would cost if they were erected by a building contractor. The Department of Public Works, however, is not allowed to value the house at the figure which it cost us to erect the house; it has to value the house on the basis of what it would cost to build that house in a city or town. The tenant who occupies that house and who is an official of the Department of Lands then has to pay a rental which is based on the value of the house, while his neighbour, who lives just across the fence and who works for the Department of Water Affairs, is given a special tariff; he pays a lower rental to compensate him for the fact that he has to go and work out in the bundu. We now want to treat our people in the same way in which the employees of the Department of Forestry, the Department of Water Affairs, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development as well as police officers are treated where they are stationed at isolated places. We want to give them the opportunity to be able to hire houses at lower rentals. We also want to be able to provide other facilities for them such as tennis courts, a swimming pool (if necessary) and a community hall. These are all things which we did not formerly have the right to do and which we now seek the right to do. There was a good deal of dissatisfaction amongst officials of the Department of Lands at the fact that they were being treated in a step-motherly fashion, as it were, in comparison with the officials of other Departments. We felt that this matter should be rectified and that we should be able to give our officials these facilities which are so necessary in the case of people who are stationed at isolated places.

What about bowling greens?

If the hon. member joins the Department of Lands, perhaps as a storeman, we will go into the question of building a bowling green for his convenience, and I am sure it will be a good bowling green.

Mr. Speaker, these are the most important provisions of this Bill. With the experience which I have had over the past ten years in the Department of Lands and with the objective approach which I am able to adopt now that I shall no longer be at the head of the Department, I strongly recommend this Bill to hon. members. This Bill contains provisions which are in accordance with the spirit of our policy of land settlement, provisions which are going to improve the position of our settlers, which are going to make them more independent and help them to get on to their feet sooner, while at the same time making them realize what their obligations are towards the State. For the rest this Bill deals with administrative matters and provides for improvements which we are proposing in the light of our experience with the administration of the Act.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister started by saying that when he introduces legislation in this House it is usually passed fairly unanimously, if not with acclamation, by the House. The difficulty, of course, is that the hon. the Minister introduces too little legislation. What is more, we have also learnt that he may be leaving the Cabinet and then, of course, we will find ourselves in some difficulty. I hope that the hon. the Minister will note that another very mild-tempered, peace-loving person on this side of the House—myself—has been asked to support this measure on behalf of this side of the House.

I am pleased that it is possible for us on this side of the House to support the hon. the Minister wholeheartedly as far as the general principles of this Bill are concerned. The Bill is perhaps being introduced at a rather late stage but it is quite right that the Department should now come forward with the proposal to make larger holdings available to settlers. No matter what the position may have been in the past, any farmer and any settler with experience knows that when a unit is too small, one simply cannot make an economic success of it. For this reason we heartily support this new policy direction. As the hon. the Minister himself has said, it is also right that when one assists a person as a settler or a lessee, one must be able to exercise discipline and control. This was a source of trouble to a very large extent in the past—that there was no control. Where the possibility existed of exercising proper control, the authorities never had the courage to exercise that control. I am pleased that it is the intention of the Department to exercise discipline and control in the future.

The hon. the Minister’s proposal to place Land Board members on the same category as members of other boards—to appoint them for a period of five years—also has our approval. I personally am not very enthusiastic about the principle that we are now adopting which is to the effect that in this case too, as in other cases, the hon. the Minister can increase the salaries of members after consultation with the Minister of Finance, and I shall tell the House why I say this. If the salaries of members of these boards are increased by the Minister in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance, these boards may eventually find themselves in a unique position, an exalted position beyond the control of Parliament. Complaints were made in the past that the Land Board particularly was not subject to criticism by Parliament. I want to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to Clause 33 particularly …

But that will be the position now.

Clause 33 gives the hon. the Minister the right to sell certain land as he deems fit, on the recommendation, of course, of the Land Board. In other words, it will not be necessary to sell that land by public auction or by public tender. That land can be sold under such conditions as the Minister may determine on the recommendation of the Land Board. There have been cases in the past in which we have not been able to obtain details in connection with the activities of the Land Board. I understand that the hon. the Minister was asked on one occasion in the Other Place to give certain information in connection with the way in which members of the Land Board voted and in regard to a recommendation that they made and I am told that the hon. the Minister’s answer was that he was not prepared to make that information available. It does of course place members of the House of Assembly in a somewhat difficult position if they cannot criticize a certain statutory board because they do not have the necessary information available and the hon. the Minister is not prepared to give them that information. I understand that Clause 33 deals only with land which has been given to lessees or settlers and which for some or other reason has found its way back to the Department. I know that the hon. the Minister will say that he already has the right under existing legislation to sell land, which has not yet been made available for settlement purposes, under such conditions as he may deem fit and that he is now merely seeking the same power in respect of land which has already been allocated and which has found its way back to the State. But the hon. the Minister will understand that Parliament has never been very anxious to give powers of this nature to a Minister or a board and, indeed, for very obvious reasons. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give some attention to this matter. We on this side may perhaps be able to assist the hon. the Minister by moving an amendment at the Committee Stage which will make it possible for the hon. the Minister still to do what he has in mind but which will also ensure that Parliament will retain a certain measure of control.

It is not my intention to discuss this Bill at any great length because it is not a Bill in regard to which there is any great difference of opinion. The hon. the Minister has stated correctly that there is a great deal of unanimity in connection with this Bill. Because the hon. the Minister has created a precedent by congratulating an hon. member on this side of the House, who is also a peace-loving person and who is not a man who holds contentious views—the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell)—I should also on my part like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and tell him that we on this side of the House are satisfied with this measure. The hon. the Minister has given us to understand that he is not going to remain in the Cabinet and we are sorry to hear it. Just after the hon. the Minister had said that his Bills were always received with acclamation, I noticed the hon. the Prime Minister enter the Chamber. I hope that his reason for entering the Chamber was to try to persuade the hon. the Minister to remain a member of the Cabinet for a while longer so acclamation.

The hon. the Minister has this morning moved what will probably be his last amendment to the Land Settlement Act. We on this side of the House have also taken sad note of the fact that the hon. the Minister will no longer remain in control of the portfolio of Lands and pilot further amending Bills of this nature, where necessary, through this House in the future. I think that it is fitting that we on this side of the House should express our gratitude to the hon. the Minister not only for this amending Bill but also for the amendments which he has effected to the Land Settlement Act over the past few years. The hon. the Minister has always tried to improve the position of the settlers and to streamline the Act, as he is also doing here this morning, and to enable the Department to serve the farming community better under this Act. It is understandable, therefore, that the Opposition is in agreement with us this morning that it is a pity that we shall not be able to expect further amending measures from the hand of the hon. the Minister in the future.

There is not much to be said about this Bill. The Bill which is before the House this morning contains a number of administrative amendments which are necessary and with which we agree. We also want to thank the hon. the Minister for the changes which he is effecting here this morning and which in our opinion are improvements to the existing Act. In the first instance I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are very pleased that he is rectifying the position by means of this Bill as far as the rentals which have to be paid by the two groups of lessees are concerned, the one group being those who obtained land under Section 20 and who paid no extra for two years but in respect of whom the amount of interest has been added to the capital amount with the result that they have to pay interest on the interest, and on the other hand, the Section 31 settlers who paid no interest for two years and only 2 per cent in the third year. The hon. the Minister is now accepting the principle that both groups of settlers must be treated in the same way. We also agree with the principle that when a person receives something from the State, he must give something in exchange. Even though the interest be 1 per cent per annum, it is a good thing for such a person to realize that he has to repay the State to some extent for what he has received from the State.

The second matter in regard to which I should like to make a few remarks is the start which the hon. the Minister has made in making provision whereby a lessee under Section 31 will be able to obtain his deed of grant after 10 years. In support of this matter I should like to advance the following arguments: Over the past few years the hon. the Minister has laid down the principle that there shall be a selection board which will proceed very cautiously in the selection of lessees. It is a good principle that persons who are assisted by the Department of Lands should be selected persons. While this is also the principle which will be maintained by this selection board—to consider a man’s experience—he will from the nature of the case be the type of person about whom one need not be concerned. Because of the way in which this selection takes place, there is no possibility that persons of doubtful character or ability will be assisted to obtain land. Because of this fact, the reason for binding such a person to the Department over such a long period also falls away. These persons will in the future be able to obtain their deeds of grant sooner. I am convinced that lessees will be very grateful for the fact that they will now be able to obtain their deeds of grant after 10 years, and I think that the hon. the Minister had made a great concession here this morning to all those who want to stand on their own two feet. It will mean that the State will then get its money back from these people far more quickly and so be able to assist other people to obtain land.

Another matter about which I want to say a few words is the question of the handling of applications for assistance to obtain seed and artificial fertilizer. It is a fact that State Departments, including the Department of Lands, work slowly. The position in the past was that the Department could only assist a person who needed seed and artificial fertilizer to obtain these items after the Land Board had first considered the application, and the result was that a great deal of time was lost. When a person needed assistance in the past during time of drought a certain length of time had of necessity to elapse before such person could be assisted. It will now be possible under this measure to assist such a person sooner in an emergency and we are very grateful for that concession. I also want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for having made this concession at the request of hon. members on this side of the House before he introduced the Bill, that is to say, that in the case of Section 20 purchasers he will permit the person concerned to retain the mineral rights which they acquired in buying in the private sector. In the past the position was that if a person wanted to purchase land from the private sector and then asked the State for assistance to enable him to purchase that land, the State purchased the land for him but retained the mineral rights to that land. We felt that where the State made State land available to a person, a strong case could be made out for the retention of the mineral rights by the State. But the basic principle in this case is that if a person prefers to ask the State for assistance to acquire land for him, and not the private sector, he should also be allowed to retain the mineral rights just as he would be allowed to do so if he acquired that land from the private sector. The hon. the Minister is therefore making the concession here that if the Department purchases land from the private sector for a particular person, it will give that land to such person together with the mineral rights to the land. In this regard the hon. the Minister is making a very big concession which will also be very gratefully received. I think in principle it is wrong, where land is bought from the private sector, that the State should withhold the mineral rights and simply give such a person the surface rights to the land. We thank the hon. the Minister for having rectified the matter in this way.

In connection with the appointment of members of the Land Board for 5 years I think that the hon. the Minister is fully entitled to ask that he should have a greater say over board members because he is now extending the period of their appointment. We have no fault to find with that! We think that basically the hon. the Minister is also correct and we support him in this connection.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon. the Minister for this legislation which he has introduced here this morning and for all the previous amending measures—measures which have all been improvements and for which the people affected thereby have all been very grateful to the Department of Lands. We express the hope and confidence that when the hon. the Minister looks back over the next few years—we hope that those years will be many—he will be able to see the fruit of his handiwork and that this measure will also meet with the success which we and his Department hope it will meet with in the future.

It so often happens when there is agreement in connection with a Bill that the debate is inclined to become protracted. It is not my intention to prolong the debate to any great extent but I think that I must say on behalf of this side of the House that we feel that a large number of improvements are being effected by means of this Bill. The problems mentioned by the hon. the Minister certainly do exist and the methods that are being used here by the hon. the Minister to overcome the problems that do exist will in my opinion be very effective. The State is assuming the right to rectify matters in regard to which it considers that rights have been too restricted in the past, as for example, in connection with mineral rights. If a person obtains land with State assistance, the mineral rights to that land will now be his.

I note rather sorrowfully that the hon. the Minister is now extending the period in which a person can obtain ownership rights from five to seven years. I agree with the last speaker that where we now have a careful selection of those persons to whom these loans will be given, it is doubtful whether it is necessary to extend this period by 2 years, but I put this to the hon. the Minister more in the nature of a question. I should have liked this period to have remained unchanged.

Do you object to the period of probationary tenancy?

No, I am referring to persons who fall under Section 20 and who use the State as a banker, who borrow money from the State and in respect of whom the period is now being extended from five to seven years. As far as the probationary lessee is concerned we welcome the fact that his period of probationary tenancy will now be included in the full period of tenancy.

This legislation also rectifies something which we have felt for some time has been wrong—the fact that inadequate assistance has been given to settlers of this kind. Provision is now being made for advances for the purchase of machinery. I think that it is quite right that that machinery should remain the property of the State although I think that the State will find it rather difficult to ensure by way of inspections that the machinery is maintained in good condition. The hon. the Minister will of course exercise control through the medium of his inspectors in order to ensure as far as possible that that machinery is maintained in good condition.

There is another important change in this legislation and that is in connection with the members of the Land Board whose salaries are now subject to the approval of the hon. the Minister or whose salaries will now be fixed by the hon. the Minister himself. The hon. the Minister is also assuming the power to dismiss them if they do not do their work well or when they become too old. In this connection there is one matter that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I wonder whether we realize the importance of the role which the Land Board plays in South Africa? I am thinking now not only of the role which the members of the Land Board play in connection with the allotment of land to settlers but I am thinking too of another important duty which they perform and that is to act as valuators throughout the whole country. They act as valuators for the Department of Water Affairs when land is expropriated; they act as valuators when land is expropriated or purchased by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The activities of the members of the Land Board in their capacity as valuators affect many farmers in this country. It is because I realize the important role that the members of the Land Board play as valuators that I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has made this change in the Bill. Mr. Speaker, I make no accusations here but I fear that in the past—and here I am speaking not only of the recent past—members of the Land Board were often appointed for political considerations. I think that that time has past.

In the time of the United Party.

The hon. member here has mumbled something about the time of the United Party. I am discussing a serious matter and if the hon. member was a farmer he would know what I was talking about.

But he knows nothing!

The position occupied by the members of the Land Board to-day is a very important one because they also have to act as valuators throughout the country. As I have said, they play a very important role in their capacity as valuators not only in the Department of Lands but also in the Department of Water Affairs and in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I should like to see these people receiving adequate remuneration for the work they do because it is such important work. It is also right that the hon. the Minister should have the power to be able to dismiss those members who do not do their work properly.

I am sure it must be very gratifying to the hon. the Minister that this measure, which will probably be the last one he will introduce as Minister of Lands, has been as unanimously accepted by members on both sides of the House as it has been. We hope the hon. the Minister will have the same experience as the parson who was given such a wonderful farewell party that he decided immediately afterwards not to accept the call he had had from another congregation but rather to remain with his old congregation. The unanimity with which this measure has been accepted by both sides also proves the extent of the experience the hon. the Minister and his Department have gained over the year in connection with problems concerning the settlers. We wish to congratulate the Minister that he and his Department have now, in the light of their experience, come forward with this measure in an attempt to solve the problems they have encountered in the past.

Sir, I do not wish to cover the same field which the hon. the Minister has covered. We welcome the improvements which are effected here. I think the changes in respect of the interest are justified. In spite of the remarks we have had in connection with the extension of the period from five to seven years, I think that change is one which is justified in view of the concession made by the Minister as far as the interest is concerned. I wish to subscribe to everything. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister has been prepared to make a change in connection with the mineral rights on land purchased under Section 20. That is only right in the case of Section 20 land. As the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has said the State actually only finances the person to acquire his own land. The State really gets the mineral rights as a present. You can really divide the rights on a farm into two. The one is in respect of the surface rights and the second is the underground rights, i.e., the mineral rights. Therefore if the State only finances a person to purchase land under Section 20 the State really gets something as a present if it retains the mineral rights. I notice with pleasure that the Minister has made a concession in that he will not keep that property back. In the case of State land, however, the position is totally different. I do not think it would be fair to include that property as well. There I agree 100 per cent with the Minister.

I want to refer briefly to two other small matters. Mr. Chairman, we are creating heavy and complicated machinery. That causes a great deal of delay. We must be careful that we do not make the machinery so heavy and complicated that it becomes practically impossible to purchase land.

The second matter is in connection with production loans. We are grateful for the improvement that is being effected in connection with the purchase of tractors, etc. The position in the past was that when a production loan had to be granted via the usual channels of the Land Board and officials the time had expired by the time the applicant ultimately got the money. I think the procedure introduced last year should be reverted to and that was that Farmers’ Assistance Committees were used. I am not talking about the closer settlements but the Section 20 settlers and others. In their cases the Farmers’ Assistance Committees serve the right purpose. They know the community and they negotiate with the ordinary farmer. I think those committees should deal with the applications of these farmers and then transmit them for payment. That worked well last year; it was a very great improvement. I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to follow the same procedure this year in these particular circumstances.

I am a little worried about the powers, which are quite justified, the Minister is now taking to give instructions to tenant farmers. I hope the Minister will impress upon the officials that they should be elastic in their actions. If the officials are rigid in their actions it can cause many problems to the settlers. Due to the shortage of officials people often have to be used who are not as expert as those with years of experience to deal with the human element. If the officials do not act with sufficient sympathy it sometimes gives rise to many problems. I realize, however, that it is necessary for the Minister to take these powers.

I am pleased about the change in connection with the members of the Land Board. In future the Minister will determine their salaries. Those people perform a great task. Instead of always coming to Parliament for that purpose the Minister can now increase their salaries if he deems it necessary. I think that is a very big improvement nor do I have any objection to the Minister discharging a member of the Land Board if he does not do his job properly. We can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that this is a model piece of legislation he had piloted through this House.

This amending Bill constitutes, generally speaking, a series of measures which are in every respect desirable. As the hon. the Minister has told the House it enables his Department to facilitate the success of the various settlement schemes he has to administer. It also attempts to make a greater success of the individuals who are to be settled on those schemes. One is glad to see that there are changes in the length of office, for example, of the members of the Land Board. That will make for greater continuity. There are improvements in this Bill on the question of the non-payment of duty in the case of land which is bought for the purpose of re-allocation, very often together with other pieces of land. There is in some cases an improvement in the drafting of clauses, as in the case of Clause 10, where there is really no change in the meaning but the provision is improved by the re-drafting which has taken place. There is also a desirable change in the existing legislation in that greater latitude is given to persons requiring to retain certain pieces of land when a certain piece, which includes that specified portion, is expropriated for the reasons set out in this measure. Alternative and better methods are also provided for the acquisition of land in those sort of circumstances, which, in effect, allow a notice of expropriation to embody the terms of the agreement reached between the Department and the individuals, after negotiation, as to the acquisition of that land. In the same regard there is, I think, an improvement because provision is made whereby, in effect, a settlement of a dispute can be arrived at by the issue of a further tender in proceedings of this kind. Things of this kind allow for smoother dealings between the Department and the individual concerned, particularly in a sphere where there is very often a hot difference of opinion and where an expropriation of land necessarily has to take place.

There is also a change for the better in that the Minister, by certain of the provisions contained in this amending Bill, is now able to provide housing for employees of his Department at a reasonable rent. I think it is correct to say that he may now provide housing for the employees of his Department in certain spheres which he could not do previously. That too makes for the better working of the Department and the Act because it improves the position of the employees doing that work.

One is glad to see that there is now a graduated scale of interest to be paid by settlers of certain categories in place of the previous provision whereby no interest was paid over a period of time, that interest being capitalized and being paid back at a later stage. These are in every case changes for the better. Any change in the Land Settlement Act is an important change. As has been said by hon. members previously in this debate there is no more important legislation on the Statute Book than the Land Settlement legislation. This Act is responsible for the settlement of large and important areas of South Africa. It is really an Act of a non-party nature because it goes on as Governments come and go. Many of us have the experience, possibly through childhood memory only, of the difficulties which have beset previous Ministers and previous settlers under settlement schemes. Many of these difficulties were removed, I am glad to say, when the present Land Settlement Act was enacted and some of which are being improved yet further in the measure we are presently discussing.

There are two clauses to which I would draw the Minister’s attention. In the one case I want to ask for his sympathetic application of that clause and that is the clause which strengthens the powers of the Minister to prevent a settler from taking up any other employment whilst he is living on that land. Of course one can understand the necessity to have a provision of that kind; one can understand that, but for such a provision, there would be abuses in some cases by persons who had been allocated land under a land settlement scheme. But equally, Sir, there are cases of which we all know, the hard-luck cases, where, to overcome a difficult period which may be only of a temporary nature, the hon. the Minister may be asked to exercise that power sympathetically so that the clause concerned does not constitute a hardship.

The other clause deals with the control of the Department’s officials over the sort of crops which can be grown by a settler on his plot and the manner in which that plot shall be farmed. Here again, Sir, one can quite understand the necessity for control of that kind. But there too, I think the hon. the Minister will agree that as far as one can, one should refrain from exercising the powers under that section and allow the farmer to become a farmer standing on his own feet and using his own initiative and business acumen to make a success, instead of being regimented into becoming part of a pattern. I want to say that one can understand the necessity of this clause but one hopes the hon. the Minister and his officials will apply that only where it is absolutely necessary to apply it.

This is a measure which in principle one gladly supports, it being, overall, a measure to improve the application of the Act by the hon. the Minister’s Department.

There is such a measure of unanimity in connection with this measure that it would be a pity to lend it my support by prolonging the debate unduly. It is not my intention, therefore, to take up much of the time of the House. I feel a great need, however, to convey to the hon. the Minister my appreciation, particularly for what he has done for the Orange River settlers. As is generally known, that settlement was not established as a settlement on which to set up independent farmers in agriculture, but its object was more to serve as a relief settlement. The hon. the Minister appreciated this fact at an early stage and he took steps to provide those people with economic holdings. Inter alia, the extension at Gariep and the consolidation of the land which took place there we owe to that fact. I think it is my duty on behalf of those settlers to convey to the Minister our thanks and appreciation. He and his Department would have noticed that they saw much less of me this year than in previous years. That is not due to the fact that I have become less of a nuisance but because many of those people have been placed in a position where they can now operate as independent farmers.

In passing I just want to refer to the remarks made by the previous speaker in connection with the prohibition on settlers to accept other work. I take it that the hon. the Minister and his Department will always be willing to be sympathetic in cases where that is really necessary. I do think, however, that it is essential to have this provision so as to eliminate malpractices.

I am sorry that it is just at this stage where he has taken the further and necessary steps of extending the consolidation of smallholdings to grazing regions, where we are probably going to lose him. In that connection I just want to say this: I think the sum of money which the Minister makes available in individual cases—I believe it is R20,000—is definitely not enough to consolidate stock farms. I am aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible under this Act—I think that under Section 10—when the land of a settler is purchased, to use the entire amount for expansion after deducting that one-tenth contribution he has to make in any case. That, in any case, seems to be the position, I wish to refer to the du Toit Report where they say, inter alia, that in a stock grazing region a person has to have at least 1,200 sheep in order to make a decent living, which means that he must at least have 3,000 morgen with a carrying capacity of, say, three morgen per sheep. He cannot buy more land with his R20,000 at to-day’s prices than, say, 1,400 to 1,500 morgen. Supposing such a person already has 1.000 morgen it means that he only acquires an additional 400 or 500 morgen and that is not an economic unit yet. That is a matter to which I hope the hon. the Minister will still give his attention, if possible, before he leaves us as Minister of Lands.

There is another little matter I wish to raise. It seems a bit unfair to me that a person who buys under Section 20 this year does not come under this new scheme. It is undoubtedly a fact that the new conditions applying to Section 20 people are much more advantageous to them than to those who purchased their land immediately before. It can happen that a person purchases under Section 20 this year but he will not enjoy the benefits of this system which is now being introduced whereby the repayments are much easier. I should be very pleased if the hon. the Minister would give his attention to these two matters: Firstly, to make more money available for the expansion of uneconomic stock farms. I estimate that the amount should be between R30,000 and R35,000 if not R40,000. Secondly: Whether it is not possible to make some sort of adjustment in the case of people who purchased under Section 20 immediately before this legislation was promulgated.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the previous speaker in connection with the R20,000 which is made available for the purchase of economic units. I shall not enlarge on that; the hon. member for Prieska stated his case clearly. I also noticed that the hon. the Minister made a note of it immediately which means he will give it his attention. When it became known that the policy was only to allocate economic units the entire country rejoiced. Due to the experience I have had in my own constituency I should like to have a little more information. Mr. Speaker, at certain times when the rainfall is normal, etc., a holding can be economic but the moment times become abnormal you find that that holding is no longer economic. In my humble opinion if you want to have an economic holding it is necessary for it to be divided into proper camps, each with its own water supply. Unless the water supply is of such a nature that the animals can get to the water with the minimum amount of trekking, the largest farm in the world would not be economic. I can give examples to the hon. the Minister. Take the case of the smaller farms that have been issued at Vaalharts. The only water available to those animals is at the homestead. Those farms are about 6,000 to 7,000 yards in length. In order to graze at the furthest point of that farm the animals have to travel 14,000 yards every day. It is impossible to farm in such a way. Your holdings may initially appear to be economic but the (moment the grazing in the immediate vicinity of the homestead, where the water is, gets ruined, then you do not know what to do. Where a holding has to be converted into an economic unit I want to ask the Minister to see to it that there is a proper water supply for the animals of that farmer. Unless that is the position I can assure the hon. the Minister that the holding which he thought was an economic holding will eventually turn out not to be an economic one. Water is the life of everything, Mr. Speaker. That is why I want to bring this question of water on every holding which is issued pertinently to the notice of the hon. the Minister.

Then I should also like to have clarity in connection with probationer farmers. The hon. the Minister is now extending the probation period from two to five years. Does that mean that that probationer farmer must remain a probationer farmer for five years or does it mean, as is the position to-day, that he can apply to be released from his probationership within a year? If it is a must that he must remain a probationer farmer for five years I should like to know whether he would be entitled to the same privileges during the five-year period he is a probationer farmer. In other words, during that whole period of five years will he be entitled to free seed, free water, a subsistence allowance for himself and his children? Will it mean that during these five years half his income will belong to him, a quarter to the State, and that the other quarter will be placed in reserve for him? Will that be the position over the full period of five years? I want to know that in particular.

The fact that the Minister is now changing the law in such a way that a person will get his title deed after ten years instead of after 12 years will be particularly welcomed by the settlers on closer settlements. I can convey the gratitude of those people to the hon. the Minister in advance. I only hope the hon. the Minister will clear up the few points I have raised. I can give him the assurance that they are very important points.

On behalf of the officials of the Department of Lands I wish to convey their gratitude to the Minister. As I understand the position the officials of the Department will in future be provided with departmental houses on the same basis as the officials of other departments are. That has been something which has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the officials of the Department of Lands. They always felt that they were not being treated fairly. They will greatly appreciate this concession.

I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer. I just want to appeal to the Minister to let me have clarity on the few points I have raised.

I want to thank hon. members very sincerely for the support they have given this Bill. During the past ten years we have had three Bills in connection with settlements and each one has been a great step forward. I think this one will also be a great step forward. I do not think this will be the last Bill, because in view of the new development and the new approach to the whole question of land settlement, new problems will crop up for which no provision has been made in the legislation, problems which will make it necessary to bring about changes and improvements.

I also wish to express my sincere appreciation of the personal remarks they have addressed to me. I want to assure the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) that I shall not follow the example of his parson who, after his congregation had applauded him sky high, said: “You people are so fond of me that I shall stay on.” I may just say that the main reason for my laying down my portfolio as Minister has become evident to-day. I want to go while there are still people who say: “Well, it is a pity he is going; he could have remained on a little longer”, rather than to go when everybody says: “Thank Heaven the old chap is eventually going.” In any case I want to thank hon. members most sincerely for their good wishes for my future. I still hope to remain in this House for some time in a less responsible capacity when I also hope I shall not be called upon to act in a similarly responsible manner. I shall greatly enjoy being able to act in a less responsible manner.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) has raised the problem of Section 33. Where land reverts back to us because the man has gone insolvent or does not wish to continue or hands the land back of his own free will we shall now have the right to sell that land out of hand or by tender and not necessarily by public auction. In the first place to sell it by public auction is the worst possible way of disposing of such land. In that case it is a “forced sale” and everybody comes there with the intention of paying much less than the land is worth. If the hon. member consults any agent or building society with experience of this sort of thing, they will tell him that that is the position. It is much more beneficial to the State if we sell by tender or by negotiation. We are not introducing a new principle here. We can sell the odd pieces of land on a settlement in the same way as is suggested here. The Farmers’ Assistance Board has had that right since 1935, i.e. for the past 30 years, and it has never been found necessary to change it because the system has worked very well indeed. In the case of State Advances only the Secretary of State Advances has the right to dispose of land which reverts back to them in the same way as we are suggesting here. It works satisfactorily in all cases and the interests of the State are much better protected.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) apparently has a few complaints about the extension of the five year period to seven years as far as Section 20 settlers are concerned. I may just say that it used to be ten years and I changed it to five years for the reasons referred to by the hon. member. Seeing that we are making major concessions to them I think it is only right that we extend it to seven years. The hon. member, as well as a few other members, referred to the members of the Land Board and the fixing of their salaries. I think it will be generally welcomed that we do not have to do so by way of legislation. It recently became necessary to adjust their salaries and it may again become necessary because the activities of the Land Board have increased enormously lately. Because of the consolidation of land and the great settlement schemes we have embarked upon their work has in many cases been doubled and more than doubled. The ordinary member of the Land Board has practically become a full-time official and that has to be taken into account when fixing his salary. It therefore becomes necessary from time to time to make an adjustment and it is difficult to put a Bill through Parliament on each occasion merely for that purpose. I think it will be much better to adopt the system suggested here.

The hon. member for Christiana asked whether I or somebody else would move an amendment in connection with the mineral rights. My Department itself will see to that.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) had some doubts in connection with tenant farmers who do other work temporarily. The hon. member need have no fears. We are very accommodating as far as that is concerned. Where a person suffers a set-back because hail has destroyed his crops, for example, there may be practically nothing for him to do on the farm between then and the following season. In that case we allow him to go if he can get a job, but we must be very careful that that is not abused. I can tell hon. members of something which happened some time ago, for example. We gave somebody a farm under Section 20. He did not live there at all. His wife lived there most of the time. He was a teacher and his intention was to buy this farm so that he could go and farm there the day he retired. He would only have retired in five years’ time. We cannot make provision for an increased pension for retired teachers with this scheme of ours. We told him that he should stop teaching otherwise he could not be regarded as a farmer. The object is not to provide people who have other positions with land which they can occupy at a later stage. The object is to assist somebody to get land. On the other hand where there are cases where it would be in the man’s own interest, without retarding the development of the holding, to work outside temporarily, we are always accommodating and allowing him to do so. The hon. member also talked about the people who farmed according to a system. He wanted to know what control we had over that. Well, we do not do so in the case of every farmer. If a man is successful why should we step in? But we do so in the case of the man whom we see does not follow the correct methods. In his case it is very necessary and because of that many of them are to-day making a success of their farming where they were unsuccessful in the past. The hon. member talked about the “pattern” of farming in this connection. He said there should not be a pattern of farming. I differ from the hon. member in that regard. I think one should have a pattern of farming in every part of the country. My eyes were opened when I travelled through the Po Valley in northern Italy. I travelled for a distance of about 200 miles and precisely the same pattern of farming is followed on each farm. He has so much land under maize, so much under wheat, so much under vines, so much under olives, so much under mulberries. Gradually as the soil and the climate change that pattern changes slightly and varies somewhat, but every farm, as far as the pattern followed is concerned, is exactly the same as the previous one. Why is that the position? Because they have over hundreds and hundreds of years found that that was the best way of farming. They do not so do because they have been regimented into doing it but experience has taught them to do so. In our case we are dealing with people who have not yet had the experience. They are on a new terrain. They have not been agricultural farmers on smallholdings for hundreds of years. They are in an area where agriculture has never been practised before. We have to try to evolve a pattern for them. Once we have the right pattern I hope everybody will follow it. The hon. member for Prieska talked about the consolidation scheme and said the R20,000 we advanced was not enough. Does th hon. member know that when I took over the maximum amount was R7,000.

Hopelessly too little!

Yes, but as circumstances changed we gradually increased it and last year we increased if from R16,000 to R20,000. In the past the Section 20 farms were mainly agricultural farms and not stock breeding farms. But where we have to consolidate in the case of people who go in for stock breeding we are faced with a new problem and that is whether this R20,000 is enough. We are giving consideration to this matter. I cannot say in which direction we shall decide. There has been a new development and a scheme which was essentially an agricultural scheme has now assumed a stock breeding character. That changes the position and we are going into it. I shall go into the question of whether the old Section 20 can be adapted to suit the new scheme.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) has availed himself of this debate to make up for the time he lost, due to illness I believe, when my Vote was under discussion, and spoke about general matters of policy. In the first place he referred to the maximum period of five years which probationer farmers had to serve. The law has always said “up to five years”. It is for the Department to decide whether it should be less than five years, whether it should be one year, two years, three years of four years if the man has proved what he can do. Now it remains at five years. The intention is not to make it two years as in the past, but to make it a minimum period of three years. This will be done administratively. If a probationer farmer has been there for two or three or five years the position is that whereas he would have passed out after two years under the old system, we now have to take that into account when it comes to the period of ten years when he is given title. Administratively we are going to keep them for a longer period. This Bill provides that where we can keep him for a longer period than two years administratively he is credited with his probationary period in calculating the ten years.

In terms of the new system we no longer collect the quarter but the probationer farmer must pay us 50 per cent of everything we give him. We provide him with fertilizer and that sort of thing while he is a probationer farmer. He has to pay half of that back. The one-quarter falls away. I think that is the answer to the second point raised by the hon. member. He is treated much more like an ordinary tenant than in the past. Economically his position is not that we give him everything in quarters but it is a business transaction between him and ourselves. It gives him a greater measure of freedom but also a greater measure of responsibility towards us. The object is to develop in him a sense of responsibility as far as the financial aspect of his farming is concerned so that he will be better equipped to become a tenant farmer at the end of his probation period. This new system is much more favourable to the tenant farmer. He assumes responsibility much earlier and he has greater control over his holding than in the past. It also makes a better person of him. I think this will be greatly to his benefit.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

May I have the privilege of the half hour? Rising to deal with the Defence Budget which this year is a record sum for our country, either in peace or war, namely R210,000,000 from Revenue, an increase of R88,000,000 odd on the Budget for 1963-4, we find that the biggest increase, namely R35,000,000 is in respect of “Special Equipment and Reserve Stocks”. If one takes three of the items concerned, that is Item G “Army Stores, Services and Equipment”, an increase of R9,545,500, Item K “Mechanical Transport, Horses and Dogs”, an increase of R13,631,500 (I wonder whether the hon. Minister can tell us if he is going to unleash the dogs of war that we are providing for in this particular Budget), and Item S “Manufacture of Munitions”, an increase of R9,430,500. There is an increase on those three items of something like R32,000,000, and I picked them out as significant pointers to the price the taxpayer is paying for the Republic’s isolation and the loss of the collective security which we enjoyed when we were still a member of the Commonwealth.

It is against that background, that one today is pleased to see that the hon. Minister has accepted our long repeated request to issue to Parliament a White Paper on defence, the first of which was tabled yesterday. We regard this White Paper as one of the two essentials which are necessary to supply Parliament with official information which will permit its defence responsibilities being dealt with against a more informed and responsible background than hitherto it has been possible to do. Even in its present restricted form the White Paper provides the first official easing of the unnecessarily tight veil of secrecy which has for a number of years been clamped down on defence, and which hampered Parliament in its dealing with defence matters, just as it made difficulties outside in the country. Properly developed this paper can promote what we regard as a valuable point of contact between defence on the one side and Parliament on the other, and also between defence and Parliament, and the people of the Republic who in their turn have to foot the bill. It can keep the nation informed at the official level instead of information at the unofficial levels which was all we had had to listen to previously, of the strategic background against which defence planning is proceeding. A background which of course in its turn determines the heavy demands in finance, manpower and economic diversion the public again has to pay since we have accepted full responsibility for our own defence.

Apart from the limitations which are present in the White Paper, some of them imposed by obviously necessary reasons of security, this first Defence White Paper may well be regarded as valuable for the defence information it conveys without actually publishing it. What it says emphasizes most significantly what it omits to say. But it is a beginning which we accept, and I want to reassure the hon. the Minister, Sir, that it will improve with age, as most people do.

Some people do not.

Most of us do. In any case, I want to ask the hon. Minister to rest quite assured that we shall leave nothing undone to ensure that this White Paper grows into a valuable instrument to assist in the official discussions on our defence (on which so much in this country must depend), through the media of the parliamentary control which it will be possible to apply to it. Naturally we require time to study this White Paper, and will undoubtedly suggest certain improvements for its next issue. Other members who follow me will deal with certain specific points as dealt with in the present White Paper. But may I also point out to the hon. Minister that his White Paper is only one of the two legs which we of the Official Opposition asked for in our proposal for a new combined approach to defence matters so far as the House is concerned. The second leg is the appointment of a Select Committee on Defence, composed as far as possible of members with experience of defence problems, and clothed with the customary powers applicable to a parliamentary select committee to examine and call for evidence where necessary on defence matters falling under parliamentary control. Particularly in regard to expenditure of funds which Parliament itself has to provide. Those two legs between them form the complete unit to enable efficient parliamentary control. The White Paper on the one hand and the select committee on the other. It can be done without in the main interfering in any way with the strategic side of defence activities which naturally fall to the professional soldiers as their part of the job. Neither one of two legs of the new approach is complete on its own, but together they represent parliamentary control as used with conspicuous success for many years by other powers also having major defence responsibilities. The White Paper itself can be said to reveal the tremendous growth in the defence commitments of the country over the last few years. In the last two years there was a jump in expenditure, as the figures reveal, from R45,750,000 in 1960-1, to R210,000,000 in to-day’s Budget, plus the many other millions which are tucked away on the little side roads, the little pathways of high finance which are not shown, deliberately, as defence expenditure, but which so form part of defence expenditure. It shows also the more than four-fold increase in defence expenditure. It shows the equally massive drain on manpower. The Permanent Force has increased from 9,000 odd in 1960 to 14,926 to-day, and the A.C.F. trainees, of which approximately 2,000 were trained in 1960 for a month or two a year, have now increased to 16,000 a year and are being trained for nine months in their first year. It needs little imagination to appreciate the drain on the Republic’s economy by the heavily increased demands for money and men for defence, to say nothing about the corresponding diversion of manpower so desperately needed for the country’s expansion in commerce and industry and agriculture, etc. It amplifies the manpower shortage already existing in this country largely as the result of the policies of this Government. I refer to their earlier outlook on immigration, and on job reservation and matters of that nature, all of which have a decided effect on the manpower shortage we are facing to-day. The White Paper also lays down the procedures to be followed, whereas a select committee would supply necessary parliamentary control to see that those procedures are indeed being carried out and that the Republic is getting adequate value for its considerable expenditure on defence. That is why I say that together they will form one unit which is capable of exercising satisfactory control. It is imperative that there should be an official scrutinizing body not associated directly with the forces themselves. No man can scrutinize his own expenditure satisfactorily, human nature being what it is, there must be some leaning towards himself, and it has been proved in so many countries of the world that this system we propose can work. The parliamentary select committee on Defence which we call for is the correct type of body for that purpose and it carries with it both the authority of Parliament, and the responsibility to Parliament in carrying out its most important ask. It provides the means also for closer co-operation between the various shades of opinion in the House, a body where we can discuss an important matter like defence, and politics will play no part, where the matter can be discussed in the calmer atmosphere of the select committee. Speaking during the debate on his Vote (Hansard. Vol. 14, Col. 5808, on 27 April this year), the Prime Minister in reply to similar questions put to him in order to get a decision in regard to this matter stated that as far as he could see there was very little advantage to be gained from such a select committee, later he said that—by and large it seemed that at the present stage there would not be much value in setting up either a Defence Council, which we are not asking for at this stage, or a select committee on Defence, but that the Government would keep its eyes open and would be open to conviction should a change of circumstances occur. I cannot too earnestly urge that the very publication of this White Paper is a change of circumstances which warrants reconsideration of the decision given by the Prime Minister then. I think the publication of the White Paper has made the appointment of a select committee a matter of absolute necessity and we can no longer afford to ignore that fact. I would ask the Minister himself to endeavour now to ensure that the establishment of such a committee is brought about as soon as possible. In making that request, I want to say that I am not making it on my own. I am supported in that viewpoint by one of the leading papers which supports the Government, a paper controlled by the Government itself, which on 15 March 1962 when we first raised this issue in the House, published an article which was reprinted on the same day in the Cape Argus which said the following:

There are certain military matters that are of an obviously secret nature, but there are aspects of the country’s defence that deserve to enjoy the widest discussion. It is no longer only a matter for experts behind closed doors, but also for intelligent and informed public opinion.

I assume that the opinion on a select committee could be classed as intelligent and informed and would therefore fit in with this article. It goes on to say—

The Prime Minister, in referring to this matter, said that it needed men with experience in this particular type of warfare and weapons, but that is not the full answer. There is also the other aspect where men of intelligence can maybe find the flaws to ensure that an even balance is kept between enthusiasm on the one side and practical level headedness on the other side. The article goes on to say—

Again we claim that what we have suggested is one of the ways and means to apply that limitation. It goes on to say—

Again we say that a select committee coupled with the White Paper is the means of supplying that common approach which the Prime Minister’s own newspaper has laid down. Therefore I again ask that reconsideration should be given now to implement the second leg of the suggestions put forward by this side of the House.

In keeping with our desire to give the fullest possible co-operation, the Official Opposition has up to now—and this fits in with our broad policy of not playing politics when it comes to matters of defence—refrained as far as possible from discussing important matters in regard to defence in open debate across the floor of the House, particularly where it was felt that publicity might, in he national interest, be better avoided. We have consistently followed that policy for a number of years, but at the same time I want to make it perfectly clear that as the Official Opposition we continue to carry most important responsibilities to the public of this country. We represent practically half the voting public. We have the responsibility to ensure by all means within our power that the defence of the Republic against external aggression will be as effective as possible within our resources. I think it is necessary to say that in view of the Prime Minister’s refusal to grant us that platform of common approach in the form suggested by a select committee and to accept our offer of co-operation in defence matters via the medium of such a select committee, the Opposition is now being left with no alternative in the discharge of its responsibilities, but in future to raise its questions in regard to defence matters in the course of open debate across the floor of the House, no matter how much we would prefer to deal with them by other means where they can be more satisfactorily dealt with. At the same time, I also want to make it quite clear that any charge of sabotage which may be levelled at a member on this side for voicing criticism of Defence, which hitherto we have refrained from doing—a charge which is becoming such common practice in this House—any such charge which we feel will inevitably follow if the current practice is proceeded with, should be directed not at the Opposition but at the Government itself which has refused our offer to try to find that common platform on which we can discuss defence, not in the open across the floor of the House, but around the table in the calmer atmosphere of a select committee.

Is that politics?

No, it is not politics, but commonsense and a warning not to play the fool with defence.

I now want to deal with a couple of specific items. I first want to raise a matter which I know the Minister himself is greatly concerned about, and I do so again in a constructive spirit by endeavouring to ascertain the information and at the same time make constructive suggestions. I refer to the regrettable accident which occurred recently in which Defence transport was involved and trainees at the Oudtshoorn Camp were killed and injured. I know the Minister and hon. members opposite are just as perturbed about this as we are. I should like to voice, and I believe I do so on behalf of every member in this House, our most sincere sympathy with those people who suffered as the result of that accident, those who have lost their loved ones and those who will carry the scars, mental and physical, for the Test of their lives. I would like to ask the Minister about this accident. I know the Minister is concerned, and so are we. So are the fathers and mothers of the 16,000 trainees referred to in the White Paper. And so are the families of the men of the other branches of Defence. There has been a growing tendency over the past months for these accidents to occur. Almost every day one reads in the papers about more and more accidents in which Defence transport is involved. There appears to be a necessity for a very strict inquiry as to what efficient control is being applied in the running of these vehicles. As is natural in these cases, all sorts of exaggerated stories get around, and that is one of the reasons why I am raising the matter, to afford the Minister an opportunity to dispose of such statements. One hears some of the wildest statements, obviously exaggerated, but sometimes such statements also carry a substratum of truth. I want to ask the Minister whether trainees, in cases where they possess a driver’s licence, are passed under the military system as being competent and used to drive military vehicles? One of the statements made is that trainees possessing a driver’s licence for light vehicles are within a few weeks used to driving heavy Defence vehicles. It may be right or wrong, but this statement is being fairly widely made, and I ask the Minister whether it is or is not a fact. There is an alarming story about the lack of adequate supervision of drivers, including their qualification, and I should like to know what effective control is applied in those cases. A number of the vehicles used for the transport of men would never have been granted a certificate by the Road Transportation Board to be used for that purpose. Although under war-time conditions one uses the vehicles available, that urgency need not necessarily apply in peace-time. What makes one more alarmed is that when one studies the second report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts dealing with transport, one finds statements which do not give one cause for peace of mind—one I quote states in regard to defence units.

That causes a lot of disquiet, that obsolete vehicles which cannot be properly maintained are being used and may therefore be more accident prone. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not time that there should be an investigation into the number of vehicles used by defence. I speak from my own experience in the town I live in, where prior to the take-over by our Government of the naval base 24 vehicles sufficed for all the road transport work done then on behalf of the Royal Navy, and at that stage there was almost an equivalent number of ships in commission as we have to-day. About a year ago that number was increased from 24 to over 120. I see them day after day racing up and down the streets, 3-ton trucks with only a driver and perhaps one man in them. That does not seem necessary. The average driver completely disregards the traffic on the road. He is driving a heavy vehicle, so he cannot be worried. Only last week one was ordered off the road with a warning for having no tail-light and no warning signals. The ordinary private individual would have had to pay a fine for that sort of thing. If that is prevalent in a small section like that, I wonder what happens all over the country where there are thousands of military vehicles. The Transport Vote is being increased by something like R13,000,000 this year to provide greater numbers of transport vehicles with corresponding growth of traffic. It calls for a searching inquiry as to what is happening in that regard, and I would commend that to the Minister.

In the few moments I have left I want to touch again on the question of the wastage of trained defence personnel, men trained at very heavy expense to the State and essential to the State. The resignations over the past six or seven months, from figures supplied in the House, total 993 in the Air Force, the Navy and the Army. There are 486 who resigned from the Air Force, 130 from the Navy, and 377 from the other branches. Of those 993 officers and men, many of them with over five years’ training, 860 left at their own request. Why is that? We are told that Defence cannot compete with private enterprise, but I do not accept that answer. I am not suggesting that we should compete rand for rand in wages, but the trouble is in the conditions of service. One of the main troubles is the delays which take place in the men receiving their pay. People were sent over to Britain last year to bring out the last of our new ships. Some of those men were in Britain for three months without receiving a cent of the salaries due to them, because there was some hold-up in Pretoria. They were in a strange country over the Christmas season when everybody else could enjoy themselves, and in some cases the captain on the ship had to advance money out of his own pocket in order that they could go ashore and spend a few shillings. They were there at a time when winter was at its worst and they had to spend money on warm clothes because they did not get a clothing allowance. Their salaries did not arrive because the Pay Office in Pretoria have apparently accepted the principle that a three months’ lag is due before they pay out. That is the common talk through the Forces. That is one of the reasons why we are losing a large number of men. There is also the question of the security of Defence employment, so that a man can join the Defence Force and know that he is secure, provided he does his job. That is what they are looking for, and also security in their home accommodation, which is lacking so badly for the family man. These are all factors which require more attention, more personal interest in the welfare of the men. These are some of the things which cause trouble when you have to compete with industry. Industry does not permit that state of affairs in its set-up. It is not a question of the actual salaries only. There has been an increase in the salaries recently, but it still fails to take into account the terrific increase in the responsibilities of the officers and men in regard to the use of modern weapons. If we are going to spend R210,000,000 a year on creating a sound Defence Force, apart from all the money spent in previous years, then we have to spend additional millions to see that its officers and men are satisfied, contented and remunerated adequately for their responsibilities. The weapons are useless without the trained men, but that will be dealt with at a later stage. Take some of the displays we have seen recently. To anyone who knows, it was written, in big letters on the wall, that sufficient of the trained men are no longer there to use the weapons and therefore the defence value of those weapons deteriorate. We are not getting value for the money we spent on purchasing that equipment due to wastage of trained manpower. These are some of the things that have to be faced up to, and it is no good its being glossed over by departmental reports. Take this report in regard to the shortage of manpower. It shows that the shortage of manpower in the Army is so severe that it requires 600 artisans to bring them up to strength. The Navy is running on half the total number of trained electrical personnel. We are buying new ships at a cost of R10,000,000 a time. Where will we get the men from? We have already arrived at the stage where the vessels have to go to sea with half their complement composed of trainees, with only a few months’ training. That is not building up a sound defence for this country. [Time limit.]

I listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). He raised one matter with which I wish to associate myself and that was his expression of sympathy with the families of those who were concerned in the accident at Oudtshoorn. This side of the House should also like to record its sincere sympathy with the bereaved.

I want to congratulate the hon. member on having become a convert in regard to the establishment of a Defence Council. The hon. member has for a considerable time been insisting that it was absolutely essential for the Minister to establish a Parliamentary Defence Council. We have apparently now given them sufficient information to abandon that idea. But now he suggests something else. He asked for a Select Committee on Defence. He did not tell the House what the duties of that committee should be. I want to refer him to page 5 of the White Paper, paragraph 9, where they set out the duties of the various boards the Minister has at his disposal. If he looks at the names of the members of those boards he will immediately agree that they are persons of outstanding ability. I think those people can provide the Minister with all the information he needs and can give him all the advice he requires.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for having issued us with this White Paper. I think it provides this House with very detailed information concerning defence. I must honestly say that I am personally of the opinion that if the Minister has made a mistake he perhaps made a mistake in revealing too much information because it is difficult to think of anything hon. members opposite can raise in connection with defence on which the Minister does not give information in this White Paper, The Minister has given us such a clear picture that when the public get to know the contents of this White Paper, they will realize that the Minister has not only taken this House into his confidence but the public as well. That is only right because at a time of war the people of the Republic of South Africa must know what the position is in connection with defence. I make bold to say that I do not think there is another country in the world with a White population like that of the Republic who is more ready for a war than we are. The hon. member referred to the high taxes the public is called upon to pay and on the other hand he complains and says there are not sufficient men in the Defence Force. If that force were to be increased it would simply mean increased expenditure on defence. I want to raise one matter which has made me unhappy and it is this that the hon. member for Simonstown did not utter one word of appreciation of the way in which the Defence Force as such is being trained. My mind goes back to 1955 when the Government took Simonstown over. On that occasion the Admiral in charge of the handing-over ceremony said the following: “It will take you ten to 15 years to get into your stride as far as naval operations are concerned”. We recently had the wonderful privilege of seeing what our South African technicians had done within seven years with the Jan van Riebeeck. They have been able to take a ship and convert it completely so that it can be used for defence purposes. I think those technicians of the Department of Defence who did that wonderful job of work deserve a word of appreciation from this House for the efficient manner in which they have tackled that job. What English Admiral said “It will take you from 10 to 15 years to get into your stride,” it has taken the naval authorities of the Republic seven years to show what South Africans could do. It is a well-known fact that Afrikaners are not really seamen. Our recent history, however, as far as the Navy is concerned, has proved how the South African can adapt himself to circumstances. He has a wonderful ability to adapt himself. I think for example of the wonderful display the South African Navy put up when we recently went out on three warships. I am convinced that everybody who went on that outing can only have the highest praise for the ability of the Afrikaner to adapt himself to present-day circumstances.

I wish to refer to another section of our Forces, namely, our Air Force. Sir, there are members on that side who can speak with authority on our Air Force. I am convinced that nobody on that side of the House can speak in anything but the most glowing terms of the wonderful efficiency of our Air Force personnel, our pilots, etc. I want to mention a name, and I hope I shall be forgiven for doing so. But I was told that when the Government switched over to the purchase of Mirage aircraft, a pilot of the Republic Air Force was only shown what had to be done. Immediately thereafter he climbed into that Mirage aircraft and piloted it as though he had had years of training in the handling of that type of aircraft. [Time limit.]

I want to return again for a moment to the question of the grave shortage of manpower in our Defence Force as a whole, and touch upon certain of the statements published in the report of the Public Accounts Committee, the special committee which sat recently to deal with the question of defence equipment. On page 73 where they deal with the South African Navy they report as follows—

Then dealing with the military side they say—

I quote those two figures because I want to come back to them in connection with another matter, and I want to deal again with the question of delays which are costing the Defence Department dearly. I refer to delays in grabbing up and enrolling men of the type required by our defences and who are lost to us through clerical delays in replying to their applications for enrolment. I cite the instance here of a young South African who himself set out to qualify in electronics, first in this country, and then at his own expense went overseas to complete his studies. A fully bilingual young fellow in his early ’thirties, a first-class lad. He went overseas and served for a year in one of the biggest electronic factories serving the British Navy in Britain. He then went from there to one of the royal dockyards. He had actually worked for about 15 months first of all in the north of Britain on the building of our own President Class ships and fitting them out with electronic equipment. He went to one of the British dockyards in order to gain further experience. As you know, Sir, the submarine which we have just used in Capex is one which has in fact been completely re-built. The only remaining portion of the original vessel is a portion of the hull; the rest of the submarine was stripped and re-built. This lad worked for 12 months of the re-building of that submarine. He went to England to gain experience and he did gain experience which I would say is invaluable to the South African Navy under present conditions. He then came back home; his parents live in this country. He married and came back home, and the magnet which drew him back was the prospect of joining the South African Naval Forces. Long before he left Britain he went to South Africa House to try to expedite his entry into the navy, and he again applied to join the navy when he came back here. He waited five months and other than the usual acknowledgment did not even get the courtesy of a reply from Pretoria. He then gave up and joined an industrial concern in which he gets about twice or three times as much money as he would have got in the navy. Here again therefore we lost another man, I could give the hon. the Minister half a dozen similar instances. I would like the hon. the Minister to find out what the reason is for the delay in replying to these applications.

I hope you will give me the name.

Yes, I will give the Minister the names. Surely as far as people of this kind are concerned we ought to have people waiting on their doorstep to grab them when they offer their services, but that does not happen. Sir, that is one of the criticisms we have, and it is one of the things that we could hammer out if we could get together in a defence committee.

I want to come back again to the figures which I mentioned just now with regard to shortages. As I have said, as far as the S.A. Navy is concerned a total of almost half the electrical positions are vacant. I have mentioned one instance where we could have had the services of a man to fill one of these vacancies. There are many cases of a similar nature. But there are other cases again in which applications for enrolment are dealt with very quickly. I know a man who was in the culinary line, a first-class trainer baker. It only took him about a fortnight to get this job. Somebody was more influenced by his stomach in that particular case, than the authorities were by their heads in the other case to which I referred. I am not decrying the fact that this trained baker was engaged; he is a first-class chap and the right thing was done in enroling him. But if that sort of thing can happen in the one case then it could happen in all the other cases.

Then I want to come back to this question of our personnel in the Army, where there is a shortage of 800 artisans. Sir, whilst one committee comprised largely of defence people make a report of this nature, we find that at that same time the Air Force and the Army between them have lost over 800 trained personnel, and already there was a shortage of half the total establishment of artisans. They have lost over 800 trained personnel, the majority of whom have over five years’ service. They are the experienced type of people that we want. Sir, there is something wrong somewhere, and despite the figures given in the White Paper about the very large increase in the administrative staff, it looks as though there is a bottle-neck somewhere which is causing delays, and situations which in turn help to increase this manpower wastage. Sir, does the hon. the Minister know of any other navy in the world where when men are transferred from a shore job to a ship or from a ship job to a shore job he is charged for board and lodging. A married man may be working ashore and living in one of the official residences provided by the State to house him and his family. The moment he is moved on board a ship he is charged a board and lodging allowance. The majority of the navies in the world pay such people an extra allowance in order to be able to get the little odd bits and pieces which are not provided in the daily rations. Sir, we have reached the stage where, if we had a committee which had the knowledge as to where to go to look for it and where to get the information, that on the average a large number of the Navy personnel do not know from month to month what pay they are going to pick up at the end of the month. Sir, these men have wives and families to support; they have children growing up whom they have to clothe and feed and educate, and like the rest of us they want to know that at the end of the month they are going to get a fixed salary so that their wives can pay their bills.

Why do they not know it?

Because of the deductions in pay which take place in their movements to and from these various ships. Some of the deductions are eventually repayable, but they are often not repaid for as long as three months. It is generally stated by personnel that you cannot expect any repayment until after about three months, particularly as the matter has to go through Pretoria. Well, that is not a state of affairs which is conducive to maintaining an efficient force. That is one of the reasons why we are losing people from the forces. Not only is there dissatisfaction in this regard but there are also the petty-fogging pinpricks which take place all along the line. Sir, what is required is a greater degree of interest by some of the officers in the forces in the personnel serving under them, in the welfare side of the matter. Other navies have welfare officers; we also have them. It is a recognized practice that the padre of each particular denomination is the welfare officer. Such a welfare officer can deal with family welfare up to a certain level. But, again, if you take the example of the Royal Navy, you find that there they have a special welfare section in each ship, a welfare committee where each branch is represented. Where they get together and themselves discuss little improvements necessary, little pinpricks and little hardships which can perhaps be easily remedied but which are very often not remedied because they are not brought to the attention of the authorities. That system known as Whitley Welfare Committees obtains throughout the whole of the Admiralty establishments. In this way all the little pinpricks are removed before they even start to fester. They do away with difficulties and provide the necessary improvements, and in this way they avoid losing their men. Sir, some of the womenfolk of the men in the Navy have come to see me as their member, asking whether they cannot at least know what money they are regularly going to get at the end of the month. That is not the sort of state of affairs that should exist in our Navy. These people have told me, “We come from decent homes; we should not have to degenerate into what might be called poor Whites, never knowing from one month to another what salary we are going to get”. In one particular case a chief petty officer, a trained artisan, had to come home at the end of one month with R24 in his pocket because of these various stoppages of this type. [Time limit.]

I wish to say a few words in connection with the first part of the first speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I am pleased that the hon. member did not talk politics except for his reference to isolation and the fact that we left the Commonwealth. I hope hon. members opposite will now stop harping on that string on which they have been harping for the past three years because the fact of the matter is that we are preparing ourselves so that we can defend ourselves against any possible aggression in which we cannot expect any assistance from Britain. Even if we had been within the Commonwealth we could not have expected any assistance from Britain. We are preparing ourselves for any possible aggression in which Britain would like to stand apart because she would not like to be involved in any struggle in which South Africa might become involved. It is not correct to say that we have to spend large sums of money today because we are isolated. I think hon. members must stop harping on that string. There is another fact we must bear in mind. We are getting prepared so that we can defend ourselves in the first instance but in the second place we are strengthening our defences on the same basis on which the West has strengthened itself, namely, our Defence Force must serve as a deterrent to any possible aggressor. I think it is admitted to-day that because of the preparations South Africa has made over the past few years more and more countries realize to-day that South Africa is in a position in which it will not be so easy to attack her. I think it is to the advantage of South Africa that we have reached that stage where more and more countries, even Africa states, say to-day that South Africa cannot be attacked, “that they have missed the bus”. I think we must view the large sums of money we are spending in that light.

I do not want to go into the question of the select committee. When his vote was under discussion the hon. the Prime Minister said he said he had an open mind as far as the appointment of such a select committee was concerned. A great deal can be said in favour of it but certain arguments against it can also be advanced. However, I do not think it is my function to say anything about that.

I wish to avail myself of this opportunity in the first place of expressing my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the fact that greater use is to be made of our commandos. I want to express my appreciation of the fact that ever-increasing use will be made of them in future; that they are, for instance, to be provided with uniforms and that stricter discipline is to be introduced. We are very grateful for that and I think the commandos themselves also appreciate it.

I believe it has been decided not to consider the possibility of abolishing the gymnasiums. I am particularly grateful for that, if my information is correct, and if my information is not correct, I should like to learn that from the hon. the Minister. Mr. Chairman, we in South Africa have a need for tradition; we are a young country. Over the past 14/15 years the gymnasiums have built up a tradition which is of great value to our Defence Force. When you think of training centres overseas which are internationally known, training centres such as Greenwich, West Point and Sandhurst, you realize the tradition which attaches to such training institutions. That is why I am pleased that we are going to retain our gymnasiums which the people have accepted, of which they have become fond, and to which they are proud to send their sons.

I understand there is a possibility that our Citizen Force is to get new uniforms. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will enlighten us on that. Sir, I do not wish to raise a hornets’ nest but I want to put two questions to-day. The first is in connection with the Secretariat of Defence. I do not wish to go into detail because I do not want to wash any dirty linen in public if there is any dirty linen.

A great deal.

How do you know?

There is a great deal of criticism to the effect that too much control is exercised by the civil secretariat over our Defence Force. We are living in abnormal circumstances and I want to ask this question: Has the time not arrived for an investigation into the desirability that less control should be exercised over our Defence Force by the civil secretariat? I am one of those who realize that there has to be civil control, but it is possible to have too much control and there can also be an unnecessary duplication of work. Instead of seeing to it that money is not wasted, the delay which is caused as a result of superfluous control may result in money being wasted; that the larger staff which the secretariat requires to exercise that control may mean additional expenditure. What you save on the one hand you spend on the other hand. Without going into the facts I think it would be good to investigate the position and to ascertain whether the secretariat should not exercise less control over our Defence Force.

I have a second question to ask and that is in connection with the control of the Public Service Commission over our Defence Forces. I think it is an anomaly that a military organization should be placed on the same level as the other sections of the Public Service. The hon. member for Simonstown said there was a large turnover of manpower, particularly trained manpower. I think one of the reasons why we have that large turnover is the fact that the salaries paid to the various ranks in the Defence Force are the same as those applicable to the equivalent posts in the Public Service. I do not think there is any comparison between the two. When you are preparing yourself on the scale on which we are doing it to-day it seems anomalous to me that the conditions of service organization and basis of our Defence Force should be tied to a civil organization. I am not pleading for the abolition of all civil control, but as far as the Post Office is concerned we have gone so far as to give the Post Office itself a greater measure of freedom as far as the control over its staff is concerned. The question I wish to put is whether the time has not arrived that we also give our Defence Force a greater measure of freedom in respect of control over its staff. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for us to establish a body to exercise control over the staff, a body consisting of prominent people, perhaps a mixed body; it may perhaps be better to have a mixed body. I think a great deal of the difficulties which flow from the red tape we find in our organization to-day and the struggle to get conditions of service improved are due to the fact that the personnel of the Defence Force are under the control of the Public Service Commission.

An organization similar to the one the Railways have?

It is not for me to say how the body should be constituted. It can possibly be a body on which representatives of the Defence Force and civilians serve together. In a large organization like the Defence Force there must be control over the staff but I think the control over the staff of the Defence Force should be uncoupled from the control which is exercised over the personnel of the ordinary Public Service.

The hon. member who has just spoken has raised two interesting points which other members on this side will follow up in more detail. The question of the Secretariat and the question of Public Service Commission control are both issues which have been matters of concern to those interested in the Defence Force. I can assure the hon. member that he will have sympathetic consideration from this side for the points made by him in this regard.

One point which the hon. member made and upon which I feel I must comment is his reference to the lack of tradition in the South African Army. The hon. member referred to the lack of tradition …

I said that there was a need for tradition.

He said that we were a young country. Sir, after what his Government did to the military traditions of South Africa I am amazed that he can hold his head up and even dare to mention the word “tradition”—traditions built up over generations of South Africans in units who have built up a proud place for themselves in the history of this country. I cannot allow the record of our forces in this country, land, sea and air, to be besmirched by criticism of the tradition which they have established for themselves in the short history of South Africa.

Sir, the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has dealt with the question of the appointment of a select committee. I regret that we are obliged in this debate to raise in this House matters which otherwise we would be loath to do. I want to give one or two examples. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how many of the men whom he sent to America to train to fly the Hercules transport planes are still in the S.A. Air Force and available to fly them. I want to ask him what trained South African personnel are available to handle the top-secret communications equipment which South Africa took over from the British forces. I want to ask him what trained technical personnel per unit he has to deal with the highly involved electronics of the modern warships which South Africa to-day is proud to own. The hon. the Minister knows that the modern war machine—I refer particularly to the Navy and the Air Force—is to-day a highly scientific, highly technical mechanism, and that it is no use buying a ship if you have not got the men to run it; that a ship becomes a helpless target for its own destruction if the electronic equipment on which its very life depends should fail. Sir, I have the highest respect for those who have made the Navy their career, and it is no criticism of them when we say that our Navy to-day lacks the trained men to enable it to face a real enemy. We were all deeply impressed by much that we saw on the recent Capex manoeuvres—those of us who had the privilege to go on it—but we could have been dead ducks long before the first shot was fired simply because on one of the ships one technical thing went wrong and made that ship a sitting target for any hostile air craft or submarine that was waiting for it. Hon. members opposite know that this is not criticism of our force; it is the cold reality of what South Africa requires in time of danger—not the airy-fairy dream-world of the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) who praises the good and closes his eyes to the deficiencies. Sir, if we had a committee then we could make this debate a pat-the-Minister-on-the-back debate and we could deal with our problems in private, but the Minister is forcing us to raise these things in the House.

Sir, half the available manpower entering the economic life of the country every year, 16,000 youths, are being asked to sacrifice a year of their lives. They willingly make that sacrifice, but this Minister is responsible for seeing that that sacrifice is justified. I want to say here across the floor of the House that I do not believe that those nine months are being properly utilized. The first three months are being properly utilized; they are getting excellent training during the first three months and I have not heard a word of criticism, but after the first three months they are short of instructors and they are short of technical equipment for their second three months. They spend their third three months largely doing guard duty and route marches. Sir, we support the Government in making these demands for R230,000,000 and half the available manpower entering the life of the country every year. These sacrifices must be made but then the Minister and his Department must play their part.

We hear—and I believe this is absolutely correct—that artisans in the Railways and in the Post Office are being pulled out of the force holus-bolus. Preference is being given to them in the sense that they are being pulled out in the middle of their training. Sir, these are things which we have a right to raise and to discuss, because why should the man in the Railways have preference over the man in the steel industry, for instance, which needs 4,000 technicians and cannot get them. These are issues which we have the right to raise. Then there is the question of students in the middle of a university course being called up. We believe that there must be fair play for everyone. I do not believe that the best use is being made of the leadership available to the Defence Force. The leadership should be comprised of people with special qualifications. Artisans should be used in the trades for which they are best suited, and equally so men with potential leadership should be used as leaders. Let us take the gymnasiums for instance. Gymnasiums consist of highly selected youths; those youths are selected from matriculated youths with top qualifications. When they come out of the gymnasiums they are drafted as privates to units where the acting subalterns are often chaps who joined up with them but who did nine months’ ordinary training, but were not selected for gymnasiums. Yet the chap from the gymnasium who has had outstanding training is being wasted as a private footslogger.

I believe we should have specialized regiments at our universities; signal regiments, engineers’ regiments, medical corps where people can train for specialist work. Why take the man who is going to become a highly qualified electronic engineer to do footslogging in an infantry regiment? Why waste the man who is studying physics on doing training as an ordinary private? These people are the future brains which we shall need in a highly technical and highly skilled army. The day of the foot-soldier as the guts of the army is past. To-day we have to have specialists. Our universities are training specialists for the life of South Africa. Why should we not make use of those available for our forces instead of saying, Oh, well, they are going to be called up, without worrying about the aspect of their careers. I believe that many youngsters to-day are lost to South Africa because they cannot fit their military training in properly with the academic career they have planned for themselves. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) issued an ultimatum to this side of the House a moment ago when he said that because the request of the United Party for a select committee had not been acceded to the United Party, for that reason, assumed to itself the right to raise certain matters across the floor of this House. I immediately thought that the type of matter the United Party would like to raise across the floor of this House would probably be very well handled by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) who has just sat down and who, has just proved himself very capable of handling that type of matter. The hon. member for Simonstown also immediately started to raise matters across the floor of this House, which he thought should have been discussed in a select committee, matters which, when they come to his notice, he, as a good member of Parliament, should raise with the Department in order to get them solved, as we on this side often do, and not drag across the floor of this House.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) says there is no opportunity for a person, who wishes to specialize in a certain direction of doing so in the army and that he has to become a footslogger. But that is not correct and the hon. member knows it is not correct. Surely he knows that by means of the training it gives the army is doing precisely what he suggests should be done. When he says students are drawn from universities to undergo their training he knows that is so much nonsense. Surely he knows that students are not taken from university to do their training. Surely he knows that the refresher courses they do take fall during their holidays. He has raised such insignificant points that one would rather not devote any time to him.

I want to deal with a remark made by the hon. member for Simonstown, when he said they were concerned about the welfare of the men in the Defence Force. I can assure him that we agree 100 per cent with him in that respect. Because we are concerned about the welfare of those men. I think it is essential for us to see to their happiness and their prestige and that we do not unnecessarily drag these people through the mud.

To-day I want to lay a charge directly at the door of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). I want to refer to a speech he made when the Part Appropriation Bill was under discussion early this Session. He made the charge that an enormous amount of ammunition was supposed to have been stolen in the Defence Force. When he made that speech we knew he would get the publicity he desired. I do not know of a single English-language newspaper, indeed not of a single Afrikaans-language newspaper, which did not give him a tremendous amount of publicity. Even this little newspaper which is published in my local town the Somerset Budget gave him publicity about “the lost ammunition”. Not only did he allege that 1,200,000 rounds of ammunition were supposed to have been stolen but he also brought officers into the picture. I speak subject to correction but I think he made that speech towards the end of January or at the beginning of February. However, he did not take the trouble to ascertain what the correct state of affairs was. After he had aroused the suspicion that ammunition was being stolen on a large scale in the Defence Force he was prepared to leave it to the Press to exploit that in the whole world. He is prepared to cast suspicion on our men in the Defence Force. It was only on 21 February that he had a question on the Order Paper in which he asked the Minister for the information. He then asked whether any of the ammunition had been recovered. Time does not permit me to go deeper into the reply he got from the Minister. He then got the reply which he should have sought before he ever made that speech of his; only then did he seek the information which he should have sought before he cast suspicion on the men in our Defence Force and made them suspect. That is the sort of thing which makes the men in our armed forces unhappy. It is not the odd cheque which is not immediately received. It is this kind of suggestion that when anybody is a soldier he immediately becomes a thief because he has free access to Government property and he can help himself to his heart’s delight. The Minister said in his reply that a few rounds—not the 1,200,000 rounds to which the hon. member referred—had disappeared. But when you think of it, Mr. Chairman, that there are 84,500 men in the navy, in the air force and in the army with all their branches who have access to ammunition and who use that ammunition, and you think of the small amount that has really come into the picture, I do not think we are justified in creating the impression that ammunition has been stolen on a large scale. I replied to the hon. member in that debate and I wish to refer him to it. I hope the same publicity which was given to that charge of his will be given to the correct state of affairs as revealed by the Select Committee on Public Accounts in their Second Report which has already been tabled and in which this matter is discussed under the heading “Supplies and Equipment” on page 84. There they say that this ammunition was not stolen but that it was ammunition in respect of which, due to a clerical error, issue vouchers were not made out. They give the assurance that that mistake has been rectified and that it is certain that that ammunition was fired away in exercises. I give that to the hon. member for his consideration. I hope he will get up and admit that he has made a gross mistake and that he has done an injustice to the men in our Defence Force by casting suspicion over them. I hope he will rectify this matter now that the facts are known.

I want to react immediately to the charge made in connection with the ammunition. I have every reason to believe, because of what has happened in the past, that all that ammunition was not fired away and that everything was not due to a clerical mistake. That ammunition was missed from the commando in the Western Transvaal which adjoins Bechuanaland. We know of cases years ago when ammunition and weapons were sold in Bechuanaland. If the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) wishes to get further details in that connection he can ask the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter); he will give him all the details.

On a point of order, what right has the hon. member to say I know about it?

That was not what he said.

It was tragic to listen to the speech of the leader of the defence group on the Government side. The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) is completely out of touch with what is happening in connection with our defence. He accuses us of having for years asked for a defence council and that we are now asking for a select committee. Ever since I have been in this House nobody has ever asked for a defence council but for a select committee. It is not surprising that hon. members opposite know so little about defence matters when their chairman is so uninformed.

There is one other point to which I wish to react as far as the hon. member for Kimberley (North) is concerned and that was the appreciation he expressed of the efficiency of our pilots who are sent overseas to fetch aircraft. It is not necessary for him to tell me that, Mr. Chairman. The South African pilots acquired a reputation during the First World War and the Second World War. If the Minister were again to send numbers of pilots overseas I personally would expect them to come first in their course because they have the sound foundation of the past on which to build. That is nothing unusual; we expect that of the South African pilots.

As has already been stated from this side of the House I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to appoint a select committee on defence matters. I personally should like to know much more and see much more before I shall feel assured about what is happening in our armed forces. The previous Minister of Defence completely misled this House as far as our armed forces were concerned [Interjections.] I repeat he completely misled this House. I was in the service when he said he could put 15 fighting squadrons in the air while I, as a senior official, knew he could not put in five. That is why I repeat that I should like to know more and see more before I shall be satisfied that everything is well as far as our armed forces are concerned. I think I speak on behalf of everybody in this House when I say we cannot again enter a war as unprepared as we entered the last war. We have to see to it that our own house is in order before another war breaks out. I am not happy about what I hear and what I see is happening in the armed forces. I am not satisfied that we are as prepared and that our defence is as effective as certain members want to suggest. I wish to criticize certain defects to-day and I make no apologies for doing so whatsoever. On the contrary, I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not do so.

Before doing so, however, I just want to refer to a speech which the hon. the Minister made at Potgietersrus last week in which he expressed the hope that in the case of any trouble in which South Africa should find herself English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking would stand together. I must really say that I have become sick and tired of that theme. As far as this side of the House is concerned there is no doubt about that. In the past we have always been ready to support the Government of the day. If the Minister feels concerned he should rather feel concerned about what his own supporters may perhaps do. We shall stand by him; he need not be worried about that.

Something else flows from this which I feel obliged to mention and it is this: During the previous two wars we in South Africa practically had no difficulty with our non-Whites. There were hardly any strikes or acts of sabotage, on the part of the non-Whites, worth mentioning. But we cannot again expect that state of affairs when there is trouble. To-day in peace time we are having trouble and if we are involved in any difficulty some non-Whites will definitely cause trouble. That trouble will in all probability be instigated by certain Whites and others. Because that will be the position we must fully realize that a large portion of our limited manpower will have to be utilized to look after these people and to safeguard the home front. We must remember that civilian life must continue, war or no war.

At the moment there is a judicial inquiry on which we do not want to or dare not enlarge. I do think, however, Mr. Chairman, that I will be incorrect when I come to the conclusion that it must be something serious because we know how averse this Government is to judicial inquiries. We can only take it that it is a serious matter—I shall not enlarge on it. What I do want to say is that we suspect something is wrong and that is corroborated in this report from which hon. members have already quoted—not necessarily in regard to the inquiry. This report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts reveals a shocking neglect of military supplies and equipment. The theme running right through this report is one of a manpower shortage. I just want to read two short extracts. I read the following—

I say this: What kind of a commanding officer is it who does not look after his equipment? If he does not look after his equipment how does he look after the men who work under him? Does that not prove that what the hon. member for Simonstown has said can quite possibly be true, namely, that not enough interest is being taken in the families of subordinates? [Time limit.]

It is a pity that we should get that type of criticism from an ex-officer of high rank. Towards the end of his speech the hon. gentleman asked what kind of a commanding officer it was who could not look after his equipment. It so happens that I was a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts during the war years. I can tell the hon. gentleman that equipment and other things to the value of £8,000,000 disappeared for which no account has been given up to to-day. What right has he to ask what kind of a commanding officer it is who cannot even look after his equipment? It is not fitting for an officer of his rank to advance such cheap arguments in this Committee. Is it surprising, Sir, that we are so sensitive about the appointment of a select committee to inquire into defence matters when an hon. member of his rank says such things in this Committee? Must we discuss defence matters in a select committee where 1,001 questions will be asked? If there is one person with experience of Select Committees on Public Accounts it is I—in all capacities. If anybody can talk with authority on that it is I. More nonsense is spoken there than is actually necessary. Mr. Chairman, you can imagine what would happen if you were to have a select committee on defence matters, a select committee which will not always consist of the most responsible members. They will talk all the nonsense imaginable there and the witness will be obliged to reply. Let us forget about that suggestion, Sir.

I think everybody will agree with me that the hon. the Minister deserves our gratitude for this White Paper. It contains information which is of benefit to those members who are genuinely concerned about the Defence Force of South Africa. Odd voices are raised here and there about the high expenditure. I want to tell the Minister and the highest officials in the Army that not one cent is being spent which the entire country does not give with both hands. If the hon. the Minister should think next year that it is necessary to increase this amount by 50 per cent or 100 per cent I am convinced the taxpayers of South Africa would support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Chairman, everybody knows that we are already engaged in a cold war. We do not know when it will turn into a hot war. It is best to let your enemy understand that he will get a warm reception. I trust, therefore, that we shall do nothing this year in the form of reproaches about this high expenditure on defence. The amount can even be increased further. It is interesting to read on page 4 of this White Paper about the equipment which is being manufactured in South Africa. I take it that the weapons which are manufactured here are mostly that type to which the citizens and the commandos await anxiously. I trust we shall shortly reach the stage where the Minister and his high ranking officers will be convinced that we have what we require in the form of firearms for these commandos and home guards, etc.

The hon. member who spoke before me said he was not satisfied. Sir, no Minister and no officer in the world is satisfied to-day. I do not believe the countries with the mightiest armies, like Russia and America, are to-day completely satisfied with their defence forces. I am very satisfied but I would have been even more satisfied had we had all the weapons in the world to shoot the entire world, if they touched us, until they travelled to the moon on a single ticket. That, of course, will satisfy anybody in the world. Within the limits of what the nation is physically capable of everything possible should be done without asking questions. There is no indication as yet that the taxpayers of South Africa are getting stubborn about the programme of the hon. the Minister to arm ourselves. It is a pity that we did not adopt this attitude at an earlier stage, because had we done so we would already have made much greater progress. The weapons which are being manufactured in South Africa are surely not the type which become obsolete within five minutes. I suppose they are the conventional weapons as the Minister calls them. We dare not run out of conventional weapons in this country. The morale of the public is high to-day; I do not think it can be any higher. But in order to keep that morale high it is necessary for a man—I can almost say for a woman too—to know that that which he is capable of handling is available to him in order to defend his country. In that case he knows it depends on his own initiative and his own action. There is nothing more demoralizing than when the individual feels powerless; when he feels that had he had this or that he would have been able to protect his country and his people but he has not got it. Looking at it from that angle I wish to plead with all the seriousness at my command that we should not omit to do everything in our power to see to it that every trained citizen—the specialized person as well as those in the lower ranks—are provided with the weapons he can handle in a war. That is the maximum; that is the maximum you can reach. When you have met the demands of every citizen who is prepared to defend his country we can be satisfied; and then I do not think anybody opposite will have the courage to offer any further criticism. I have a feeling that the Minister is well on the way of fulfilling the wishes I have just expressed here. I wish him luck. I want to assure him that he has the country behind him as never before. If he wants to achieve more he will still have the country behind him to help him to do so.

When I sat down I was referring to the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and I said that the theme was once again the shortage of manpower, trained manpower, mainly technicians. But in spite of the shortage we still find that the Permanent Force is continuing to lose men. The Permanent Force is doing its best; they give the trainees the best possible training, I think the best training in South Africa. Those youngsters have hardly finished their course when they leave and the Minister and his advisers must evolve some plan to put a stop to that. We cannot afford that.

I now want to deal with the effectiveness of our Navy. The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) referred to the trip to Saldanha Bay. It was very pleasant and we all greatly enjoyed it. But I think if the demonstration which we saw that day proved anything, it proved that those wonderful modern ships of ours would be completely defenceless against any attack by an Air Force. It was proved during the last war that the biggest danger to a ship at sea was the aircraft, and a ship which cannot defend itself against an aircraft might just as well remain in port. Something definitely went wrong that day with that demonstration. I am not blaming the trained men who were there but what I do say is that there were not enough trained men on those ships to keep all those weapons and all those instruments going. We find that when our ships practise air shooting they are still obliged to shoot at targets pulled by Dakota aeroplanes flying at 120 or 150 miles per hour. What power will to-day use aeroplanes with that speed to attack ships? How is it possible that we still do not have radar controlled targets travelling at 250 and 300 miles per hour in order to give our men the necessary exercise and training?

The same applies in the case of the antiaircraft exercises we attended. I was also one of the fortunate ones to attend the Capex exercises which are held once a year and I am pleased to say that the ships put up a much better performance than they did the previous day. But Sir, I was really sorry to see that our ships shot at the controlled target for approximately 30 minutes and then stopped. When we asked them why they stopped they said they had not been allowed sufficient ammunition for the exercise. Sir, we get that opportunity once a year and then there is not sufficient ammunition to carry on until the target has been hit. It so happened that one of the British ships carried on until they hit the target. That is what we should do. I regard it as “penny wise pound foolish” to spend millions on ships and not to provide them with sufficient ammunition to give the men the exercise when it is necessary! I also say that to have such an exercise once a year is not good enough. We must have submarines here more often to give our people the necessary exercise before we can say they are really effective.

But there is one other major defect as far as our Navy is concerned and that is the lack of long distance reconnaissance aircraft. Years ago we purchased a few of them. About a year ago we had an opportunity of ordering more but we did not do so. We still only have a few. Mr. Chairman, during the war years we had no fewer than four complete squadrons to patrol the route along the Cape and the Natal coastline and that was insufficient. How are we going to do so with the few we have to-day? That is not something you can buy off the shelf but something you have to order long before the time. Talking about the aeroplanes we have what absolutely astounds me is the fact that of the few which we have one has been lying on its belly at the D. F. Malan Airport for the past five years. That is a valuable irreplaceable instrument of war which we are in dire need of but it is not being repaired; it lies there. It is no use telling me we have not got the spares. If that had happened during a time of war we would have manufactured the spares and that aircraft would have been in the air.

I trust the hon. the Minister will succeed in increasing his air striking force against ships in the form of the “Buccaneers” he has ordered. We shall be pleased to learn that they are in our own country. Before I leave the Navy I should like to put this question to the Minister: Is he convinced that he can man all the ships of the big navy we have today? We have a number of the most modern ships; they are of the best. It is no good using these reservists who have had nine months’ training on ships or on instruments of war of that nature. I think the full complement of each one of those ships must consist of Permanent Force men who have been trained and there should be a large reserve force of these young men to understudy them so that they can take their place in case of casualties.

We now come to the effectiveness of our Air Force. As far as the pilots are concerned I think the Air Force is in a very good position. It does not take many years to train a pilot and, as I have said before, I expect only the best of our pilots. But as far as mechanics, the ground staff, are concerned it is in a very difficult position, also as far as technicians are concerned. We have the Mirage aircraft today and the Mirage is valueless if left on its own without the assistance of radar stations on the ground, stations which have to be manned by qualified men. Those radar stations have to be there and I take it they are. I hope the hon. the Minister will get up and tell us that the necessary stations are there and that they are manned by qualified and trained men. That does not only apply in the case of the Mirages but to a large extent also in the case of Sabres. Once we get the Buccaneers the position will be even more critical.

That brings me to the maintenance of these highly technical and complicated aircraft we are now going to acquire. We are not in the fortunate position in which Britain and America and other countries are where their maintenance and repair work is done by the factories. We are too far away; we have to do that ourselves. The equipment is of such a delicate nature that it does not only call for specialized men and special instruments and tools but you even have to have a special building if you wish to keep these aircraft in the air. I trust the Minister will also be able to tell us that that is being borne in mind and that the men will be there when required. [Time limit.]

I should like to give a few replies to the speech of the great expert on defence matters on that side of the House. I should like to say this, and I say it very emphatically, that this afternoon I heard one of the most cowardly and meanest utterances from the hon. member opposite I have ever heard in this House, when he had the temerity to rise and accuse the predecessor of our present Minister, Adv. Erasmus, of having misled the House of Assembly.

He did.

I have said what I think of that utterance, but I shall now tell you why the hon. member has made such an utterance. He had no time for Adv. Erasmus. You know, Sir, there was a time when economies had to be effected on Defence, and certain officers had to be retrenched at the time when Adv. Erasmus was Minister of Defence, and of course, if one were to listen to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). One would say that during that time Adv. Erasmus retrenched his best men, and that was the reason why the hon. member also was retired. He was in the Army at the time and was retired. But the people do not believe that. There was a reason why he was retired, and it is because there were others who were so much better than he.

But now I come to the hon. member tor Durban Point (Mr. Raw). I wish to deplore his remarks as much. This afternoon he accused the heads of our Defence Forces by implication of not having “leadership”. He said it is no good training the 16,000 young men if we do not have officers with leadership. Can you imagine a meaner utterance than that of the hon. member against our present officers in charge? But in the same breath the hon. member referred to the wonderful achievements of our men in the wars (with which I wholeheartedly agree; our soldiers achieved wonders) but how many of those soldiers who were leaders in that war, are still leaders to-day?

We do not make sufficient use of our leaders to-day.

Can you imagine anything more stupid? Just imagine, we now have heads under whom our Defence Forces are being trained, and the hon. member insinuates that those leaders are not doing their duty, because we do not use them sufficiently. I can imagine what would happen if that hon. member had to decide how they are to be employed. There would then be unprecedented chaos. The hon. member for North-East Rand took it amiss of me because I had the temerity to say a few words in connection with our pilots. Sir, I referred to our pilots with great respect. I mentioned Cliff Melville as the wonderful and outstanding pilot we sent to France at the time in connection with our Mirages, and the whole of France wrote and spoke of the wonderful skill shown by the South Africans.

Is that the first time this has happened?

Surely it is not a question of whether this is the first time this has happened. But if praise is due to a person, then that hon. member of course is not magnanimous enough to praise such a person. He is too small-minded for that. Here we have a man whose name has been mentioned not only here in South Africa, but in France too as an outstanding pilot, and because I had the audacity to rise here and pay tribute to a pilot of the Republic of South Africa, the hon. member comes along and says I must not tell him anything about flying. I shall not be so foolish as to try to tell him something, because at least he did pilot an aircraft, and I did not. So I shall not say that. But I doubt whether he can boast of much more than that. I also know something about him. But I should like to revert to the wonderful training for which the present Minister is making provision. When you go into the rural areas, one finds only people who refer to our Defence in terms of the highest praise. Let me remind the hon. member that at the time when we became a Republic, when we saw the men on parade at Pretoria and gained such a wonderful impression of our Defence Forces there, then the hon. member also rose here and said it was the best he had seen in his life.

What about it?

The very same people who were then training our men, are still training them at the present time. But now they are suddenly failing in their duty, now they are forgetting to train our men properly, and now the hon. member is feeling unhappy about our Defence Force. The hon. the Minister and the leaders of our Defence Forces can be assured that the people outside esteem them very highly and that the nation has the fullest confidence in the leadership of our Defence Force and in our Minister of Defence. This hon. Minister has given us better and higher guidance in connection with our Defence. But hon. members opposite do not utter a word of appreciation. They simply are too small-minded to say that they appreciate what has been done in connection with the defence of the Republic. They wish to find the most trivial faults. I hope the hon. the Minister will continue on the road he is following. He has the people behind him.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said that the White Paper is only one of the two pillars on which military unity must be built. I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. member for Simonstown on this, but I should like to say that an announcement was made during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote already that we shall not have a select committee at this stage. The hon. member for Simonstown of course knows better than the hon. member for North-East Rand that the argument until last year was that it should be a Defence Council, and the hon. member for Simonstown himself said to-day that they have now abandoned that and that they now want a select committee. I should like to say that I acceded to the request of the Opposition for a White Paper. I also believe that the people of South Africa should collectively have more information than they have received thus far. But almost all the information contained in the White Paper has already been given to the people of South Africa, not collectively. But at this stage I cannot agree that a select committee will take us any further than we are now, and that this alone could be a second pillar to bring about unity in connection with military matters in this House. This matter of a select committee or of Opposition co-operation in connection with military matters is not so easy as some people seem to think. The hon. member fot Durban Point this afternoon made the point that if we were to have a select committee everything will be all right as regards co-operation and in connection with military matters. There will be peace and quiet. He referred to “tranquility”. I have here a document of the British Parliament which deals with this matter of military co-operation and discussions between the Government and the Opposition, and this opinion is expressed, inter alia—

Now I may be told that this is not quite on all fours with what the Opposition desire, but I merely mention it to show that it is a complicated matter not capable of easy handling, that is to say, military co-operation between the Government party and members of the Opposition. But I have explained in the White Paper all the boards I have at my disposal. To the best of my knowledge, not all the people on those boards are supporters of this side of the House.

That is irrelevant.

Precisely, it is irrelevant. They are outsiders. So on all these boards we have the advice of people with extensive knowledge.

But without parliamentary representation.

If the hon. member says they want parliamentary representation, then I repeat that it amounts to nothing more than a board, and at this stage I, in common with the Prime Minister, really cannot see the need for establishing such a board now. In time of war it probably is a different matter. We are not in a state of war. We are in a time when there should be sound opposition. Just imagine: We have to take rapid decisions from day to day, particularly in the position in which South Africa finds itself at present. Now I am in Pretoria and the military people are there during the recess, and suddenly decisions have to be taken or decisions taken already have to be changed under the stress of circumstances. Now I have to convene this committee.

That is not what we want.

The hon. member will get an opportunity to explain to his kind of committee, but I should like to say here this afternoon that the hon. member for North-East Rand said that he is getting tired of my stories that the two national groups should co-operate. I do not get tired of that. To me it is one of the greatest ideals of my life that we should be able to co-operate, and if the hon. member will give me an assurance that this matter has been finally settled 100 per cent in South Africa, I shall never refer to it if it is true.

The hon. member for Simonstown raised another very serious matter, namely the problem of accidents. I realize the hon. member is alarmed at the accidents. Judging from reports in the Press, the incidence of accidents appears to be very high, and no responsible person can be anything but alarmed about it. But the incidence of accidents is not as high as some people are suggesting. I should like to point out too that in 1963. 15,386 more members of the South African Defence Forces were trained than in 1961, and for much longer periods. During that period 597 more vehicles were put into service and the consumption of fuel increased by 726 gallons. When there are a greater number of vehicles on the roads, the incidence of accidents rises. Last year an analysis was made of the incidence of accidents as regards the Defence Force, and it appeared that 61 vehicles per 1,000 were involved in accidents, while the figure for the Republic as a whole as furnished by the South African Road Safety Council was 148 per 1.000. That is to say, the Defence Force figure was about two and a half times less than that for the country as whole. In mentioning these figures, I do not at all wish to justify the accidents that have taken place in connection with the Defence Force, but I am mentioning these figures because people are inclined to exaggerate the incidence of accidents. I should like to point out furthermore, that many of the accidents reported in respect of the Defence Force, are a question of a young man who proceeds to park a vehicle; he knocks something. This is reported by the Defence Force as an accident. We have had dealings with boys, and know the problem of keeping them away from a motor vehicle, and it is a fact that young men handle motor vehicles while they are unable to drive. I mention one instance where a hailstorm was imminent, and a young man who did not hold a driver’s licence, entered a vehicle in order to drive it into a shelter, and he collided with three cars. These things do happen. I should like to give an assurance this afternoon that I have here a whole list of standing instructions which have been given in connection with the use of vehicles. The first one I have here in front of me mentions a South African Defence Force driver’s licence shall not be issued to a member under the age of 17 years. Then it is written here—

And then the Commandant-General gives the strictest possible instruction in connection with it. I have here a whole series of these instructions. But the Commandant-General has gone further and directed that every section of the Defence Force training young people to handle vehicles, shall work in the closest co-operation with the Road Safety Council, and road safety must absolutely become a sub-division of the training of Defence Force men. So I can assure the House that everything possible is being done in connection with those matters.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) spoke about the wastage of trained personnel, and he said it was not a question of salaries only, but also a question of working conditions. He referred to late salary payments. I know nothing about that, but I will investigate it. As far as the late payment on the ship was concerned, I have a report here that was given to me in the form of a cable from our Ambassador in London, which says that as regards the payment of the married foreign service allowance of the South African Naval personnel the ship had an account of £15,000 for the payment of salaries. Payments of the amounts due to sailors are received by ship in advance from the Chief Paymaster, Pretoria, to enable prompt payment at the end of the month. If names were omitted from the rolls by the Chief Paymaster, there is no reason why the ship should not make advances to the ratings meanwhile, and the present amount has always been sufficient for the payment of salaries. Therefore I cannot understand why that happened, but I will have it investigated. In regard to the clerical delays in replying to people who applied for posts in the Defence Force, if the hon. member gives me the names I will go into every case. Those are about all the points raised by the hon. member.

*Then we come to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van der Walt). He asked whether it is true that the Citizen Force is to get new uniforms. Yes, that is correct, but I just want to say that the uniforms already issued will not be destroyed. They will be used up, and we shall supplement them with new uniforms until they all have the new uniforms. It will be a uniform with two pairs of trousers, the one light coloured and the other dark coloured, but it is a very neat uniform. I have looked at it myself, and I am a tidy person.

Then the hon. member raised a very serious matter. He asked whether the Secretariat does not exercise superfluous control over our Defence Force. This is a very involved matter. Any person who is subjected to control will sometimes regard it as superfluous. I myself have on many occasions become somewhat fed-up with the Secretariat and thought they interfere a little too much, but there are good reasons for it, and I should like to say that in view of all the arrangements we made, there was very little delay in connection with measures of control. But I should like to repeat that even on the part of the Opposition it has been pointed out that R210,000,000 is a lot of the taxpayer’s money, and we may not spend that money in an uncontrolled manner. I am not suggesting that if there were less control by the Secretariat, it will be spent under less control, but the Secretariat was in fact appointed, after 1912, to exercise financial control. The hon. member also asked whether a Public Service Commission should not be appointed for the Defence Force. Well, the Post Office got a sub-division only for the Post Office this year. I do not know how it will work. We cannot of course work on the same basis as the Railways, because they introduce their own Estimates and I cannot do so, because I do not earn any money. I cannot give a final reply to this question, but we are doing our best to see whether we cannot eliminate the restrictive factors in connection with the work, building work, etc. Everybody is kindly disposed and is helping as much as possible. Yesterday we again had a lengthy discussion with the Secretary of Public Works and we have made good progress. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) asked how many of the men we sent overseas to be trained as pilots for the Hercules are still in our employ. The Air Chief of Staff furnished the following information. He says 18 officers and 32 men were sent to America for that training, and all these people are still serving. Not one has left the service. See what the hon. member has done! I had the fright of my life. Then the hon. member said we are training 16,000 young men per annum and they are not receiving the best training. Now, I shall be the last one to say to-day that they are receiving the best possible training.

I was referring to the best use of the time they are there.

Well, it is only the best training. It is the same thing. The Defence Force has expanded considerably during the past three years, and if anyone were to tell me it is possible to expand to this extent in three years, and then to do everything in a way that cannot be improved upon, I should like to see that super person. I as Minister certainly am not such a person, and I do not believe I have any such person in my service. But what I can say is that good training is being given to those people. There are people who allege that all the boys undergoing training are not occupied full-time. I have even been asked whether we cannot curtail the period of training. I want to repeat this again. This full-time force is there for a dual object. One is to have a full-time force at our disposal at all time. If they were to be trained for a shorter period we could not have that. The second object is to train people properly to be able to defend South Africa when it becomes necessary. It should be remembered there are many involved specialistic sections in which these people have to be trained; nine months perhaps is too short a time for many of those things. If I were to be told that the best use is not being made in all cases, I must say it may be so. We have to train large numbers of young men to serve as officers. We have a mass of field-cornets we have to use young men. Somebody objected and said that people who have to receive their university training are having their studies interrupted to do military service. Let me say this at once. This is no concern at all of the Department of Defence. The exemption boards fall under the Department of Labour, but as regards Defence we have reached the stage where we shall be glad if we could have more young men who have already completed their university training. We have reached the stage where we could use them much more beneficially once they have completed their military training. However this not a matter falling under my charge at all.

My point was in connection with the training in university units.

That is practically impossible. What we want to do is to give the university regiments the three weeks’ training they have to get afterwards, after they have had their nine months’ training, during the vacation as much as possible.

Then I come to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). He is a dear, kindly person, but he does sometimes say things which shock one so deeply that one hardly knows how to take it. Believe it or not, the hon. member came along here this afternoon and said the commission of inquiry which has been appointed is enough to make him and other people suspect that there is something seriously wrong in the Defence Force. Sir, I wish I commanded the language of Angels just to express what I think of such a statement. Just imagine a prominent member of the Opposition alleges that because a commission of inquiry has been appointed, it is enough to make him suspect that there is something seriously wrong with the Defence Force. I am not going to reply to that. There is a commission sitting. May the Lord grant that they find nothing wrong, but if they find anything wrong, it will be eradicated, root and branch. Then the hon. member asked whether we are able to man our ships in time of war. Of course this is a serious question, and one I ask every year, and very recently I once again put that question to the Naval Chief of Staff. I asked him: Tell me, is there any danger that you will not be able to man your ships should there be trouble for us? He replied as follows: He says the approved posts for officers total 338, and the Permanent Force strength is 308, and there are 30 vacancies, but there are four civilians carried against those posts, so that the actual vacancies are 26 out of a total of 338. It does not seem a dangerous position to me. Non-artisans: There are 1,395 approved posts; the Permanent Force strength is 977, and the Permanent Force vacancies total 418 or 30 per cent, but 198 civilians are being carried, and there are 220 actual vacancies. For artisans there are 1,309 approved posts; the Permanent Force strength is 856, there are 453 vacancies and the percentage shortage is 34, but 42 civilians are carried against the posts, so that the actual shortage is 411 or 31 per cent. The grand total is 3,042, with an actual shortage of 21.6 per cent. In addition it must be remember that 235 apprentices under training are not included in the above figures, and furthermore that Permanent Force Officers may under Section 52 (3) of the Defence Act be supplemented from the Permanent Force Reserve comprising 14 officers and 881 ratings. This is not a quite satisfactory picture, but it surely is not a picture which fills anyone of us with panic. There is a total shortage of 21 per cent and it may be reinforced from the Permanent Force Reserve, as I have indicated.

The question of men is a difficult one. I fully admit that in connection with our soldiers there are many things that are disturbing, and housing is one of the most serious. I have on a few occasions done inspection at certain camps, and it breaks my heart to see the conditions in which those people are living. Last year I visited a family where a young officer had been killed during the day. I visited his widow, and I really felt ashamed of the house in which I found her on military terrain. There are shortages, but this year we have on our Estimates more than R2,100,000 for housing for families. Yesterday we again had discussions on the expedition of the building of those dwellings. I asked afterwards whether we could decentralize more, because there is such a tremendous housing shortage in Pretoria, but it was pointed out to me that at the other places there is also a shortage of housing. However, I should like to say this afternoon that I am an extremely unhappy Minister as a result of the housing in which many of our military people have to live. But we are doing all in our power with the greatest possible speed. This year we shall build no less than 270 dwellings at Voortrekkerhoogte, and it is possible we shall go further. But I shall give an assurance that I shall not stop before the funds are exhausted. We shall do everything in our power to provide better housing for our soldiers.

The salary scale of these people have been increased, together with the general increases of last year or the previous year, but last year a further increase was awarded to Defence Force personnel. It is not an increase that will satisfy everybody. I do not think one shall ever be able to satisfy everybody, but it was a reasonable increase. We still have a little difficulty in adjusting it, but I am sure things will come right shortly, and it will make them happier still. The hon. member for Somerset East also raised the matter of the welfare of the Defence Force men and what I have just said will serve as a reply to him too. I think I have now replied to all the points.

I did not intend to come into this debate because we have a group of experts on our side of the House who have done a tremendous amount of study in regard to this matter, but what has brought me to my feet are the remarks made by the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) against my honourable and gallant friend, the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), because he happened to criticize a former Minister. Now I do not want to drag in former Ministers who are not here to defend themselves, but the point is that, whilst I have the utmost confidence in our senior officers of our services who have seen war, I have not the same confidence in people who could have seen war but did not do so. When I was a professional soldier I took no part in politics at all. In fact, the whole time I was in the Permanent Force I never on a single occasion even cast a vote. But what we see right throughout the world in the great armies—and this is what has brought me to my feet—is that wherever a professional soldier, be he German or French, gets a chance to see war at first hand, although their country is not involved in it, he will try to get leave to go and see what is happening there. We saw it right through the Anglo-Boer War, when there were French and Germans on both sides. They went out to see war at first hand. When Sir Winston Churchill was a professional soldier he got leave from the British Army and took part in every foreign war he could get into. When I was in the Permanent Force with rank of captain and had been through three campaigns in Africa, I got leave and joined the R.A.F. as a second lieutenant and ended up in Germany in 1919 before returning to the Defence Force here. But we have senior officers, who were professional soldiers when war broke out, and who refused for political reasons to go and fight for their country. I am sorry to drag this in but the reason why I am saying it is this. [Interjections.] That gentleman refused to fight for his country when he was a professional soldier, for political reasons. All right, if he had the courage of his convictions and felt he should not do it, I can understand that, but what happened was this. When the Minister referred to here got into power, what did he do? The first thing he did was to promote that man to a very senior post. What can the other professional officers who served in war-time feel about a professional soldier who refused to fight when his country was at war and he was promoted over their heads? What confidence can they have in him? That is what I feel about it. That same former Minister, who then got rid of one of our most outstanding generals, General Poole, a man who commanded that fine Sixth Division, a man who had attached to him probably some of the finest soldiers in the world like the Guards Brigade, who were proud to serve under him, was got rid of and given a diplomatic post. Now the hon. member says we are slanging a former Minister, but who got rid of that former Minister? It was the present Prime Minister who promoted him to a diplomatic post. I want to say that if a Minister lays himself open to criticism when he, for political reasons, promotes a man to a senior position who refused to see war when he could have seen it, then we have the right to criticize that man.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der Byl) thought fit to drag in this matter again. We discussed this matter fully in the past, and the Minister has given an explanation. Of what use is it to discuss the matter again? If we are in trouble next year, will this kind of discussion avail us? No, I am disappointed at the action of the hon. member. But I am not going to dwell on this. I do not believe in this kind of recrimination when we are dealing with important matters such as the defence of our country.

I wish to say at once that if a select committee were to put a stop to this kind of thing, I am in favour of it. South Africa’s defence problems are so great that we cannot afford this kind of thing. If a select committee will do away with it, I am all for it.

There are other matters I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention, however. Sneering remarks were made just now in connection with Simonstown and the role we have to play. What will be the position? England is at the present time involved at Aden, Cyprus, Guinea and Malaysia. How can she help us here? As I see it, South Africa is dependent on its own power and, that being so, there are matters I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention, and if under the present circumstances he is unable or unwilling to reply, I shall not expect a reply.

If there were to be an attack upon South Africa to-morrow, the mobility of our Defence Force should be priority No. 1. I do not know whether it is so. I hope so. On the Rand and in the Witbank area South Africa has the most natural hiding places in the whole world. I think if some of our old disused mines were to be equipped, we could store up in them everything that is required in the line of oil, fuel, etc. I say this and I think both sides of the House will agree with me. When China launched an attack upon India last year, India was caught napping, and just think what happened! A few divisions of Chinese swept away the whole force of India from the borders. Surely we know what can happen. Therefore we are training our people and therefore we are talking in this House this afternoon. That being so, I should like to suggest, in case this has not been considered as yet, that if the army has to go into action and we are not ready to fight, it will be a terrific responsibility to bear for any Minister or Commandant-General, that while we were talking politics, these things were taking place, and we did not take precautionary steps.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. He was kind enough in the past to accede to my pleas for the arming to some extent of the women of our country. I pleaded for a measure of training for our women too. It seems to me that we are wasting a terrific amount of manpower in the offices—in the Air Force, the ground forces and the Navy. I take it that most of these office posts could be filled by women. I think we could harness our girls at high schools and at universities for this. What is the position regarding medical services? Are we ready? Can we nurse our soldiers in time of war? Do we have the ordinary military facilities for that? Are our ordinary hospitals integrated with this? I am mentioning this merely because I think that in these directions much could be done to prepare South Africa for any eventuality.

There is another aspect and here I am speaking not only as a Member of the House of Assembly, but also as a father of two boys. The one is an officer in the ground forces; the other is a ballotee. At the present time he is driving a bulldozer at Komatipoort. I am infinitely proud of that. He has completed his basic training. I think it is the duty of every father, whether his son is at university or what have you, to see to it that he is trained. I did not go along and plead that my son should first be permitted to go to university. I did not go and plead for my son to be permitted first to complete his university career before being called up. His first task is to be equipped for the defence of his fatherland. That is how I see these things. Therefore I think it is a tremendous disgrace for any man to go along to-day and plead for his son to be permitted to do this or that thing first before he undergoes his military training. I for my part expect that mine must first be trained to enable them to defend their fatherland. If the hon. the Minister will give me an assurance here this afternoon that he will devote more attention to our girls at our university and at our high schools, with a view to integrating them with our defence forces, with our power to fight, I shall be extremely happy. There are many young people on our streets. The other night at Durban 70 juveniles stormed a house in which a party was in progress. We should have had the power to take the whole 70 of them next day and shove them into a military camp.

We do not want scum.

The military camp is the very place where we can get rid of the scum. All of them are South Africans too. All of them belong to this country. There is no place in the world where the exuberant feelings of a young man can be got rid of more effectively than in the army. It is drilled out of him very quickly. I am still waiting for an officer to come and tell me of duck-tails in the army, because it is drilled out of him very quickly there. It is something I feel very strongly about. It is immaterial whether it is a White man, a Coloured or a Black person. I do not believe it is his duty to stroll around on the streets, and so to speak, commit sabotage against his country when the time arrives for him to go and fight. Even if he were to be used for nothing more than to polish cannons, it is still a good thing. But there are thousands of places where he can be used. He must be taken off the streets in any case. Only then will South Africa be able to talk of a force at its disposal in time of emergency and of war. [Time limit.]

I am really glad that the hon. the Minister made the admission in his reply just now that what was contained in this White Paper was not new, but that it was an assessment, a summary, of statements made over the past three or four years.

Mostly.

Yes, mostly. There are one or two important new statements in this White Paper dealing with the position of commandos but to me the most important feature in this White Paper is one contained in the introduction. There it is stated that the military situation with which we are now concerned and the expenditure with which we are concerned are based upon an appreciation made by the Minister’s General Staff. But what does the introduction indicate? It indicates that this appreciation, our military preparedness, is based entirely upon the concept of a possible threat to South Africa’s peaceful existence. I say this is new for the following reason. We have always been told, at least I have always understood, that the bulk of our military expenditure for the development of an adequate naval, army and air force, was to enable our country to play its part in the general concept of Western defence. The White Paper, however, now places an entirely new accent on the matter. There is no reference in this to the part we shall play in the overall pattern of Western defence strategy. Let us take the figures that are given here. Let me say that this is the first time that we are having an analysis of the figures. Now, if you look at these figures, you shall find that only 26 per cent, restricting oneself to those on naval expenditure, of the globular figure quoted in this White Paper represents naval expenditure over the past three years, i.e. 1962, 1963, and 1964. As far as our naval power is concerned, the hon. the Minister in a speech at a recent Republican celebration said that our preparedness was entirely for the purpose of playing our part with the West. He said this was the position in so far as both our naval power and our air force were concerned. In other words only 26 per cent for this purpose. If that is so, then I think it is wrong for us to create the impression in this House that we are building up our defence entirely for the purpose of defending ourselves against Africa. To create that impression is wrong. Admittedly, as a country in Africa we have the right to be militarily prepared, because admittedly threats have been made against us. But we must not lose sight of the fact that we also have a part to play in the overall defence strategy of the West. The point is important because we have seen statements made by prominent persons in governments overseas of refusal to supply us with arms, statements based on the concept that we wish to arm ourselves to support a policy of racial oppression, which is completely wrong of course, and of our becoming an aggressor state in Africa, which too is complete nonsense.

Coupled with the aspect of military preparedness, there is the question of internal security. As far as I understood the Minister’s past statements, the arm of our defence that will take charge of internal security in the event of hostilities will be the commandos. That is why, in the Defence Act of 1957, the commandos were made a specific part of our defence forces as a whole. The question I want to ask here is in what way the commandos are at present being trained. I pose this question because of a statement which the Minister made some time ago—I think it appeared in the Press on 29 May 1964—to the effect that he has now laid down that a member of a commando must be prepared to serve for four years, that they will be issued with uniforms, that they will be issued with arms and that in addition …

All new members.

All right, all new members then. In any event, in addition they will have to serve certain periods of training. The question here is what is going to be the position as far as the intake of the commandos are concerned. At present the 51,000 in the commandos are mostly volunteers. According to the figures in the White Paper there are only 8,000 ballotees. The rest are volunteers, up to the age of 65. What is going to be the position? Are we going to retain this outmoded and outdated system of training forces for our internal security, i.e. on a volunteer system? Or are we going to take 50 per cent of the manpower which is available for military training and post them in terms of the Act to the commandos for training? Because the Act provides that any man’s name who is not drawn in a ballot, must be posted to a commando. But the commando to which he is posted to-day is a paper commando at defence headquarters. It is definitely not a unit which means anything or which is a fighting unit being trained in any way.

I am in full agreement with the statement which the Minister made on 29 May. At last he is seeing the light. He knows that we from this side have pressed that issue for a long time, i.e. that these chaps who escape the ballot should at least be taught the rudiments of military requirements so that South Africa can get into a state of military preparedness. Internal security is of as much importance in times of aggression against us as is the availability of military forces to hit back, because no army can fight in the field if there is a threat of an insurrection on the home front. Hence the tremendous importance of the commandos.

But there is another important aspect about these commandos and that is they also act as a reserve for our army. Obviously it is easier in time of war to train a recruit who at least has been taught the rudiments of military discipline in a commando. That will facilitate his absorption in a fighting unit. My plea to the Minister is this. Now he has taken a bite of the cake, only a small bite at that. He is now going to draft ballotees, 8,000 of them, who will be compelled to undergo training for four years, as may be prescribed. Now, the Minister is prescribing four years. But why should these ballotees have this compulsion placed upon them whilst the bulk of the commandos do not? How on earth can you make a unit effective if half of that unit need not come to a parade whilst the other half is compelled to do so, subject to military discipline if they fail to appear? It is a crazy set up; it is a nonsensical set up.

Are those the only epithets you can apply?

I probably can think of some military ones that are better but I am afraid these will not be permitted under the rules of the House. So I want to appeal to the Minister not to be afraid. He has the full support of the country and of the Opposition in this matter. Go the whole hog and make these commandos something worth while. Use those men who are still militarily fit as the soldiers and those who have had previous military experience as the N.C.O.’s and officers but drop those who are decrepit and aged but still like to go out for a week and shoot when it suits them and when they feel like it. These form the bulk of the commandos as they are to-day. In their stead take on these young men as they become available and give them at least some measure of military training.

There is one further observation I should like to make that because of the remarks made by the hon. member over there (the hon. member for Kimberley (North)) in regard to my colleague. The hon. member should not cast these reflections because the remarks my colleague made about the predecessor of the Minister were made in this House in the presence of the hon. member also by myself. [Time limit].

After listening to what the hon. member for North-East Rand said here to-day, I wish to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will not appoint a select committee of this House to investigate military matters. I must say I was deeply shocked by the utterances of the hon. member regarding the defence matters of the Republic. I do not think those remarks are worthy of the hon. member. What he did in effect was to express lack of confidence in at least certain sections of our defence force. I regret that very much.

I wish to thank the hon. the Minister and the officials who assisted him for the information contained in this White Paper, and at the same time I wish to ask that nothing more should be given. It is already enough that we should have a debate in the House of Assembly used by the hon. member—I do not know whether I may say “abuse”—to say these things while he has a willing Press to convey his statements to the world and by so doing tell the word where the weaknesses of our defence force lie. One is entitled to expect a greater sense of responsibility from a person such as the hon. member who has experience of military service. I deprecate the hon. member’s remarks regarding our Navy. I think we have a proud record here, and that we are building up something. We are not a big country, and that should be remembered. For that reason I take it amiss of the hon. member.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. If in my speech I express criticism I am doing so with the very best intentions. I am not doing so to be disparaging, but in an attempt to be constructive. We are pleased to note from the White Paper that whereas in 1960, 2,000 citizen force units were trained for two months, at the present time there are 16,527 ballotees undergoing training for a period of nine months. I wish to express my appreciation of that. It is imperative that the young people of South Africa should receive military training for the defence of the Republic, because nobody but our own sons will be able to defend our country. But the training received by these young men should give the defence force of our country content and character. By their training a stamp is impressed upon the minds of these young men which is unmistakable. I should like to ask that all of us, the Minister, the Commandant-General, the officers, instructors and corporals, should assist to make something of our defence force which is different from the defence forces of the rest of the world. I am not referring to our military striking power, for we shall excel in that. I am referring to the character and the morals of members of our forces. There is something wrong here. I want our defence force to be recognized not only by the skin of the people, but as the Defence Force of the Republic of South Africa. We as members of the House of Assembly receive many criticisms in regards to certain things which happen in the training of ballotees. I ask that our boys receiving training should be taught to respect the officers and instructors for their strict discipline in such a manner that on the part of the young men there should be respect and esteem and not fear. I plead for the elimination of this fear complex in the training of our defence force ballotees. I wish to ask also that as these recruits are still being sworn at, cursed and abused, this practice should receive attention at the highest level and be stopped. I hope the hon. the Minister will say something about this matter in his reply to the debate. I am aware of his attitude as well as that of the Commandant-General, and therefore I am pleading for the destruction of this element in our Defence Force.

Then there is the unfortunate phenomenon of theft among the recruits. We must condemn this most strongly. Every case must be investigated and when anybody is convicted, he should be punished very severally. I ask that we should build our Defence Force on a Christian national foundation, because then we shall be able to build up a defence force with its own South African character as well as its own South African tradition.

In conclusion I should like to plead for uniforms for these ballotees. I am very sorry that while we are voting R210,000,000 for defence, we are not making provision for more attractive uniforms for our boys, a uniform of which they can be proud. At the present time there are a number of picked boys at Pretoria who are taking the candidate-officer’s course. They are accommodated at the military gymnasium. It is a delight to see these boys in these military gymnasiums. But with these boys there are these candidate officers who are dressed, in my opinion, in a very inferior uniform. These young men are being trained as candidate officers, but their uniforms compare unfavourably with those of the boys of the gymnasium. I appeal to the Minister to have these uniforms replaced immediately.

Arising from the reply of the hon. Minister, and for the record, I should like to put right a couple of matters. The Minister said that we on this side had asked for a Defence Council in the past. That is not correct. At least for as long as I have been in this House, we have not asked for that, because it has always been a useless body.

We also said so.

We asked for a select committee of this House. I should like to refer the House to Col. 8062 of Hansard for 21 June last year, in this connection, where a speech of the hon. member for Simonstown is recorded. There he asked for a parliamentary defence committee. We have been asking for this during the past five years and not for a defence council.

Another question to which the Minister replied was whether he was able to man his ships. He gave us the figures and said there was a shortage of 21.6 per cent on the total strength. Again for the record, we have to say that among the people he has there and who are at present occupying the posts, there are a large number of civil people who cannot be used as sailors.

I gave you the figures.

Yes, you did. But the point I wish to make is that the shortage actually is very much more than 21.6 per cent.

No….

We are particularly pleased to see the Minister is so concerned about the accommodation of the Permanent Force. Of course, this is a bequest of the hon. member for Kimberley (North), but we are very glad that the Minister is making such rapid progress in making up the leeway. It cannot be accomplished in three months. Therefore we are congratulating the Minister on what he has achieved already.

When I resumed my seat just now. I was referring to the Air Force and the difficulties experienced in regard to manpower. Now I should like to say something in regard to the army. The Minister quite rightly said he cannot be expected to move the heavens, having regard to the short while the scheme has been in operation. I concede that readily and I also wish to concede that much has already been achieved in this short time. I take it that the training of nine months includes the handling of weapons, parades, manoeuvres in the field, etc. But we require manoeuvres on a large scale. Let the Minister give us manoeuvres for instance a brigade with all its vehicles and equipment. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) said this afternoon that our Defence Force should be mobile. If the Minister would start a manoeuvre such as I have mentioned, it would be a wonderful experience for the people who are charged with the planning of it as well as for those who actively participate in it. In that way many leaks in the organization could be eliminated.

The army, of course, also has difficulties arising from a shortage of technicians for the maintenance of army equipment. In the meantime we continue to buy more and more armaments. These things are stored. One can only hope that it will be preserved in such a way that it will not deteriorate. However, the unfortunate part of it is that in order to maintain much of the equipment used by the Defence Force at the present time, it must be used. I should like to attempt to make a few constructive suggestions for improving the position in our Defence Force, and the first is that the Permanent Force should be expanded still further. The Permanent Force is the core of our Defence Force. They are the people who will have to endure the first shock should there be trouble; they are the people who have to provide guidance throughout the Defence Force in time of war. They are people who usually are highly trained and that is why I am asking that the Permanent Force should be expanded. If we are in earnest—and I am assuming that we certainly are in earnest—this will have to be done. It is in the national interest that we should have a powerful Permanent Force consisting of trained men. I shall go so far even as to say that in consultation with the manpower board, and organized trade and commerce, the men we need in the Permanent Force must be found. That is my first suggestion.

My second proposal concerns the matter raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van der Walt). The hon. the Minister has replied to this, but I do not accept his reply. The Defence Force, the military section, must be safeguarded against the suffocating grip of the Secretariat. The strength and size of the Secretariat is such at the present time that it is out of all proportion to the size of the Permanent Force. I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) that delays occur, and it seems as if here it is a question of the tail wagging the dog.

My third proposal also relates to the matters raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West), and that is the Public Service Commission. I am not going to argue that the Public Service Commission should lose complete control, but steps must be taken to make the Public Service Commission realize that the Defence Force, and the Permanent Force in particular, cannot be dealt with in the same way as the ordinary clerk in the Public Service, not because the members of the Defence Force are better people, but because they are people who have to have special qualifications; they are people who have to perform special work; they are people who have to work excessive hours; they are sent away from their homes and families at all times and they have to receive special treatment. Steps have to be taken to attract these people to the Defence Force, and the conditions of service should be made so attractive that it will be worth while to these people to abandon their employment in civil life and join the Permanent Force.

Sir, we are at present spending large sums of money on the acquisition and manufacture of armaments. It will be a sheer waste of money unless we have the trained technicians to handle and maintain those armaments properly. I do not think we can say in all sincerity that we do have the trained people properly to handle and maintain those armaments to-day. We must not be under a false impression of mock safety because we are spending these vast sums of money. We must not delude ourselves, and we must not think we are bluffing others. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to take active steps to solve this problem of manpower, and that people should be found and called upon to do this work. There are other minor shortcomings which require serious attention, but before we really feel secure, we must overcome this great problem of the shortage of trained manpower. [Time limit.]

It seems to me we have now reached common ground in respect of our defence. I well remember how the Opposition last year and the year before said that the imaginary danger from the north was put up by the Minister in order to form a White laager in South Africa. I am glad that in respect of defence matters we have now moved closer to each other, that we are on common ground, so that we can discuss matters affecting the defence of our country soberly and realistically. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) says that it is absolutely essential, in case war comes, to be prepared; he no longer talks about a White laager. Just see what members of the Opposition said in 1962 …

Why must you now drag in politics?

They said—

To-day, in 1964, they have now left that platform and moved closer to us and I welcome it. But there is one thing I do not welcome. The hon. member for North-East Rand said that we should prepare ourselves, if a war comes, for trouble with the non-Whites under the leadership of Whites. I blame the hon. member for that. The hon. member knows that our enemy sits waiting for the opportunity to be able to say that our defence programme is aimed at suppressing internal riots.

That is not true.

The hon. member knows it is not true. Why then does he say it? *

I did not say that at all.

I wrote it down. I can prove it from the hon. member’s Hansard. The hon. member said it, and it did not pass unnoticed.

I am grateful that our Defence Force has generally to-day reached the stage where it complies with certain cardinal requirements, the first of which is that our people are being trained to-day. I think it is an achievement that out of the approximately 26,000 to 30,000 young men who become available every year, who reach the age of 17 years, a maximum number are trained in one direction or another to defend the country and to preserve law and order. The second is that emphasis is laid on mobility. The third, as the White Paper says, is that specific attention is being devoted to the establishment of strategically situated airfields. But with the advent of the enemy in the Indian Ocean, with the new strategic importance the East Coast has achieved for us after the Zanzibar episode, after the shifting of the weight in the struggle to the Indian Ocean, I want to express this thought to-day. We have a long coastline; we have a coastline of 700 miles between Walvis Bay and Cape Town, and a still longer coastline between Cape Town and Durban, and we have one naval base, at Simonstown. That is vulnerable. It is not sufficiently large. When ships have to be repaired in time of war it will not comply with our requirements. I therefore want to make a plea here which I know will necessitate the expenditure of a large sum of money, but we owe it to ourselves, in our attempt to be able to combat any onslaught against the Western world, to devote more attention to the protection of our coastline. We have a very long coastline. I therefore want to plead not only for a larger naval base but for more naval bases, for the establishment of another strategically situated naval base. We know what awaits us, although the Opposition quarrels with us in that regard.

I do not want to make a speculative appreciation here, but I think that as things are developing we must prepare for a greater threat from the Indian Ocean, because things are developing there which to any person who is interested in these matters and sees what is going on is a clear indication of what we can expect from the direction of the Indian Ocean. Sir, surely we know our enemy. We know its tactics and its strategy, and I want to say as Wellington did: “I spent all my life in trying to guess what was on the other side of the hill.” We must look over the hill. I want to say that I am deeply concerned at the role played by Russia in the African Unity Organization which was born at Addis Ababa. I am deeply concerned about that. Hence the great importance of the Indian Ocean and our eastern coastline to us from a strategic point of view. We shall have to devote attention to the protection of our east coast, over and above the attention we are devoting to air defence.

In conclusion, I just want to make these few remarks. The first remark I want to make is in quite a different direction, namely this: It fills one with pride when one sees how slowly but surely a change is coming about among our people in regard to our defence. Sir, it is an unparalleled integration of pride, desire and eagerness to serve South Africa. If the Minister of Defence were to say to-day that he needed a few hundred million rand for essential expansion and purchases, I do not think he would have to wait a week for that money; it would flow from the willing pockets of the nation. The second point I wish to state is this: One is really impressed, when one comes into contact with our military men, from the highest to the lowest ranks, by the deep earnestness with which these people are imbued. [Time limit.]

I shall not attempt to follow the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) where he was dealing with high strategic matters, save to say that, since he places such extreme emphasis on our East Coast, he might just have a look at his party’s Native policy before he develops that argument much further.

Sir, I want to deal with a small matter but one which is of very considerable interest to my constituents; and that is the question of ballotees who are at university. Sir. I have been very pleasantly struck by the fact that our people, both parents and youngsters, are more than prepared to make their contribution towards the defence of the country. But there does seem to have been a slight change in the arrangements in regard to university students; and I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Labour has just left the Chamber, as there is some doubt as to who should actually deal with this question. It is a very burning question at the moment. There is a great deal of uncertainty about it in the minds of quite a lot of people. I have had over 20 cases at the University of Cape Town drawn to my attention, and I presume that the same applies to the other universities, and I do not doubt that there are very many other cases which have not been brought to my attention.

The position, as I understand it, has always been that while everybody whose name is drawn by ballot must undergo military training, the understanding has been that once a student is at university he will be allowed to complete his studies before being called up for military service. It would seem that there has been a departure from that because the students who have brought this matter to my attention are people who are in their second and third years at the university and who have at least a full year still to go. They have now been notified that they are to be called up before they have taken their final degree, or for that matter before they have taken any degree. That is the first category of people who are now apparently to have their studies interrupted. Then there is another category of students who will complete a degree this year but who would in the ordinary course go on to an honours degree or a Master’s degree, but who apparently will be required to undergo their military training after their first degree. I would say again that all these people will gladly undergo their military training; but I think it has always been regarded as being in the country’s interest that these people should be allowed to complete their studies once they have commenced their course of study. I should be glad to have some guidance from the hon. the Minister as to what the true position is and as to what these people have to do to prevent their studies being interrupted in this way. These people are asking for guidance. It is a simple matter to clear up and I hope that the hon. the Minister of Defence, who I am sure is fully conversant with the position, will clear it up.

I have replied on that point already.

I do not think the hon. the Minister has indicated to the persons who now find themselves in this position that they may be called away from their studies before they complete their degree, what they have to do. I think it is important that they should know and I hope very much that the Minister will clear up __ that point completely. He touched on it very lightly in answer to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). Sir, the position is quite simple. There has been this practice in the past; it appears to have been departed from. I hope that that is not the case, and I ask for clarity on this point.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat ought to know that the matter he raised here is one which really falls under the hon. the Minister of Labour. He also knows that these ballotees have the opportunity to ask for their balloting to be deferred. I do not believe that this is the occasion to debate this matter; it is really a matter which falls under Labour.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), who is the main speaker opposite on defence, would have made me much happier if he had only made his last speech here and not the previous two. The only speech in which he suggested anything concrete was his last speech. In the other two speeches he enjoyed the luxury of destructive criticism without making any contribution whatever to this debate. In his last speech he did in fact make a contribution and I immediately want to agree with him there.

I want to begin by adding my thanks to those who have already expressed their thanks in regard to the White Paper we received about defence. It not only serves to reassure the people of South Africa, but it must also serve as a warning to the outside world and to those who are waging a cold war against us, and to those who have ideas about committing aggression against South Africa. We therefore see it as tying up with the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said in Paarl that we in South Africa should do everything in our power to prevent our being overrun, and that the cold war should become a shooting war against us which will place us in a difficult position in which we cannot defend ourselves. Sir, time does not permit otherwise I would have expatiated on the resolute desire of the people of South Africa to protect themselves against anybody who might threaten our existence.

I want to associate myself with the hon. members who spoke before me and who made certain suggestions. I first come to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) and also by the hon. member for North-East Rand, viz. the question of a Service Commission for the Defence Force, to some extent separate from the Public Service Commission. One realizes that this is a complicated subject; that it is a proposal which cannot just be accepted without any more ado. One must avoid doing something like that merely as the popular thing to catch the votes of members of the Defence Force because it may perhaps result in higher salaries for them. I want to avoid that aspect of it entirely; I want to discuss the matter on its merits. There are a few examples which we can mention which justify different treatment for members of the Defence Force as compared with the ordinary public servant. Let me mention two examples I have in mind. For example, we have a lieutenant instructor in the Air Force. His salary, until quite recently, was lower than that of a female warder with the rank of lieutenant in prisons. A lieutenant instructor in the Air Force is a man who has completed his training in flying various types of aircraft, a man who has completed his training on a Sabre, a man who bears the responsibility for State property which is solely under his personal control to the value of a third of a million rand up to half a million rand. That man’s salary was until recently lower that that of a lieutenant wardress in Prisons. Take the case of a field-cornet in the Army who has to handle an expensive piece of machinery, e.g., a tank commander. That man has a great responsibility. His salary cannot be determined according to the normal norms which apply when fixing the salaries of ordinary public servants. It is necessary to differentiate to some extent between the salaries of ordinary public servants and those of members of the Defence Force, and we shall have to make radical adaptations. I think that this proposal has much merit. But we must be careful to retain some co-ordination between the Defence Force and the Public Service as a whole, because if there was no such co-ordination it might almost be dangerous. It would mean that members of the other services would start agitating for higher salaries. A lieutenant in the Police would then be entitled to say: “A lieutenant in the Defence Force now earns so much, and my salary must be brought into line with his”. In this way we could set afoot a chain reaction. Therefore I would prefer to have co-ordination and for the Public Service Commission to be represented on such a body.

Sir, when we express criticism we do so, as the hon. member on my right has said, with the best intentions and in the hope that it will be regarded as constructive criticism. We have had a number of resignations from the Permanent Force; that is undoubtedly so. The hon. member for Simonsown mentioned certain figures here. It is true that artisans are resigning from the force. People with five years’ service and more resign. We must evolve ways and means to limit those resignations from the force to the minimum. I want to suggest that a member of the Defence Force should not be able to buy his discharge from the force by paying a certain sum of money, but that he should be able to resign only after his application to resign has been considered by a committee of officers, who will allow him to resign only after having considered his case on its merits. In other words, dismissal or resignation from the Defence Force should not take place automatically. A member should only be allowed to resign if such a committee decides that the merits of his case justify it. We should also consider increasing the sum at which a member of the force may buy his discharge. We are to-day training our people to handle expensive and complex armaments. Their training costs the State a tremendous amount. I want to say that it costs the State to-day more than R60,000 to train a flying instructor, and in some cases almost 100,000, i.e. a flying instructor of the standard we would like to have. When that man has been trained at this high cost to the State, he needs only to pay a certain amount to buy his discharge. He is absorbed in other services and is lost to the Defence Force. Another important aspect of service in the Defence Force is continuity. I recently had the privilege of visiting the joint operational headquarters, from which the whole of the Capex operations are controlled. As the hon. the Minister knows, certain highly complicated machines are now being taken over by our own Fleet from the Royal Navy, and in future our own men will certainly have to handle very complex installations. I spoke there to a lieutenant of the Royal Navy and also to a commander and obtained certain information from them. We have a certain number of men from the South African Navy who perform certain services, but it is essential that those people should work on the installations concerned for at least three of four years to become experts in that regard. We cannot afford to lose those people. Hence my argument that resignations from the Defence Force should only be allowed when the merits of the case justify it.

Why not stop recruitment under those circumstances?

I cannot hear the hon. member’s question, but I do not think it is based on great knowledge. He says that we have stopped recruitment.

No, he asks whether it has been stopped.

I do not think the hon. member’s question is relevant at the moment.

I also want to associate myself very briefly with the two hon. members who asked that certain functions of the Secretariat should perhaps be transferred to the staff of the Adjutant-General, and some to the staff of the Quartermaster-General. We of course have a precedent for that in history, when the Chief of the General Staff was also the Secretary of the Department. Under present circumstances it is perhaps not advisable to take it to those lengths, but I feel that there are certain functions of the Secretariat which may with advantage be transferred to the Adjutant-General and other functions which can be taken over by the Quartermaster-General, and that we can then create more specialized and easier functions for the Secretariat. One realizes the necessity for having the Secretariat and I do not want to derogate from it, but I feel that there are certain functions which can be allocated differently. Sir, then there is the question of the production of war material end research. [Time limit.]

Sir, I have spoken on previous occasions about chemical and biological warfare and I presume that the hon. the Minister has taken some note of my remarks, although he has never answered me. I want to draw attention now to certain things which are happening in the world and in South Africa which make one suspicious that possibly biological warfare is nearer than we may think, and that chemical warfare—gas—could be used on munitions and sentries, etc. I think the hon. the Minister will admit that it must depend on the Department of Health to protect him from biological warfare and on the Department of Agriculture to look after the crops. But he may have noticed that there was an outbreak of smallpox in Port Elizabeth some three months ago.

Sabotage.

It has taken the Department of Health, in a disease which is very easily prevented, over three months and it has not yet got control. I could draw the Minister’s attention to the recent outbreak of typhoid fever in a city like Aberdeen which is a city with a good sanitary system and with good medical services. There it has been possible to develop cases of typhoid running into hundreds. There seems to be no real clue as to how that typhoid outbreak occurred. Typhoid germs are carried by food or drink. The story that we hear that some firms have put corned beef on the market which is typhoid-bearing is absurd. As everybody knows the typhoid germ is easily killed by steam and when you tin meat you have to steam it so that no typhoid germ can be carried by tinned meat unless it becomes contaminated after it has been opened. In other words, somewhere in Aberdeen there must be a source of infection which is very widespread. It must be either in their water system or in their milk.

They boycott us.

I know some hon. members opposite will say this is a Divine act. But God does not move in those ways; he moves in mysterious ways.

Can the hon. member tell me what this has to do with Defence?

It has everything to do with Defence, Sir. This is biological warfare and chemical warfare. I was merely drawing the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that they had this typhoid outbreak in Aberdeen. I am not suggesting that anybody is attacking Scotland by distributing typhoid germs but typhoid germs have got into the food or water supplies of a city like Aberdeen and the British Government cannot trace the source. I am just trying to indicate that germs can enter our dams—although that is not so likely—and our milk supplies. That is the greatest danger of all. What is the Minister going to do about it? He has to rely on the Department of Health. Is the Department of Health doing anything about it? Is the example set by the Department of Health in the case of the smallpox outbreak in Port Elizabeth restoring the Minister’s confidence? I must say that I myself feel disquiet about the possibility of gas being administered in small doses, such as attacking sentries and so on. When sentries are attacked valuable ammunition can be destroyed. With our long coast line an enormous mass of germs can be distributed. In one study 130 gallons were sprayed from a small naval vessel two miles off shore. It covered an area of approximately 100 square miles with a concentration which would have allowed anyone in the area to inhale over 3,000 organisms in a two-hour period. In another case which was investigated a vessel released 450 pounds of minute particles—the same as germs—whilst travelling a distance of three miles off shore. The particles were detected 450 miles inland and covered an area of 23,000 square miles. The concentration could produce an inhalation of from 1,800 to 18,000 particles per two-hour period. This is something which I do not think ought to be neglected.

We know there is this weapon which could easily be supplied to our neighbour, or to our distant neighbours, which could distribute lethal diseases like glanders or temporarily incapacitating diseases like Rift valley fever, either tactically to halt an advance or strategically spreading the disease over a whole continent. I do not think anybody is going to shoot germs at us although I think a small vessel could easily travel along our coast without being seriously interfered with. But I am concerned about the possibility of some of these new nerve gases being used to incapacitate a ship or to incapacitate a sentry and allow access to highly valuable material and ammunition. I don’t see any signs of anything being done about this. I have no doubt the Minister is well aware of this but it would be more comforting if one knew that he realized the damage that could be done by a single individual, particularly in the case of a country like South Africa which is in danger of being attacked by people who have no value for their own lives or for the lives they are sending into battle. If the hon. the Minister or his officers have to fight a battle they have serious consideration and thought for the lives of the men they are sending in. But the enemies who are going to come against us are not going to be of that calibre. They are going to be the type of people who will sacrifice their so-called cannon-fodder without any worry. What controlled the use of nerve gassing in the last war was the difficulty of delivering it without killing your own people. But that problem has been solved; it has been solved mechanically and it has also been solved by the fact that you do not care whether you lose your delivery agent. He has to do a certain thing and if he does not come back you don’t worry. That is the way they look at it; that is not the way we look at it. That may pose a very formidable problem. I think great attention should be paid to this. I do not expect the Minister to tell me what he is doing but I think his attention should be drawn to this fact.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) spoke seriously about the threat from the East in so far as the Indian Ocean is concerned. I also feel that the countries to the north of us, like Zanzibar, etc., constitute a threat to us, and I want to speak about the threat to our country from that direction. In this connection I want to start at a point far removed from this; I first want to talk about modern warfare. Modern warfare is waged with modern weapons and modern technology. There is also the standpoint that the whole war may be automatized, that it will be a war of pressing buttons; that it will be the scientist and the research worker and the technologist who will wage the war. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) also spoke on those lines this afternoon and said that we should never lose our position in the large strategy of the West. I want to say immediately that I do not think that will happen because if he had studied the White Paper he would have seen that sufficient attention is devoted to that aspect, although within the framework of conventional weapons. The fact that we are going to spend R59,000,000 on supplies and ammunition, R33,000,000 on other war requirements, R36,000,000 on aircraft, ships, armoured vehicles, radar and other equipment, shows that we are not neglecting that aspect.

But there is another standpoint also, namely, that the individual soldier will still have a task to perform in any future war. The individual soldier with his personality, his initiative, his enterprise and particularly his bravery, cannot be eliminated. Therefore I am also glad to see that the White Paper says that our manpower has increased. In a former debate I pleaded that our Permanent Force should be expanded. I am, therefore, glad to see that it has increased by 65.5 per cent. It is really these people whose numbers should be increased, in my opinion, because all these wonderful weapons we are going to purchase will have to be handled by highly trained and qualified men. Those men must be drawn from the Permanent Force. They are the people who will be responsible for it in the first place. But we are also seeing to other manpower. For example, provision is being made for a 36 per cent increase in our Active Citizen Force. Then we come to the Commandos. R41,000,000 will be paid in the form of salaries to the men.

I really want to plead for the individual, the soldier, whom we cannot eliminate. I think he will be a very important factor in the event of a threat from the north. I believe that the threat from the north will come in the form of a guerilla war. There will be no conventional declaration of war in which heavy armaments will be used. I believe it will come in the form of infiltration by guerilla forces. We see that pattern in other countries. We see it in Vietnam, Laos, Yemen and everywhere where war is being waged. We see that the tactics being applied are the use of guerilla forces, but guerilla forces are not regular forces; one can never estimate their strength; their presence is not noticeable; their attack is unexpected; they are never on the defensive, but always attack. A guerilla war is not an orthodox war. A guerilla war means that one must have forces spread all over the country because attacks are made here, there and everywhere. In pleading that we should be prepared to face the threat of guerilla warfare, I want to ask what the answer to it should be? Is the answer to have a large number of ships? Is the answer to have many large aircraft, or heavy armaments? I say no. One can only fight a guerilla force by means of a guerilla force. We have always said that our commandos should be used for that purpose. We should abandon the idea that our commandos are really only there to shoot on the rifle range. They should be fighting units. They should be guerilla units which can deal with guerilla bands which operate in the country. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member for Heilbron, unwittinghly perhaps, placed his finger on another important aspect of our defence structure as far as our Permanent Force is concerned. As the White Paper indicates, in a matter of three or four years there has been an increased of 65 per cent, i.e. from 9,000 to about 15,000, in our Permanent Force establishment. The problem we must face in this connection and what worries me is that if there has been this vast increase in this short period of time and taking into account at the same time the various types of new equipment, how does the Minister and the General Staff cope with the shortage of officers, as there must be, making military life their permanent career. Because when you increase your military establishment by 65 per cent, it is not only a question of increasing the manpower establishment but also the establishment of officers which is the kernel of the whole force. I shall be glad, therefore, if the Minister in his reply could give us an indication of how this problem has been met in the Permanent Force itself. I am not dealing now with the citizen force aspect of the staff. In 1960 the establishment for the Permanent Force was fixed at so many officers and so many men and if the establishment of men has increased, then obviously more officers are required, particularly as the officer corps, as I understand the position are also carrying the responsibility for training of new citizen soldiers. Therefore, I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister could give this House some idea of how the problem of officers in the permanent staff has been met. Have special training courses been established for them? Or has there been an absorption of specialized men into the Permanent Force who have been accorded the rank of officer and subsequently been put through training courses? This is an important issue and I shall accordingly be glad if the hon. the Minister could give us some information about it when he replies.

Now, I want to tell the Minister that I have a lot of sympathy for the point of view expressed here this afternoon by the hon. member for Pretoria (West). I do not think the hon. the Minister should brush off lightly the suggestions he made. I agree fully with the hon. member in regard to the part played by the Public Service Commission. I think here is an unnecessary amount of red tape. Before a new unit can be established in terms of the considerations of the General Staff, a long rigmarole has to be gone through. First the matter has to be dealt with by the Secretariat, then by the Public Service Commission, and then back to the Minister for final authority. What knowledge the Public Service Commission has as far as military matters are concerned. I fail to understand. So I feel very strongly with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) that measures can be taken to cut out a lot of this red tape. I fail to see why there cannot be in the Minister’s own Department say an establishments committee that can deal with such matters and under ministerial authority take immediate decisions. After all, the Secretary of the Department is, in terms of the Act, the accounting officer.

But I differ from the hon. member in so far as the Secretariat is concerned. It is obvious that under our parliamentary system of control over expenditure we cannot even consider getting rid of the Secretariat …

I did not say that. I talked about reducing control.

… or reducing the control of the Secretariat. But the accounting officer in terms of our parliamentary procedure is primarily responsible for expenditure. One cannot expect the Chief of the General Staff to be the accounting officer and as such to appear before the select committee.

I did not say that.

I should like to suggest that we approach the matter from another direction. The establishment of the Permanent Force is at present about 15,000. And what I am interested in is how many of this 15,000 are employed in the pay corps for example, or how many are concerned with stores, and are employed as clerks or on other non-combatant activities when these could be made use of to train the citizen army we are creating. Is it not possible that all the paper work can fall under the Secretariat? And when a war comes, they can be put into uniforms, as was done during the last war, and placed under proper military discipline. But is it necessary to keep men running around at military headquarters with heavy boots along corridors, taking Wednesday afternoons off, and all the rest, while all they are doing is a civil servant’s job? The Minister himself made a suggestion of this nature at one of his party’s congresses. In September last year he said at a congress in the Transvaal that he had under active consideration the appointment of women to the Permanent Force so that they might play their part. Now I should like to ask the Minister whether he has gone any further with this matter?

I am always very slow when it comes to women!

I doubt that in view of the attractive possibilities of the Minister! But I see no reason why women should not have a permanent place in the Permanent Force for these paper work jobs, in the pay corps and elsewhere. If women had been there, the men would probably not have had to wait for their pay! So I plead with the Minister on this score. There are young women who are willing to enter the Army and make it their career? Why should they not? Why should they not be allowed to play their part? That has been our South African tradition. So why exclude them from all this organization? I believe women will want to play their part. Let us then get rid of some of the paper soldiers, those working behind desks at military headquarters and elsewhere and let them be used, with the discipline with which they have already been inculcated, in an active capacity for the training of the active citizen force.

There is one final point I wish to make to the Minister. This is an important point. I have no doubt that the Minister when he replies just now will say that it is of course part of our strategy to play our part in the Western defence and that that is one of the reasons for our military build up. That he will say and he will be right. I only regret that that has not been clearly stated in the White Paper. And if this is so, then why are the other aspects concerning Western military strategy ignored in the White Paper? The only observation I see here is that in so far as general defence policy is concerned—

The value of conventional arms is recognized and what is also recognized is the development of nuclear warfare and the part it will play in the event of hostilities. As the Minister knows, there is plenty of information available on these matters. There are books about it in our library. As far as nuclear warfare is concerned, the conventional weapon is used with a greater hitting power as a result of the application of nuclear fission. So these developments are there. But what I should like to ask the Minister is whether there is in his Department a section taking note of these developments, studying these new techniques, consulting with other countries in this regard, our friends in the Western world? This is important because if we are fully to play our part with the West then we must be equipped to be able to retaliate in case of world conflict with these new types of weapons. So if we are to fulfil our obligations to the full of maintaining an effective army, then that army should at least possess the know-how or some basic knowledge of the use of these new type of weapons. I shall be glad, therefore, if the Minister could indicate in his reply whether a study is being made of this aspect of defence.

Towards the end of this Defence debate I cannot but refer to a few matters. Firstly, I want to express my personal thanks to the hon. the Minister for his great attempt to have racial unity in the Defence Force. We realize that this unity is absolutely essential in case we have to face an enemy.

The first speaker from the Opposition side in this debate, the hon. member for Simonstown, said that politics would not be dragged into this debate. But as the debate continued, it became clear that this would not be the case, because thereafter we had attempts to revert to previous wars, attempts which were based on racial feelings. The Minister is trying to consolidate the two White population groups in the Defence Force. In spite of that, the United Party referred in passing to the amount we have to vote for defence and said that this was due to our racial policy. It was also said that the wrong use was being made of our trained men, but I do not blame them for that because they are entitled to voice criticism where they think it is justified. The low salaries were mentioned, and it was said that we could not man our small fleet. The hon. the Minister has already proved that that is not so. Reference was made to the drain on our manpower, but at the same time they asked that we should make better use of our manpower. The hon. member for North-East Rand said our ships were practically defenceless. In saying that, he has told our potential enemies—and I do not think there is anybody in this House who has any doubts as to what we really mean when we talk about an enemy—that we are not prepared. The enemy is therefore encouraged to come. We have no patriotism, etc. While I am talking about patriotism, I want to say that the behaviour of the United Party in defence debates in recent years has instilled no confidence in any recruit. It is a recognized fact that when the morale of soldiers is low, even with the best and the greatest number of conventional weapons, one cannot defeat an enemy, even though it is weak. Therefore I blame the United Party for not having created confidence in our Defence Force in these debates. In fact, they are destroying the morale of our people.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Durban (Central) for having referred to biological warfare. It will of course be a civilized nation which makes use of biological warfare. Here I see the necessity for uniting the civilized White races of the Republic, so that there may be unity at least in respect of the defence of our country, whether it is a cold war or a shooting war. We must have unity so that together we may effect counter measures to combat such biological warfare. I do not believe the non-White races of this country will be able to use the knowledge at their disposal in order to evolve a counter measure for that sort of warfare. The White groups must stand together in order to exist and to combat any enemy. We must be able to defend our country. The non-White races will suffer most and they will be the greatest victims if our country is attacked and there is biological warfare. I really want to appeal to the United Party to follow the example of the hon. the Minister of Defence and to make it possible for the English and Afrikaans-speaking language groups to achieve unity so that we can tell the enemy outside: If you intend attacking us, you will meet with united opposition. But then the United Party should not undermine the morale of our Defence Forces as they have done to-day.

The hon. member who has just spoken is typical of so many of his party. Immediately one criticizes or draws attention to a weakness, one is accused of sabotage and undermining and what not. I would like to tell that hon. member that if he had ever had on a uniform, he would know that there is nothing that undermines morale more than the feeling that nobody cares for your problems and troubles, and the best way to build up morale is to show that the Parliament of South Africa is concerned with the troubles and problems of the Defence Force. You are not going to build up the morale of a force by saying what a good fellow the Minister is and that everything in the garden is rosy, as the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) said. The duty of this Parliament is to show the forces that we are interested in their welfare and that those things which are wrong will be corrected.

I want to deal, firstly, before returning to the question of training, with one matter concerning my constituency very vitally. It is a matter which concerns the whole future development of my constituency, and that is the negotiations in regard to the exchange of the Natal Command site for another area of equal size, which I understand, according to Press reports, has been offered to the Department of Defence. This is a matter which affects the whole future planning and development of Durban and particularly of the Beach Front. I would be grateful if the Minister could give the House any information on the accuracy or otherwise of the Press report, the stage to which the negotiations have proceeded, and whether in his opinion it is a practical proposition to move the Natal Command Headquarters a matter of two miles further northwards towards the Umgeni, as was suggested, thereby freeing the whole Beach Front for future development.

Having put that request to the Minister, I want to come back to the question of training, which I raised earlier. The Minister evaded many of the points I raised. For instance, I raised pertinently with the Minister the question of the better use of gymnasium trainees who have had specialized and exceptionally good training, but who, once they have completed their year of training, are drafted as ordinary privates into units where their potential leadership qualities are wasted. I think that is a very important question.

I have made a note of that.

Then I also referred to the wastage of leadership material in regard to the universities. Again the point I made was missed by the Minister. What I was trying to get at was not that the students should not be trained, but that those who were being trained in a specialist capacity should be utilized in that capacity by the creation of special units where they could continue their training in conjunction with their studies. It seems ridiculous to train a person as an electronics engineer and then to let him footslog as an infantryman in an ordinary infantry unit, or to make a medical student an ordinary infantryman. We are wasting the potential leadership capacity of those people by not planning sufficiently for their incorporation in the best possible manner into the Force. I realize, of course, that exemptions fall under the Minister of Labour, but it is not a question of exemption; it is a question of the Minister’s policy in regard to the utilization in the best possible manner of the available material. The same applies in regard to training. The Minister said that he realized that the training given was not perfect, but surely if the Force is not ready to use them, why call up more people than it can handle? Surely the answer would be to have a gradual increase in numbers, rather than to call people up and waste a valuable national asset by not utilizing them to the best advantage? Those are hands required in the industry of South Africa. The economy of South Africa is prepared to make that sacrifice, but not to let these people waste their time because you have not the instructors or the equipment fully to utilize the nine months of training. When you can fully utilize it, do so, but do not waste our national human assets. I want to ask the Minister whether it is correct, as I stated—and that is another point the Minister evaded in his reply—that the South African Railways and Post Office employees are being released from their military training after they have started their training? I can quote examples and places of people who were half-way through their training and were then released to go back to their ordinary duties in the Railways and the Post Office. These are technicians, apprentices, etc. I ask whether that is fair, that a Government Department should have that preference, while private enterprise does not have it? If these people are being released on a large scale, it shows that the Minister is not utilizing the trainees to the best advantage, otherwise he could not afford to spare them. I trust the Minister will deal with this matter in greater detail.

Finally, I would ask whether the Minister will tell this House, in regard to the whole question of Citizen Force training which makes such demands on the life of the nation, how satisfied he is with the availability of instructors and the equipment required for that training. In other words, how far is he satisfied that the grounds for complaint are being completely eradicated so that we do not waste our youth, in idle hours and days during their training period.

I just want to address a few friendly words to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), and I do so for the sake of the record in order to correct a certain matter. The hon. member to-day in an almost irresponsible manner made certain accusations and allegations in regard to theft. Then the hon. the Minister replied and reproached the hon. member, but he again got up and once more he made an allegation in regard to the smuggling of weapons into Bechuanaland, and he sowed suspicion, and do you know whom he called as a witness? No less a person than myself. The hon. member now laughs, but he holds a responsible position and he cannot laugh this away. The hon. member was also in the Army and he was a Brigadier, and as a soldier I suppose he learnt discipline, but I think the best discipline is spiritual discipline, and he certainly did not reveal that to-day. The hon. member calls me in as a witness. Surely he knows to what matter he referred, and he knows that there was a court case and a thorough investigation and that officer was acquitted. But in spite of that, he sows this suspicion and wants to call on me as a witness. The hon. member should be ashamed of himself and I think he should go down on his knees to-night and pray in the words of the old Psalm: Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth and keep the door of my lips.

I need not reply to the speech of the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), because he dealt with a private matter. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) asked whether we would not be willing to take women into the Defence Force. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) also made that request. I just want to say that I always thought that women could be used to great advantage in our Permanent Force and I have not stopped thinking along those lines, but we have tackled many new things just recently in the Defence Force. We are now being asked whether we are able to complete properly everything we have tackled in regard to training, etc., so we must go a little slowly in regard to certain matters. Then the hon. member asked what the position was in regard to our medical services in the event of war, and whether we have made any preparations. The fact is that the medical planning for a war has been completed. At the moment the Secretary for Defence is co-operating with the four provinces to establish a committee for the implementation of those plans. The hon. member for Turffontein said that this White Paper emphasized not the fact that we wanted to be a worthy ally in the Western defence, but that we were spending this money on our home defence. He says the introduction to the White Paper confirms this. I do not know where the hon. member gets hold of that. Let me read the Afrikaans text to him.

He read the English text wrongly as well.

The Afrikaans text reads as follows (translated)—

Not African political conditions—

But read further.

Very well—

My contention is that the greatest danger of aggression for any Western state is the communists. I cannot agree with the hon. member at all that it is being emphasized here that it is only aimed at internal aggression. I do not think I need say much more about that. It is quite clear that the hon. member was completely wrong there. I have read the English text also, which is just as clear as the Afrikaans text.

That is the impression.

How can that be the impression? It says here clearly: “On this the requirements of the S.A. Defence Force for the ensuing two years in regard to manpower and munitions were based in order to make it as efficient as possible with a view to resisting within the power of the State any act of aggression”.

But he reads it as “within the borders of the State”.

The hon. member further said that “old decrepits” are being used as officers for the commandos.

And men.

The hon. member mentioned officers.

I spoke in general terms.

Surely that allegation is not correct. All officers appointed are thoroughly examined as regards their health, and even the existing officers must now pass a medical test. If the man is not medically fit he must resign as an officer. Last year I had a case where one of the most efficient officers in the Southern Free State had to resign because he was not medically fit.

But the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said nothing about officers.

He said: “Old decrepits are being used as officers”. Now, if an officer is not an officer, then I do not know what he is.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) said that our Defence Force should be based on character. I could not agree with him more. I do not know what the hon. member really meant. He also said that the fear complex the soldier has for his officer should be eliminated and that there should be a relationship of respect between the soldier and the officer. That would be the ideal, but I do want to tell the hon. member this: I had very much respect for my father, but I was also afraid of him. Fear and respect go hand in hand. I cannot see how it is possible for young men in the Defence Forces to be without fear of their officers. The question is why they fear their officers. If a soldier fears his officer because he is a harsh man or acts unreasonably, that is of course quite wrong, and then we must take action. I just want to tell the hon. member for Wolmaransstad this: Only last week the most serious action was taken in regard to the behaviour of officers.

Now we come to the question of swearing. Sir, it is very difficult to get soldiers not to swear. Even I make a little mistake once in a while. But action is taken against that, too. Last year a few young officers were dismissed because they had used foul language. The other day I again heard of such a case, and again strict action was taken. These people are not just reprimanded; they are dismissed if they use bad language.

And the sergeant-major too?

We not only shave off his moustache; we also punish him.

Then the hon. member spoke about theft. I heard about that before, and instructions were given that serious attention should be given to it. I was informed that these young boys were afraid to report the matter if some of their goods were stolen. They tell their parents but do not complain to their officers, and if they do not complain to their officers action cannot be taken in those cases.

They are discriminated against if they report something like that.

If he reports something like that and it is proved that he is then discriminated against, we will take action, but how can we take action if nobody reports to his officer that some of his stuff was stolen, because how will we know about it? It is a very difficult question. I really think that boys who lose some of their things should be persuaded to complain to their officers.

I just want to tell the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) that when he spoke about ships, I mentioned the Permanent Force Reserves. I did not even get to the A.C.F. Reserves. I have the numbers here, and of course they are even larger.

The hon. member also said that we should have large-scale manoeuvres in the Army, or at least he asked whether we in fact have them. I may just say that in 1962 a large-scale manoeuvre was held at Letaba in the vicinity of Potchefstroom. Then the hon. member further said that the Permanent Force should be enlarged even more, but if he looks at Sub-Head “A” he will see that provision is made in the Estimates for an additional 2,519 posts in the Permanent Force. Then the hon. member raised the same point which was raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) in regard to the Secretariat and the Public Service. I have already replied to that. The hon. member also pointed out seriously that we have a manpower shortage and that we have complicated defence apparatus and weapons which have to be kept in order, and that we cannot do so in view of the shortage of manpower. I want to tell the hon. member that we are indeed concerned about the manpower shortage, but that there are also other ways in which the matter can be handled. Last week, for instance, I entered into two contracts with organizations overseas which keep things in order for us here. Those things are therefore being dome. When one is faced with a shortage of manpower, then one must plan accordingly, and arrangements in this regard are indeed being made.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), who always makes an interesting speech in regard to defence, stressed one point in particular and that was that we should devote more attention to the protection of our long coastline. Mr. Chairman, it was a good speech.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.