When the motion was last under discussion in the House, we had an amendment from the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis). One can only say that one is less surprised at the amendment than at the spirit and the tone of the speech of the hon. member. We live in a period of fermentation, and in every sphere today direction is being pointed by individual groups or parties. The one wants to go left and the other right. With us in South Africa the central direction, the national idea, is being interpreted by the Herenigde Nationalist Party both in the political and the economic spheres. The party has already declared its political standpoint clearly. It wants to be free from all the bonds that bind it to what is foreign. It does not want South Africa, in a servile form, to look to other countries and their governments to find out there how it must govern itself. It wants no Imperialism in South Africa, it does not want to be a postion. We want a government system of our own, not the liberal capitalist democracy of America or England, but also not the regimented totalitarianism of certain countries in Europe. We want a system that conforms to our own national requirements and our own national character, and for that reason we have formulated a system that is anchored in our own national life and in our national past. We want a new South Africa, but one that rests on the shoulders of our own past. That South Africa must be new in the sense that it is young and has the daring and courage of youth to grapple with problems, and to solve these effectively. It must also be new in the sense that it does not want to be a label or imitation of other countries. As regards our standpoint relating to the political aspect of the new South Africa, we have already put our standpoint clearly through the Leader of the Opposition last year with the introduction of the republican motion, and now we also want to declare the economic character of the new South Africa. It is the Nationalist Party that has long since pleaded for social reform measures here in this House, and where the Government is acting gingerly and injudiciously in connection with any measure for the welfare of our country, we on this side of the House consider it necessary at this stage to submit positive and comprehensive proposals to the House and the country. Thence the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition. We want to say, first, that we on this side of the House, and the country outside, are tired at always receiving alms and patch measures, and therefore we come to plead for a radical reconstruction of our whole social and economic system in South Africa. We recommend certain principles and plans as to how this reconstruction must take place. In that connection, there are a few principles on which I want to say a few words this afternoon, having reference to our agricultural industry. This is the oldest industry in South Africa, and it is an extremely important and permanent factor in our national life, and as such the foundation on which we must build up our national life. But it is also one of the most important props in our economic structure, and, that being so, we feel that the basis of our social and economic life renders it imperative that every power be marshalled in South Africa to promote and establish a happy, independent and prosperous agricultural community. We suggest certain measures to promote and reinforce that community. In the first place, we want to see created a division of rural sociology, either in the Department of Agriculture or in the Department of Social Welfare. It should be the special concern of that division to promote the social and psychological welfare of our farming community. We view the agricultural industry not merely as a means of financial income, but as a way of life. The agricultural community is a stabilised factor in our national life. It is conservative in outlook, has a powerful and healthy family life, adheres to its practices, morals, and customs, takes its pleasure and recreation more purely than any other vocation, has a sober outlook on affairs, and honours its traditions and language and religion and nation. It forms the basis of our national existence. We feel, therefore, that if we want to build up a sound nation in South Africa, then we must insure that we have a sound farming community. Then we want to ensure that unnecessary handicaps and obstacles are removed, we ask also that the agricultural resources be properly opened for use and developed—we want to see as many people as possible placed on the land under good settlement laws, people with a personal love for agriculture, and people who will be suitable settlers. For the strengthening and consolidation of the agricultural industry, we want to make certain proposals. In the first place, we feel that everything should be done to teach our farmers in South Africa that they must look upon their calling as a trusteeship. It is grantetd to the farmer to hold in custody a heritage and to use that to the advantage of the present generation, but also to pass it on inviolate and improved to posterity. Therefore we feel that the State on its side, together with the individual farmer, should adopt comprehensive plans and measures for the reinforcement and insurance of the industry by the combating and prevention, for instance, of soil erosion, soil piracy, and overstocking; water-sheds must be protected and water conservation must receive the closest attention. It should be State policy that water in South Africa should be conserved in all possible ways. Existing irrigation schemes should be assisted; where irrigators have not enough water the supply of water should be augmented. More facilities should be granted individual irrigators to obtain easier loans for the promotion of irrigation in general. As regards boreholes, jackal-proof and other fencing, we say that exceptionally generous assistance should be extended to farmers, particularly in those areas of the country that are perpetually afflicted by great droughts or stock diseases, and we ask in particular that assistance be given those people to enable them to improve and strengthen their farms where they themselves have not the means at their disposal of doing so. The eradication of noxious weeds and the combating of stock diseases must be tackled in a planned way. Then we also feel that more should be done about afforestation, by the State or individually, and that attention should be paid to forest cultivation at watersheds and thus to strengthen the waterresources of South Africa. I have mentioned these things as consolidating measures that must be taken in connection with agriculture by the State in co-operation with the individual, and the best way in which this can be done is to make the novice realise that he must control his industry according to the principle of trusteeship. But we also ask sound scientific guidance for our farmers and constructive investigation and research on the part of the State in order to help our farmers to realise the kernel of existing agricultural problems and to bridge the difficulties with which they have to contend. Therefore we recommend more field officers and agricultural experts. And where we do this we do not want these people, as has been the case generally in the past, to try and give guidance and advice from the platform, nor do we want them to give advice only at agricultural meetings and societies, but we want them to go to the farms and personally give advice at their visits to farms. In that way the guidance they can give will have so much the more meaning. We recommend further that as far as practicable there should be proper agro-economic zoning of the Union in order to develop a balanced agricultural industry. Therefore there must be the correct combination for the different zones to ensure thereby a scientific and balanced division of our agricultural undertakings. We feel in this connection that when such a zone has been demarcated the farmer must adjust himself to what experience and investigations have found to be best for such a zone, and if the farmer does not want to adapt himself then he cannot expect to get the facilities in such a zone as those that will be obtainable in another zone which is considered to be particularly suited to that particular branch of the industry. We thus want such zoning from the side of the State, and it will be of the greatest value. But we also want the financial position of the farmer to become sound. It avails nothing if a farmer adopts consolidation measures to improve his industry, it avails nothing to give him all the scientific guidance, if he is not financially able to develop his industry in the best way. In the first place, therefore, we propose that the farm mortgage problem be tackled. Over-capitalisation of the industry must be remedied and stopped, and we propose that it should be done by a sound farm mortgage redemption scheme. This scheme must have the support of the Government. The difficulties both as regards economic production and retention of the farming community on the farms, is principally due to over-capitalisation. For that reason we want to see the problem tackled at the source, and we say that steps must be taken to remove that impediment. But then we go further. We say that a thorough agricultural survey must be undertaken without delay and a sound system of soil conservation must be formulated, based on the production capacity of the land. When we have such a sound system of soil conservation, we want it to be adopted as a policy that the land shall not be burdened with bonds above a certain level of valuation. When we have done this, and have thereby restricted the farmer’s credit in certain measure, in that he may not have a farm bond heavier than determined, then we say that other credit facilities, long-term as well as short-term, should be effectively and usefully made available to the farmer at reasonable interest, and that the Land Bank must be developed so that by means of the issue of Land Bank debt certificates it can develop as the chief source of agricultural credit in South Africa. Further, if there is a person who no longer has credit because he has taken up bonds to the limit, and has perhaps already been provided with a shortterm loan by the Land Bank so that his credit is exhausted, and if such a farmer has abnormal losses as a result of natural circumstances and is no longer able to proceed with his farming, then we say that in such a case adequate assistance provision should be made. If farmers as a result of circumstances over which they have no control cannot continue their farming they must again be assisted. Further we say that in the case of insolvency a fixed value should be exempted from confiscation. This may be a radical principle, but the hon. Prime Minister will remember that when the Insolvency Law was introduced a few years ago I tried to incorporate the principle by way of an amendment. He was not prepared to accept it, but it is generally felt that if a farmer becomes bankrupt he should not be sold out completely but should be in a position to take up his industry again. We have this in other industries, as in the engineering industry and other vocations, that persons cannot be completely sold out. The material or instruments they require for the prosecution of their vocation cannot be confiscated. Therefore we ask for the agricultural industry that when an agriculturist goes bankrupt he should be left the opportunity to begin again, at any rate as a squatter or a tenant. We go further and say that the State must hold itself responsible for the control of labour facilities, and it must be the duty of the State to provide the farmer with sufficient labour. As regards crops, steps should be taken regarding crop insurance. All too often we find in our country that as a result of natural circumstances over which they have no control individuals suffer damage that could otherwise have been prevented. Therefore we propose crop insurance, and that this be brought about through the medium of the State. It must be a co-operative undertaking to which the farmers will contribute under the existing system of a levy on the first purchaser of a product, and the State must contribute on the £ for £ basis. Many difficulties in the agricultural industry will be removed in this way. Then I want to come to another point, and that is that we want to see agriculture and stock-breeding more supplementary to each other in South Africa. The adaptation of growths to the stock-breeding industry should receive special attention, and practical steps should be taken so that the two industries, agriculture and stock-breeding, shall be complementary the one to the other. Steps should be taken in South Africa to bring about that agriculture and stock-breeding, which need each other for their mutual success, link up better and are more complementary to each other. Therefore we ask improved agricultural production methods and feeding methods and better veld control, and that the Government shall extend’ its co-operation and create better facilities for the storage of fodder supplies by the provision of silos, and particularly through the introduction of fodder banks in South Africa. We feel that fodder banks should be developed in South Africa, and if this is done many difficulties with which our farmers have to contend will disappear. So far I have confined myself more to the production side of agriculture. I have suggested certain things that are necessary for advantageous production and for the improvement of the position in general, but the farmer’s problem is not only one of production but also of marketing, and therefore we want to say in connection with marketing that we stand for a policy of eliminating all price fluctuations and speculations in connection with agricultural products in South Africa. We want a policy providing controlled marketing in toto, and a system of grading of agricultural products, and price fixation for both the producer and the consumer. Therefore we also recommend that co-operative organisations be encouraged and that there shall be State control over municipal markets. We desire State control in order to get orderly marketing in South Africa to the advantage of producer and consumer. Then we say that the internal consumption of agricultural products must be intensively and consistently promoted through expert and effective publicity and better distribution methods. In this connection we want the farming community in South Africa to realise that it is necessary for their own welfare and progress that there should be a good inland market. Our farmers should realise that they are dependent on a good inland market. We want to see the inland markets developed by enhancing the purchasing power of inland consumers and by a higher standard of life for them. As regards the export of agricultural products, we say that all artificial and uneconomic export must be stopped. We want export only for products for which there is a remunerative market overseas, but we do not want South Africa’s products to be exported and dumped abroad, and thereby placing English producers and producers of other countries in a position to compete with us in our own country with our own products. Nor do we want to see the consumer in South Africa put at a disadvantage, as happened recently, e.g., when certain surplus products in our harbours had to be thrown overboard. We want to develop the export market for products for which we cannot otherwise find a good market.

What are you going to do if there is a great surplus of mealies?

We shall utilise such a surplus as far as possible in South Africa by the establishment of factories. It has already been repeatedly suggested that we should convert our surplus mealies into oil, and there is no reason why this should not be done, but if there are further surpluses then there must be grain elevators or storage spaces to carry the surpluses over to the following year. We want to combat uneconomic export in all possible ways, and we want surpluses to be used to the advantage of the country, and not to dislocate or harm the inland markets as happens today. In order to promote and expand our market we urge a healthy system of publicity and the establishment of better trade relations with the exterior, also where other countries want to take our products only on the basis of barter agreements. Before the war we saw how certain countries confined themselves to the use of barter agreements, and if after the war the same principle, is applied by certain countries, then we say on our side that we are willing to find markets for our farmers in the exterior also in that way. Our policy is not to trade and do business with only one country, but with all countries desirous of trading with us and of selling their goods to us. For a sound marketing system internally and externally we require adequate storage space, and that requirement must be seen to in the first place. The big mistake made hitherto is that all the storage space has been centralised at the ports, and even there it was quite inadequate. The cold storages, for instance, were all at the ports, and these facilities must be extended over the whole country so that there can be no repetition of what, for instance, happened during the past week in respect of fresh vegetables. We have seen how during the last few weeks the market has been dislocated and how vegetables have rotted. We want to preclude this through a sound system of marketing and storage. Then we feel that we must give perpetual attention to placing landless persons on the land by means of a sound settlement policy. We want to help suitable persons, or persons who have practical experience of farming, to obtain land where possible. We therefore propose that the State should make available sufficient land for settlement, inter alia, by means of the alienation of great land possession and land companies. Furthermore we propose that settlement shall take place only on a sound economic basis so that we shall not have a repetition of a situation where settlers must perpetually sit on the doorstep of the Government for help. For that reason we say that settlers should be placed on a sound basis, and we also plead that adequate guidance shall be given settlers. We also plead that settlers be protected against conscienceless traders and speculators. There have been too many cases in the past where a certain class of trader has exploited and ruined people placed on State settlements. Co-operative undertakings under State supervision could bring a great improvement, particularly where there is centralised settlement. We have learnt that co-operative undertakings have not only economic value but also moral value, and we are out to cultivate a healthy trade and business morality among our people. That can be achieved through a healthy system of co-operation. I have tried to mention a few things that we would like to have in connection with our agricultural industry. I have indicated what steps are necessary in our opinion to place the agricultural industry on a sound economic basis, and I hope that the people outside will pay attention to our proposals and see to it that they bring a Government into power that realises the significance of the agricultural industry to the people and that will ensure that the industry shall enjoy the necessary protection and support so that it may remain what it has always been—the power station of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t propose following the hon. member in the debate which he has raised on the argricultural question, and the glowing picture which he has painted of the agricultural future of this country. I think the hon. member will agree with me that he has wandered very far from the original motion. The hon. member will see that in practically all that he has said he has made very little reference to the issues which were raised by his leader in the original motion. And, sir, that is one of the difficulties that I have in dealing with this motion of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). The motion does not raise any specific issues, but a whole range of subjects, it is in fact nothing less than a party programme. I think it is his party programme, I think it is an election manifesto. The hon. member has been followed by the other section here, sitting on the opposite benches, whose leader raised points of view not in any specific motion, but by tabling their entire programme from beginning to end of course, with the background that this Parliament will have to be abolished, all parties except their own to be abolished, and you will have to create a new Jerusalem in an atmosphere of Nazi socialism. That is the difficulty that one has in dealing with this motion, this all-embracing motion, raising a programme for the party at the next General Election.

I said you have got no programme.

And the amendment of the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis) raised the same large scope; in fact an entire programme for his party at the next election. I say this is very embarrassing, it is also significant, because one asks oneself why this departure from the procedure which has been followed by the hon. member for Piketberg in other years. At the beginning of the session he has always directly challenged the policy of the Government. He does not do it this time.

Fortunately there is no policy to be challenged in this case.

I think he is getting nervous, I think he has found out that the policy which he has always raised in this House at the beginning of the Session will not do any more. That cock won’t fight, and he knows it, he knows now that we are approaching what he thinks is a blitz election, and that his programme, the policy which he has always followed hitherto in his motion will not serve the purpose of his party at all, and he comes forward now with an entirely new situation from that which he has followed in the past, and been significantly silent upon. He paints us a new picture—

You have not been reading your papers the last few years.

He paints us a picture partly taken from the Atlantic Charter, partly from the programmes of various other parties in this country, and from speeches which he hopes will serve as a sort of propaganda and manifesto for his party at the next election. It seems to me that is really what has happened. He is confessing now the bankruptcy of the policy for which his party has stood, and on which they have challenged this Government year after year, a clear confession of bankruptcy. That policy will not pay any longer, and they must get another horse to run on this occasion.

Surely you can do better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is really worth while following the hon. member. He himself did not elaborate his own scheme, he made some vague general statements and raised some vague general issues, but when it came to details, practical details to carry out that policy, he said no, he was not going into details, and I do not see why I should follow him in the details of his scheme. I leave it to him and to his friends to argue out on the platform these points which he has raised, and to elaborate the picture which he has drawn here. I have never heard the hon. member speaking with more embarrassment, with more indecision, with more fumbling than he has done in this motion, and I do not think it necessary to follow him. I do not think that this is the occasion when we should go into these party polemics, of which the country, and this House is heartily sick. We want to know what is the policy of parties in regard to economic and social reform in this country, and the only substantive point which the hon. member has really raised here which is debatable and which can be adopted by us is this question of a central-economic council. Well, sir, I don’t know whether the hon. member has been asleep, but we have been dealing with this subject for some years now. This party has been busy in a practical way with these questions of social and economic conditions of the country for some years, and I think the best thing I can do today is to give the House, in very brief outline, what we have been doing, not to open a new heaven and a new earth, not to hold out promises and hopes that may never be fulfilled, but to take some actual steps towards improved conditions in times of very great difficulty, in times when we had to carry the whole burden of the war. We have done our best to deal with this problem of internal security at a time when we were busy with the problem of war production on a scale such as this country has never faced before. With all that in mind, we have had regard to the condition of the people and the reforms that will have to be carried out in this country in order to bridge our passage from the present to the time that is coming. Let me tell the House briefly some of the steps we have already taken, the reforms we have already tried to carry out in the last three or four years. In the first place we dealt with the question of an economic bank by establishing the Industrial Development Corporation. In that we established a body which would have the necessary finance to stimulate industrial development, and to supply what was really lacking in our economic system. In order that we might have the full picture before us, we appointed the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission as far back as January, 1940, and they made a report on the fundamentals of an economic policy in October, 1941. That was a most valuable report. I do not think that any blue book, any report has ever been rendered in this country which touches more important issues, which gives more light and leading on the economic policy of South Africa, than the report of that commission. They surveyed the whole field, they dealt with all the fundamental points of view, and principles that we have to keen before us in dealing with our development in the future, and finally they recommended, among other things, the establishment of what they call an economic advisory planning council to guide our development in the future. Well, this planning council was appointed by the Government not exactly in the same form in which it was recommended by the commission. For instance, the commission recommended that there should be a judge to preside over this body. The Government did not think that was necessary, they did not see what useful purpose would be served by having a judicial authority in charge of this commission. The constitution of the commission was somewhat changed, it was enlarged, and it set to work, it has been busy and it has finally reported, and the report has been laid on the Table of the House a few days ago. In this report a number of specific suggestions were made, and among them a number of points of very great importance are raised. There is for instance, the question of re-employment after the war. The commission thought they should deal with this matter of re-employment after the war, and a careful and comprehensive survey of the whole situation that will arise immediately after the war has been made. They made a number of recommendations, and then they went into other questions that await our attention after the war. Let me just deal with a couple of these suggestions. The first was that we should deal with the re-employment of our troops that will be returning after the war. The Planning Council recommended that in view of the very large problems that would face us, in view of the large numbers of men who would return from the war with no prospect of certain employment, the Government should take certain steps. Those steps, sir, are being taken, and I may tell the House in a few words that steps are being taken by us. In the first place, an instruction has been given to our National Supplies Council under Dr. Van der Byl, to have a careful survey made immediately of what steps would be necessary after the war to switch over from war industries to peaceful industries. A vast machinery of production has been created for war purposes, that machinery will come to an end, will cease to function in many respects after the war, and it ought to be possible to plan the switch-over from war production such as is going on at the present, to peaceful civil production which will follow. That instruction has been given, that survey is now being made by Dr. Van der Byl and his organisation, and whatever can be done to plan the change-over, the transformation from war to peace industry, and to see that our energy does not disappear, is not dissipated at the end of the war, but is devoted to civil production thereafter; all these steps are already being surveyed and will in due course be taken. That is one large step which has been taken which will ensure that after the war the machinery for production which is now functioning for war purposes, shall continue with such transformations as are necessary to function for peaceful production. Then another step we are taking is this. Instruction has been given to all Government departments to work out now in as full detail as possible a programme of development which they had ahead of them. Each department has ideas of expansion in future, and it ought to be possible by carefully elaborating those plans, and working out the details, to secure that at the end of the war there will be a great programme of activity ready to be set in motion, capable of absorbing the maximum amount of labour that will be looking for employment.

Very little has been done so far by your Government. The Government has had three years on it.

The Planning Council recommended that these steps be taken, not only by the Government departments but by the provincial authorities, and the municipal authorities to work out a programme within a reasonable time. The result will be that with this preliminary work we shall be able, when the war comes to an end, to know exactly where we stand, and the measure of employment that we shall be able to give to our men. I am fairly hopeful that what with the wise forethought and planning which is now being taken, we shall be able to give a large measure of employment to our men when the war comes to an end. I think the Planning Council has probably exaggerated the number of unemployed with whom we shall be faced after the war, and when I look at the figures which they give here, I do not think we need fear such numbers of unemployed. For instance, in regard to Europeans, they estimate that there will be after the war 80,000 males and 30,000 females unemployed. Certainly in regard to the females, I think a very large proportion will be naturally absorbed into civil life in very many ways which I need not go into. Then in regard to the males, I doubt whether the total number who will claim employment from the Government, will be as large as 80,000. The number of natives unemployed given here is 90,000, and I think that that also is probably an overestimate, I think that with the natural expansion which is taking place, and the increased demand for labour in the country, it will probably be found that this number, and also the number for coloured and Indians—20,000—is exaggerated.

How do you know that?

Whatever can be done by the Government to prepare for the switch-over, to prepare for employment in peace time of the men and women who are now engaged in the war, I think is being done. There are a number of other recommendations of the Council which require a good deal of consideration by the Government; they are important recommendations which require a good deal of thought. But there is one recommendation which we think ought to be carried out, and we are taking the necessary steps. I refer to social security. They recommend that we should take steps as early as possible to deal with questions of social security, which are coming to the fore all over the world. It is one of the major issues today in the whole world situation, and in South Africa it also stares us in the face. A number of schemes have been laid before the Government by various agencies, the subject is very much to the fore here in the country, and rightly so, and it is a subject which above all requires careful exploration in all its aspects, and so that no time should be lost we are appointing a body which will investigate this question. Such a body has now been appointed in the Planning Council, our whole development will take place under this planning Council.

Who is on it; will you tell us?

The reference to this committee of investigation is as follows—

Whatever security we can give will depend on the capacity of this country, the productive capacity of this country. You cannot give more security than is created by the work of the people themselves, and therefore in framing any system of social security you have to bear in mind the productive capacity of the country, and any means that may increase that capacity, so that as the production of the country increases the social security of the people can also be increased. You have to bear that in mind as a cardinal principle. We must also bear in mind provisions which may safeguard the principles of initiative and of responsibility among the people. You do not want people to simply live on the mercy of the Government; nothing could be worse for this country than to have anything approaching even a dole system, or any system which takes from the people a sense of independence, of self-respect, of responsibility and of initiative, which are basic principles in the progress of any country and any society. The committee, in making their recommendations to the Planning Council, will have to take due regard to these fundamental considerations. The committee consists of Dr. H. J. van Eck, who will be chairman, Prof. H. B. Burrows, Dr. P. Allan, the head of the Medical Survey; Mr. G. A. C. Kuschke, of the Social Welfare Department; Mai. D. A. Pirie, Mr. W. J. G. Mears; Senator J. D. F. Briggs with Dr. F. J. Biljon as secretary. This is a committee which will work out in detail the scheme for social security, it will take into consideration the schemes which have been submitted already by the public and on other occasions, and they will frame some plan which can be perhaps bettered by the Planning Council, because they will give their report to the Planning Council, whose final scheme will be considered by the people and Parliament of this country. I think, sir, that for the improvement of conditions in this country, a great deal more will have to be done even than any measure of social security. There is no doubt that social security in the sense it is ordinarily understood, is only part of the problem in front of us. If we want to have due regard for social welfare, if we want to plan a society in this country which is really going to move forward to be a happy prosperous community, we shall want not only social security in the ordinary and limited sense, but we shall have to raise the whole level of society, we shall have to look after public health, which seems to me co be probably the basic problem of all, all classes, all colours. The whole question of public health to my mind, is one of the gravest issues of this country. Social security is only one aspect of a planned scheme of social welfare, and it is not only a question of public health but of housing. Our housing conditions leave much to be desired, and although a good deal has already been done, and although much money has already been spent on housing, a good deal more will have to be done, and many more special steps will have to be taken to secure for our people an adequate system of housing. I believe we have already in recent years allocated or spent as much as £18,000,000 for housing, a great deal of money has already been spent, and much more will have to be spent, and I think probably principles will have to be changed, in order that housing conditions may be placed on a wholesome basis in this country.

Now I am sure we are getting an election.

Then there is the question of nutrition, the feeding of the people, which is again something apart from social security in the narrower sense. There is no doubt that in the light which we now have on feeding problems, on the whole question of nutrition, much more will have to be done in future in making proper provision for the health and feeding of our people than we have done hitherto. In all three respects steps have already been taken which will have to be developed in future. We have already a nutrition council working, which is continuing research and elaborating the steps which should be taken for the proper feeding of the people. We have a Housing Board, and that will have to be tightened up, and the work accelerated. A Commission on Public Health has just been appointed, presided over by a very able hon. member of this House, which I think will guide this House and the country generally in regard to this question of a wise health policy for this country in the future. Steps have been taken in all these respects, but we cannot say that what has been done is in any sense adequate, and it may be that much more will have to be done. A careful exploration is now taking place, and we shall be able, afterwards, to consider these questions in the light of that careful investigation. With proper knowledge of all the schemes, Parliament and the Government will be able to take action in the light of full knowledge of all the aspects of these various problems. Sir, I think that is the proper way to set about this whole question of social and economic difficulties. We have this Planning Council now, which will be the directing agency of this great move on the part of our people towards a better future. It is quite impossible for us in this House, oppressed as we are with political issues which take up all our time, it is quite impossible for us to enquire into these difficult economic and financial questions. There should be, side by side with Parliament, an expert council to guide our work, and I look upon this Planning Council as something fundamental something of far-reaching importance which, if it prove fruitful will give us a solution of many of the problems which face democracy today. This Planning Council which we have started has asked for statutory status; that was the recommendation of the council itself, but we felt that the time is not ripe for that yet. The Planning Council is in the experimental stage, it has a chance in a great crisis in this country, to make good, it can guide our footsteps over difficult ground which we shall have to cover in the next few years, and I can quite understand that if the Planning Council does its work properly and produces to us schemes which are well thought out, the Council may become a very important link in the whole system of democracy as it will work in this country. It will be an adjunct to Parliament, an expert social and economic adjunct to Parliament, and be able to provide us with the advice and guidance which we want in these respects. That is our plan. The Planning Council has made recommendations which we are carrying out, and I think, sir, that without promising a new heaven and a new earth to our people, we can at any rate give them this assurance, that we have taken the necessary steps, we have adopted the necessary means, to move forward on wise, sound and well thought out lines, towards a better social and economic state of affairs in the future. I don’t want to make promises which may not be carried out. The hon. gentleman over there has painted a picture of agriculture, which neither I nor he will see carried out in our day.

Why not?

Well, has it been done in all the years that you were in power? That is the trouble, Mr. Speaker, to make promises which cannot be carried out within a reasonable time, and to make people feel that there is some insincerity and dishonesty about politics. Don’t let us proceed on those lines. Let us take the course which has been adopted by the Government in this case, a careful planning and working out on sound lines of enquiry, the steps that will have to be taken in the future.

It is abundantly clear that the Prime Minister should rather confine himself to matters in regard to which he feels more at home, such as for instance paying tributes to Comrade Stalin or the defence of his policy to arm natives and coloured people. When we are dealing with a serious subject such as this one he should rather leave it to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) to answer. The Prime Minister’s whole reply was nothing but a series of vague and insignificant remarks. He spoke a lot about planning, but he was not able to show us what his Government had done so far except to appoint Commissions. That is all they have done so far. They appoint Commissions and afterwards matters have to right themselves on their own. The Prime Minister started off by asking why we had not proposed another vote of no confidence, seeing that we had proposed such votes regularly in former Sessions, but I remember only too well that when a motion of that kind was last introduced by the Opposition, this self same Prime Minister and his friends behind him said: “Here you are again with a vote of no confidence, cannot you come along with something else?” Well, today we have put forward something else. We are the Opposition and we are not in power. We are not in a position today to do those things which we want to do, and we cannot carry out the plans which we have in mind. We come here, as an Opposition with our alternative policy, with our policy for the future, but the Prime Minister gets up and says, “Why did you not rather introduce a vote of no confidence?” He said that he was not going to follow the Leader of the Opposition in his polemics. But immediately afterwards, and especially towards the end of his speech, he very definitely did follow the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister devoted a great deal of time to the question of medical services, particularly to the housing question. These are two of the matters in respect of which there are no platitudes in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, but these are two matters in connection with which a very definite policy is laid down. It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister has not taken the trouble to study this very serious and very important motion. And if he has not read it and not studied it how can he have the temerity to reply to it? He has held forth at length on national health and on housing. Here we have it in this motion that we urge—

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that he did not want to follow along the lines set by the Leader of the Opposition, yet he did so right throughout his speech. In regard to these two points, the policy which the Prime Minister is now proclaiming is one which has been taken over from this side of the House. Let us also take the Planning Council which the Prime Minister has had such a lot to say about. What is that Planning Council but the Central Economic Council which this side of the House has been advocating for a number of years. Would there ever have been anything like that if the idea had not comes from this side of the House? It is an imitation and a very poor imitation of our policy. The Prime Minister says that he is not following along the lines of the Leader of the Opposition. He has done so but he has achieved nothing. The Prime Minister spoke about industries. The Industrial Corporation which he referred to—what is that but the idea of an Industrial Bank which this side of the House has been urging for time after time during the past few years? Would there ever have been an Industrial Corporation if we had not put forward the idea of an Industrial Bank? And the same applies to other matters. If there is one thing which we as an Opposition have been pleading for in the last few years it is a Mortgage Bond Redemption Scheme, and last year the Minister of Finance got up here and announced that he was going to introduce a redemption scheme. It was not on the same lines as our scheme, and it was not as good as ours. So they are busy taking over our economic policy, and they are busy imitating our economic policy, and yet the Prime Minister comes here and tells us that he is not going to follow the Leader of the Opposition in his polemics! Let us go back for a moment to the history of the Nationalist Party. The industrial policy which we are pursuing in South Africa today—the fact that South Africa is full of industries today—is not that due to the Nationalist Party? Would an Industrial Corporation ever have been established if the industrial policy had not been laid down by the Nationalist Party? Take this question of settlements. Was it not the Nationalist Party which came forward with the one-tenth system which made it also possible for the poor to get possession of Crown lands? We showed the way which they are trying to follow, but they are following it in a very poor fashion. All we got today from the Prime Minister in regard to this matter was very vague and very unsatisfactory. With a wave of his hand he referred to the Atlantic Charter and all the rest of it. But did the Prime Minister in his speech tell us anything concrete? Nothing. “Instructions have been issued”. That is what we heard right throughout his speech. Instructions have been issued to enquire into this and to enquire into that, but can the Prime Minister point to anything concrete that his Government has done during the past three years? All they have been thinking of has been the war. There is money for the war but for nothing else, and as long as this Government remains in power we shall never get any further. The Prime Minister tells us that we don’t read the newspapers, but I am afraid that he does not read them. Hasn’t he read what his own papers say? If he has read them he must have seen that even among his own supporters today there is serious dissatisfaction at the Government’s neglect of these very important problems. The Prime Minister said that he did not think much of the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. This motion aims at a complete change in our social and economic system; it more specifically aims at the removal of the evils which, under the British liberal system, the laissez faire system, have found a footing in South Africa. In our country, too, we find as a result of that system, great wealth and great poverty alongside of each other. The motion which we have introduced contemplates not only the removal of those evils, but it also contemplates a better employment of our national resources. It contemplates eventual economic independence for our country, and it further contemplates the raising of the general standard of living of the people as a whole. That, broadly, is the object of the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. We want to bring about a general change, a general revolution in the economic structure of our country, with its many sections and its many branches, and I particularly wish to direct my attention today to one branch, namely, that of Commerce and Industry, and when I say industry I am referring more particularly to what we know as secondary industries. I don’t want to quote any figures because figures can be quoted to prove all kinds of things, and I don’t think it is necessary for me to quote figures for the purpose of this debate. I only want to mention the general principles which we stand for in regard to our future industrial policy. We have progressed very far since the days of 1924. In those days the principle was upheld that South Africa should only produce, should only provide the agricultural and the raw materials, while England should manufacture, and we must buy from England. But thanks to the policy of the Nationalist Party of those days, and thanks particularly to the policy of the late Mr. Willie Beyers, who was Minister of Commerce and Industries in those days, a new policy was introduced in South Africa. The days when we only concerned ourselves with production have passed. There is no need for me to go into details on the question of the benefits of an industrial policy. There are very few people who really take an interest in our country who are not fully aware of those benefits. Such benefits as the creation of markets for primary products, the creation of employment facilities for the inhabitants of the country, the improvement of our trade balance on account of our not having to import certain commodities, and naturally also the building up of our own export trade, especially in the areas to the north of the Union—those benefits are obvious. This motion introduced by this side of the House primarily contemplates further expansion of our industries. It contemplates that that expansion, when it takes place, also in regard to existing industry, will take place on certain conditions and under certain circumstances. Those conditions and those circumstances have to apply not only to industries of the future but also to industries which are already in existence, and in the fourth place the motion contemplates the removal of those evils which in the past few years have made their way into our industrial system. In regard to the first two points which I mentioned, the attitude of this side of the House is that the establishment of new industries must be encouraged. That is axiomatic, and I need not elaborate that point. We further say that if new industries are established they have to be on an economic basis, they have to be on a sound economic basis. Hon. members will now ask me what we mean by a sound economic basis. My answer is that where a new industry is established the question must be asked whether such an industry has a right to exist, and if it is of such a nature that it can continue to exist. The further question arises whether the necessary raw materials are available for that industry, and whether sufficient quantities of that raw material are available in this country, whether there is a demand for the particular product, and whether there are not already sufficient industries of that particular kind in the country. And then, of course, there is the question of sound finance. But I want to add to that that while such tests must be applied, those tests must not be made too severe, they must not be so severe that they will have a restraining effect on the development of industries, because we must always take into consideration the factor of assistance by the State, assistance by the State which is already being given in the shape of tariff protection. The principle of State encouragement and State support for industries has already been adopted, and the most important type of assistance by the State in South Africa so far has always been by means of tariff protection and also by means of dumping tariffs. That type of assistance by the State will continue in future, and it is possible that in South Africa, too, we shall perhaps have to provide for a further type of State aid in the same way as in certain other countries, by way of import licences. Wherever State encouragement is given in the form of a protective tariff it must be done under certain, conditions, and it must be done not only in regard to future industries, but those conditions must also apply to industries already existing in the country. Secondly, those industries must be subject to the condition that certain evils which have already made their way into our industrial life are to be done away with. The principle of tariff protection is axiomatic to my mind. It was agreed, however, in the past, that tariff protection should be afforded under certain conditions, although those conditions were not always carried out in practice. For instance, it was always understood that the State must give protection as long as an industry requires protection, but it also became axiomatic in regard to so-called infant industries that they always remained infant industries, and that they never grew up. It is essential, however, to impose certain restrictions on the granting of State aid by means of protective tariffs, and special care must be taken that the cost of living of the population is not raised unduly as a result. In the third place such State aid by means of protection must not have the effect of industrialists being enriched at the expense of the consumer and of the producer of the raw materials. I have not got the time at this junction to go into the details of this scheme, I am only putting forward these doctrines. I now come to another point and that is that we on this side of the House divide our industries into two classes; first the key industries, and secondly those industries which for convenient’s sake I shall call ordinary industry. Key industries I would define as being industries of special national importance, industries of importance to the country as a whole; and secondly, industries which are of particular importance to the primary producer because they are large consumers of agricultural products. Such industries, which are of such great importance to the State and to the people as a whole, and also to the producers of primary products, will be declared to be key industries by the State; but that is not all. What we do contemplae is that the type of industry such as Iscor will be established by the State. In Iscor we have an instance of a key industry. If the State itself does not establish such an industry it must at any rate have the controlling share in/or control of the industry. There is for instance the manufacture of arms and ammunition. That is the type of industry which, as a result of the war, may possibly expand in South Africa. If there is one industry which should be under State control it is an arms and ammunition industry. Then there is the textile industry. There we have an industry which is of the greatest importance to one of the large interests in this country, namely our wool-farming industry. Efforts have been made to start a textile industry in South Africa but not with any great degree of success, except in regard to the manufacture of blankets, but certainly not so far as woollen materials are concerned. We feel that textiles are of such importance to the wool farmers that the industry very definitely is one which can be classified as a key industry. That is all I want to say about the key industries. Now I come to the second class, namely the ordinary industries. The policy of this side of the House is that as regards ordinary industries they must be left to provide initiative, but that the liberalistic principle of laissez faire must be removed, and that in its place we must have a certain degree of State control. Such State control will be in the interest of the consumer as well as of the producer and also in the interest of the industry itself. Hon. members may possibly ask me what we mean by State control, what our intentions are. The intention in the first place is to ensure that industries are established on a sound economic basis. That is to ensure that in South Africa there shall not arise what I might call a new industrial capitalism and that no exorbitant profits will be allowed in industry, profits made at the expense of the consumers and also at the expense of the producers of raw materials. State control is also essential for the proper protection of the investors and the shareholders. State control is necessary to combat the possibility of there arising in South Africa, as has happened in other countries, of cartels, monopolies, holding companies, and all the rest of it. It is very difficult to exterminate monopolies—that I realise—but we feel that we shall be able to curtail it by means of State control. Now the question arises how State control is to be secured and what form it is to assume. It will assume two forms, the first will be by giving special powers to the State. In the past few years we have seen what can be done by way of regulations and perhaps that is something which we have learnt from those regulations. There is an old saying, “It is an ill wind which blows nobody any good.” Possibly we have learnt something from this, and it is possible that we may realise that in future greater powers should be given to the State, to enable the State to interfere in special circumstances, but what is of more importance is this: we contemplate a system of State control by means of licences—that is to say, that all industries in future must be licensed, and that applies not only to industrial undertakings of the future but also to existing industries. By means of such a system of licensing the State obtains effective control. Licensing so far has not been effective because the licences have been merely intended as a form of securing revenue. A licence once granted is hardly ever withdrawn and it is very rarely not renewed. What we contemplate is an expansion of the licensing system. There must be a licence for every industrial undertaking in the country, but also with this condition attached, that such a licence can be withdrawn by the State at any time. Apart from these factors which I have mentioned—and I have not got the time to go into details—there are certain other matters for which the system of licensing can also be used. One of those is a matter which will have to receive attention, and that is the question to what extent we are going to allow foreign concerns to have branches here in South Africa. The principle of branches of foreign concerns is a sound one. We have derived great benefits from it so far, but in spite of the position which prevailed in the past we contemplate the laying down of a condition that if a foreign company establishes a branch here in South Africa that branch is to be regarded as a South African enterprise and it must be under the control of Union citizens only. In that way we shall remove the possibility of foreign control. Then there is a second and very important point in connection with which we shall probably be very severely criticised, and it is this, that in the issuing of licences in respect of industrial undertakings the two principal races in this country will be taken into account; and the policy which has been adopted and proclaimed by this side of the House is that preference will be given to applicants belonging to the two main races in this country, that is, to the Afrikaans speaking and English speaking races of this country. We have already laid down the principle on this side of the House by means of motions and by legislation which we have introduced, that the Jewish race is regarded as a foreign an unassimilable race. We now declare that in the granting of licences in future, and also in regard to existing industries, that fact will be taken into account. Our policy is that the State in future will grant licences on the percentage or quota basis, that is to say, in accordance with the numerical strength of the Jewish race of this country. The principle is a new one, but it is a principle which is in the interest of the two principal races of South Africa. The time has come for drastic action to be taken for the sake of both the English speaking and Afrikaans speaking sections of the community. Then there is another matter too which can be regulated by means of the licensing system, and that is the question of the geographical distribution of industries, that is to say, to ensure that industries will not be concentrated too much in a few centres, and especially to ensure that the platteland will get its legitimate share of those industries, particularly with a view to the consumption of agricultural products. Now I come to the question of what in future is going to be the position of the employee in our industries in regard to wages, working hours and so forth. This is a matter which was discussed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) when he made his contribution to this debate. I may say briefly that our policy is to have wages and working hours controlled by the State, but we also propose the introduction of a new principle, and that is that in regard to key industries—those industries which are declared by the State to be key industries, or which are established by the State, or in which the State has a controlling share and exercises control—in those industries the principle of profit sharing will be introduced, also so far as the workers are concerned. I know that this is a radical new principle which possibly will come as a shock to many people in South Africa; yet it is a principle which has been applied for many years, only it has been applied in a different form. At Iscor we have the bonus system, and in America it has for many years been the policy of large companies to give their employees a share in the profits by issuing shares to those employees. That is done regularly. Those shares are either presented to them at the end of the year or the workers in particular industries are given the opportunity of buying shares at a very low price. The idea of this scheme is that of co-ownership, and that idea has already been adopted. We now propose that in regard to key industries that principle shall also be adopted, and that it shall be adopted on a certain scale—the details of which can be worked out—there will be a division of profits and the worker will be paid his legitimate share of the profits so that he may feel he also has a share in the industry. We hope that once this principle has been introduced into the key industries it will gradually extend to the ordinary private industries in the country. Another principle which we stand for is that of granting aid to new and small undertakings. It is true that we have the Industrial Corporation in existence today, but that Industrial Corporation is only part of the policy which this side of the House has advocated, namely the establishment of an Industrial Bank. We also stand for aid to new and small enterprises. A small enterprise which has already been established, or an existing enterprise which wants to expand but requires capital, could be assisted in this way. The Industrial Corporation unfortunately is only intended, or is mainly intended, for large industry.

No, that is not so.

Well, that was the original idea. We want to assist the small industries, and we say that the small industrialist must be assisted by means of an Industrial Bank, or by the extension of the functions of the existing Industrial Corporation. A further principle we stand for is that of segregation. That, too, is a principle which this side of the House has advocated for years, namely that in our industries there is to be proper segregation between European and nonEuropean. It is quite possible that the principle of segregation will also be extended in another direction. I have only enumerated general principles today in regard to our industrial policy. We believe that if these principles are adopted the establishment and development of industries will take place on a sound basis, not in the interest of the industrialist himself, but also in the interest of the consumer, in the interest of the man who supplies the raw materials, and also in the interest of the man working in the industry. Now I come to the second point, and that is the question of marketing. If one has an industry which is producing, the products of that industry have to be sold; thus we have the local market, but the foreign market has also to be provided for. In regard to local trade, I do not propose saying very much. There, too, however, stricter control will be exercised by means of licences. I am not speaking of the type of licences which we have had in the past. Those licences only constituted a source of revenue; I am referring to licences which are issued but which for some good reason or another can again be withdrawn. By means of licences care will have to be taken against the possibility of overtrading. Overtrading is an evil which we find today in our retail trade in South Africa, and steps will have to be taken against that sort of thing in future. Then there is the evil of agreements entered into between retail traders and wholesale traders, with a view to cutting out competition. This sort of thing is achieved by means of differential prices and by refusing supplies. It is an evil which will have to be done away with, and it can be done by special powers being given to the State and also by the withdrawal of licences. But at the same time action will have to be taken in the retail trade and also in the wholesale trade, exactly as in industry, to ensure that the English and Afrikaans sections of the population, the two principal races of this country, will obtain a legitimate share. In trade and commerce too a quota system will have to be brought into being, to ensure protection being given to the Afrikaans and English section of the population against the ever increasing hold which the Jews have on trade. And not only in trade and commerce but also in the professions and other vocations in the country it is necessary that some such steps should be taken. The Jewish population constitutes from 5 to 6 per cent. of the total population and they already have from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of those vocations and professions in their hands. Consequently, in trade and in vocations and professions the quota system will have to be introduced. We therefore say that we give notice that it will be our policy in future to take action in that direction. I now come to the question of our foreign trade. There is no country in the world which is able to supply all its own needs, nor is there any country which is able to consume the whole of its own production. That is why we have import and export—that is to say, foreign trade. Here again, I can only attempt to set out our policy in broad lines. The days of free trade have long since past. Even England, the last stronghold of free trade has been forced to relinquish it. And today, throughout the whole world, there are high tariff walls, importation is prohibited, and there are all kinds of regulations, with the result that it has become necessary to regulate foreign trade and to control it by means of trade agreements. In the past, so far as our foreign trade was concerned, we used to divide it practically into two separate sections. We had our trade with England and the British Empire, and we had our trade with the rest of the world. Number one, that is to say our trade with the British Empire, was regulated by what is known as the system of preferential rates, and as regards number two, that was usually regulated, sometimes in a very injudicious manner, by means of agreements. I am not going to go into any details on the question of preferential rates to Great Britain, except to say that the policy of this side of the House is that British preference, that is the preference to England and the Dominions, will be abolished. Our policy is to place England on an equal footing with other countries in the world. I want to add this, that in regard to the policy of preferential rates of the past we have found that that policy has benefited England very much more than South Africa. But we also had the other extraordinary fact, that when it suited England’s purpose she did not hesitate to give preference to the Argentine at the expense of South Africa in regard to the buying of meat. The South African producers were turned down. We say that the preferential rates policy will be done away with, and that there will be no distinction between the Empire and other countries—that is to say if there is still an Empire and if Joe Stalin and Franklin Roosevelt have not inherited the British Empire. Our trade relations with foreign States, including England, will be regulated by means of trade agreements, and those trade agreements will be entered into, taking into consideration the principle of quid pro quo and of existing trade balances. In other words, we shall adopt the attitude, which is also adopted in other countries, but which we have not observed in the past, namely that we are going to buy from those who buy from us, and secondly, that we are going to take the trade balance into account; and on those lines we are going to enter into trade agreements. I admit that we cannot lay down any fixed rules in this regard, and that there may be circumstances when that rule will not answer, but generally speaking that will be the basis of our foreign trade policy. It will mean that England will have the same opportunity of competing for trade agreements or tariff concessions as any other country; and if England continues to be a good buyer of our products, as she used to be in the past, well, to the extent that England buys from us England will get concessions from South Africa. We had this position in the past, that France bought six times more from South Africa that South Africa bought from France; yet so far as concessions were concerned France was still in a disadvantageous position. There will be no favouritism. In regard to what I have said, that when trade agreements are entered into, we shall take the principle of quid pro quo, and of the existing trade balances into account…. [Time limit.]

Sir, I have been in this House five years, but I have never outgrown what I think is a natural and right feeling of awe for it. It comes upon me very strongly this afternoon, when I am called upon to make a plea which requires much more eloquence than I shall ever possess. Moreover, owing to a little indisposition, I have come here straight from bed, and I propose to scramble back into that bed when this effort is over. I mention that because it will probably make my speech even more dud than usual, and I do not want hon. members to condemn the prisoner at the bar, because I myself, as defending counsel, am a little bit extra cock-eyed. I want to move the following further amendment to the one which stands in the name of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan)—

In doing this, sir, I would point out that most of the proposals contained in the original motion represent steps towards a socialist state. The Prime Minister seemed to me rather to ridicule that original motion as an election manifesto. Well, it may be that; it is a very good one as far as it goes, and I wish to prove that by a quotation from it—

Mr. Speaker, my amendment merely carries that to the logical conclusion, and I have every confidence in asking the hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his motion and support my amendment. In one respect, sir, and one only, it is a good thing that my Party has inspanned me to move this amendment.

Where is your party?

I happen to be a cautious sort of a cove who does not take very much for granted. Therefore, though Presidents and Prime Ministers and goodness-knows-who have of late gone around prophesying of an impending social Paradise, I have not yet indented for my personal equipment of wings and harp! Rome was not built in a day, nor will a vicious social system be replaced by a virtuous one in a week, or a month, or a year. Nobody is going to fluke a lucky law or two, and thereby at once transform South Africa (or any other country) from darkness to light. I have no particular respect for teachers or preachers or politicians who expatiate on the delights of heaven without showing us the way to get there. A good portion of my time will therefore be devoted to the means which I consider most important of all to the end we have in view’, that of a happy, healthy and secure community. It may be that I shall have to keep the House, or a few long-suffering members of it, for the best part of forty minutes, and if that is so, I think I had better give them a smile at this stage, if they can smile, by reading them an extract from that well-known work, Sir Thomas More’s “Utopia”. To make a serious reference to it in an Assembly such as ours, is, I believe, accepted as a joke indeed! Well, sir, here it is. And I hope everybody enjoys it:

The Utopians were, of course, quaint people, and held all things in common, and maintained that such a plan was the only one that truly deserved the name of a commonwealth—

Mr. Speaker, that is better English and better sense than is sometimes heard in this House. For more than 400 years it has been the fashion for Governments, whether claiming to be Democratic or otherwise, to sneer at this book and its doctrine. You will remember, sir, what the weaker minded brethren will undoubtedly have forgotten, that in 1523 its author was appointed Speaker of the English House of Commons. A long, long time ago; and from that date to this, Governments have wanted, or said they wanted, these very same blessings for their peoples. They have known, presumably, of a better and more practicable way. But it did not work. We have heard a good deal this afternoon about what is to be done and what may be done. One of the things that has been done is that we have been led straight into war, the bloodiest war of all history. But perhaps I had better leave the plan proposed 400 years ago, and go on to quote some literature which is more practical, more sensible, or at least more up-to-date. I will give you, Mr. Speaker, an extract dealing with one or two very modern profit-making institutions, models de luxe. It is taken from the “Cape Times” of January 21st, 1943, and it deals with our own Auditor-General’s report for the past year. This is the modern literature on present-day profit-making:

That is an aspect of the profit-making system to which, Mr. Speaker, we are still subject. It is one way, though probably not the best way, of participating in the war effort. I do not approve of it. I do not think these methods are as good as those outlined by old-fashioned Sir Thomas More. My seconder will probably go into some detail as to the injustice and follies of competitive profit-making. All I need do is to touch upon its main tenet and its broadest and most obvious consequences. The creed of private profit-making is a very sordid one. It is merely to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. Apart from filling the pockets of its votaries, it has the immediate result of low wages for workers and primary producers, including farmers, and high prices to consumers—the general public. It has the contingent consequence, too, Sir, of starvation for hundreds and thousands of our people. Another resulting condition is bad housing, because hundreds and thousands of people cannot afford to pay the high rental that is charged for decent dwellings. Sickness and disease constitute a third result of profit-making, involving suffering for the people, loss of labour and production, and the cost of hospitalisation. A fourth consequence is a great deal of unnecessary crime, which has a degrading effect on the criminals themselves, once more cuts out manpower, and puts us to the equally unnecessary expense of maintaining prisons and the like. The effects, within a given nation, can be summed up in a sentence. To permit the seizing of too much wealth by a few spells want for the people as a whole. Externally, internationally, this profitmaking business is equally bad. It causes war. I do not believe there is an intelligent person in the world who doubts that profitmaking is predominantly the cause of war. All persons of sound mind are aware that behind the rigmarole of explanations, behind all the official propaganda reasons that are given, and behind that much-advertised one that war is the result of an ideological conflict, being caused by the clashing of two absolutely antipathetic ideas—behind that nonsense, for nonsense it is, is the plain and primary fact that money can be made out of war, just as the making of money led up to it. We are not immersed in war because of any irreconcilable antipathy between two ideas, but because too many people in all nations had one and the same idea—to make profit at the expense of the others. Is there no cure for it at all; is there no way out? It is as well to speak bluntly, alike to Socialists and non-Socialists. I do not think there is any magic way, or any cheap or easy way. I think to remedy things that are very bad, and to get things that you need, assuming that you wish to remain honest (or to become honest), you must pay either in coin or labour. If we want a better world and better conditions for our people, we shall have to pay for it, and paying is not Very pleasant. What did it cost the German nation to produce that very mighty and very efficient army that it is operating today? It cost them 20 years or more of deprivation, of self-denial and education too, although of education in a wrong way. What did it cost the Russian people to produce their army, that army so magnificent in valour, skill, endurance, and self-sacrifice? What did it cost the Russian people to transform their peasants into engineers, designers of aeroplanes, and uncomparable builders of great guns and ships? It cost them what Mr. Churchill has called “blood and sweat and tears” for well over 20 years. What it cost Russia was just this, the giving up of the profit-making system; a Joss of money, to gain a soul. And if, Mr. Speaker, we truly want a better South Africa, we also have to pay for it. We have to go more or less the Russian way, not the way of blood-baths, but the way of renunciation. Listen to President Roosevelt, speaking to the International Labour Conference in 1941: “There must be no place after the war, in all the world, for special privileges for either individuals or nations.” The Russian Government has carried that out already for close on a quarter of a century. Under their jurisdiction there are literally hundreds of nations, and many of them twenty years ago had an alphabet, let alone writing or books, but the policy carried out by the Russian Government over this long period has guaranteed to every human being equal opportunity. They have guaranteed to every human being his fair share of food, of clothing and of shelter; they have guaranteed him education, they have guaranteed him the chance to grow in body, mind and spirit to the greatest degree that he has in him. I would ask this, is South Africa prepared to do the same thing for the humbler sections of our country, as Russia has done for hers? Are we prepared to give these things, this fulfilment of body and of mind, not only to the poorest European people, but also to the Coloured people and to the Native people, all of them, and to the Indians? It may be that many of our people are already prepared to do that, but there are also some who are not so prepared, and the only way out of our dilemma that I can see is the way of a very greatly improved education. We have heard this afternoon a good deal about planning, but the planning seemed to me to have to do mostly with machinery and industrial products. But education is primarily concerned with people, not things. When the people are right, the distribution of wealth will be right, and not until then. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that what we need if we really are planning a better world, is a better system of education, one that will attach less importance to the intellect, and very much more to the heart and to character. Why is it humanity in the mass cannot see that this enriching of unscrupulous people by profit, at the cost of crushing down their neighbours, is wrong? How is it that people cannot see, in the mass, that this is a mean and cruel and unnecessary thing today? Why, Mr. Speaker, does not humanity realise that the best things of life, things like friendship and the respect of others, cannot be bought by money at all? Money has, after all, only a limited value. Why is it that so many people go on heaping up possessions which they cannot possibly use? It is, in a word, because we are afraid of one another. And why are we afraid of one another? It is because of the very maladroit way in which we have been educated; we have been brought up to be afraid of each other, and we need not be. Even when I went to Sunday School, because I had a memory and could therefore say the Collect a little bit better than somebody else, they gave me a prize, a prayer-book. The next year they gave me a Bible. At day-school it was much the same. I got all the prizes that were going, “How Frank began to Climb”, “Eric, or Little by Little”, and so on. So it went on through every residential school and college I attended. The authorities deliberately made my fellowworkers and my friends into my competitors. They turned them, in a true sense, into my opponents, and perhaps in effect into my enemies. Why was there this competition, giving prizes here and withholding them there? Why did that have to be brought into education at all? It is a case of “like father, like son”; it is because national education had its birth in the factory, and the factory mark is on it still. If I may have permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to give five minutes to the history of education. In 1802 the first Education Act was passed in Britain. It was to reduce the daily working hours of orphan children to twelve hours, after which they were to be taught reading, writing and arithmetic, and church attendance was to be compulsory on the Sunday. The Bill was introduced by Sir Robert Peel, the Prime Minister. He made a curious speech; he said that he himself employed very nearly 1,000 orphan children in his mills, and on his infrequent visits he was very shocked by the pool’ physical health and stunted growth that they displayed. So the Bill was brought in. It became law, but it was a dead letter until 1833. Southey, the man who wrote “The Life of Nelson”, said about this mixture of factories and child labour and education—this orphan-training scheme:

And so in England, in 1833, they brought in that second Education Act, which paid the schoolmaster, if he was lucky, £40 a year to make him “passing rich”, and the Act carried a vote of £20,000 for education, which worked out at less than a farthing per head of the population! I submit that that showed the Government attitude to education for the people then, and it is not so very different today. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that attitude of Authority towards public education is still persisting, a sort of way of throwing a bone to a dog, and it won’t do. If you want better people you must teach them better, there is no short cut anywhere. If the people were right they would do right, but they have no chance to be right. We are not much better now in the way we treat the teachers. If you compare the earnings of a dentist with that of the principal of a school, you will see what I mean. I have nothing against dentists, most of whom, I am sure, are charming and capable men. But a dentist, if normally competent and popular, would be surprised if he did not earn £100 a month, whereas he would be surprised as a teacher if he got £50. If we give £100 a month to people who draw material teeth, what ought we to pay to people who provide teeth for the mastication of intellectual food? Have we not got the cart before the horse in a number of instances, and notably in allowing such poor payment to a teacher and in failing to understand how great his vocation is. This failure is the index to our misunderstanding of the whole position. In any nation, it is the children who matter most. The children are the future; and the children are in the hands of the teacher. If we did give to our children a true sense of values, most of the other improvements that we want would follow naturally. Was it not Plato who said in his “Republic” that the probability was that the direction given by education would determine the course of all that followed? “Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old he will not depart from it.” Can it be done, can we from these benches or any other benches, give any constructive idea as to how the children of the future shall be prepared for a better and happier life? Have we any suggestions to make to free our grandchildren from the oppression and obsession entailed by this profit-making fetish and the rest? We can do it, by treating Education as what it really is, the matter of most importance in the life of the State, making it adequate and free, and available to absolutely all. Let me hastily set forward, in broadest outline, five steps which will help citizens of the future to live happily, without the doubtful delights of financial profit-making. First of all, Nursery Schools must be set up, in sufficient numbers to do their job properly. In some districts we shall need almost so many Nursery Schools as there are “pubs.” What a child experiences in his very early years has a great effect upon his physique, and his morals, and in some respects on his mentality. It becomes then a public duty to see that the environment of our tiny children, from two to five years old, shall be the best that can be given. During the time, the intermediate time, in which we pass from very bad social conditions to what we hope will be good, the homes will still be small, and dark, and sometimes even dirty, because soap has to be paid for. We must take away the children from such surroundings. The effect of doing so and of putting them into garden schools, or buildings that are light, large and airy need not, I think, be argued. We want to give these children into the hands of expert teachers who have been specially trained and who are specially fond of them, and their main instruction should be, not from books but by games, to live socially, that is to be happy without harming and hampering others. Then we need a change in our primary schools, a change along co-operative lines. Once more, prizes are not in the least required. The prefect system in public schools shows that the way of service rather than reward is much the better way. What we want in the primary schools is that each shall help the other, that the weak shall be led and helped by the stronger; and that can easily be if we provide that there is a place in the secondary schools for each of them. Every child will then be a teacher, the teacher will not be harrassed, and no more children will “creep unwillingly to school.” The primary school must be provided for all. I am thinking of a disgraceful thing which appeared in the Press recently about there being insufficient accommodation for 6,000 Coloured children in schools in the Cape Town district alone. That is absolutely wrong and it must be altered; and just as the Coloured children are entitled to schooling, so are the Native children, each and every one. There is one other little change that one might make, and that is to give our Government Department more power over primary education. The Provinces might well still spend the money and decide and draw up the curricula, but I think there should be a National Board of Education, with a very strong body of Inspectors who would go, in our mode of education, through all the schools, taking the new discoveries, the new methods with them, and unifying by their visits education throughout the whole of the Union. These men should be cultured, they should be gentlemen, they should be people who care greatly for children. They should be of a different type from the Inspector of Schools who said to a gracious little friend of mine, “You cannot be a teacher and a lady at the same time.”

Do you say that an Inspector said that?

Yes, sir, an Inspector said that within the last twelve months.

I hope he was not serious.

Serious or not, it is exactly what should not be said; and the woman teacher, who is a teacher and a lady at the same time, is exactly what we require. Thank God, many of them live up to that. The teachers are better than we know, and they deserve more consideration and respect than we have ever given them. Then there should be a secondary education for all children from the gase from 11 and 12 up to 16. At this stage the chief emphasis should be laid on character. Of that I am absolutely sure. They could have their cultural studies—but they should be taught above all that what matters is what you are—that it matters more what you are than what you have. And where food is required for the children food must be found for them, and where clothing is required we must find that; they must all have a full chance, and not just a few. Public schools, such as Bishops and Michaelhouse, we should take over—we should support them all provided they open their doors to national students. Then, from 16 to 18 years, those who are going into learned professions such as teaching, medicine, or law should be in a secondary school attached as a wing to the university, where they can have the advantage of a worth-while library. Of the learned professions I put teaching first of all, because I seriously suggest that the moulding of souls is a bigger job than even the mending of bodies, and I believe that we are in the hands of the teachers to an enormous extent for any true advance which is to be made towards a better and happier community. One of the criticisms of socialistically minded educationists is that we are always overlooking the fact that there are stupid people in the world, and that not every one is adapted to higher education. Since I came to this place I have never doubted that. At 16 years of age, or even earlier, many children are restless to take part in the world’s work. We can let them, but we should at the same time endorse the recommendation of the Spens Report of 1938 and allow these youths between 16 and 18 not more than 22 hours per week of work at a machine or elsewhere, the other 22 hours being spent at the technical or secondary school. What they should be learning at this stage is full citizenship, the duties as well as the rights thereof. Lastly universities and adult residential courses should be open and free to all who wish to make use of them, and have the natural ability to do so; but this is so obvious that I won’t waste the time of the House by arguing it. I say the universities and adult colleges must be open and free. Why? Why all this talk about education, anyway? One of the reasons why I have talked so much about it is that on my table before me I have a couple of manuscript plays, which, as a change from most modern compositions, are interesting, funny and clever without being unpleasant in any way. The author is a housewife in Durban, who was denied the opportunity of university education. I am wondering how far she could have enriched South African literature had a fair chance come her way.

Don’t say that.

I have just two points to make. The Leader of the Opposition has urged in his motion very drastic steps towards socialism. I merely want to urge as an immediate step that the opportunities for education should be improved and extended and made available to each and every one without regard to sex, race, or colour, or creed, and I say that there would be no great objection to that anywhere. I say that if this is done it will give great relief to all parents throughout the Union; and I say the expenditure will be remunerative in the highest possible degree. There is one further reference I must make—a very serious one indeed. We live in curious times. Not only in our country, but in all countries, leading statesmen are running about talking freely of Christianity as the basis of our society. Is it? Or do we wish it to be? If we honestly desire a Christian country, we shall have to make Christians. Where can we do this better than in our schools? Are we prepared to use our schools to that end? That is a question which calls for an answer. I hope the reply will be in the affirmative. On the other hand, that large fortunes are being made out of war-profits we know; we know at the same time that we are paying the merest pittance to our fighting-men. Can that be reconciled with Christianity? What are we going to do about that? To vote for this amendment would be doing at least something,

I second. My colleague dealt only with the first part of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I agree with him insofar as the first part is concerned, but taking the motion as a whole I am not quite sure whether I should congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his superb political conceit or whether I should sympathise with him for his obvious floundering in the sea of economics to which we in this House know he is very unaccustomed. He has endeavoured to make the best of all worlds. He goes to the extreme left with the Communists. He goes to the left with the Socialists, he remains in the middle with the Liberals, and he goes to the extreme right with the Nazis and I am not sure that he is not going to the dogs with the Malanites.

You should know, you have been there for a long time.

However, there is one thing in the motion on which I feel I must congratulate him and his party and that is that at long last they have realised that the politics of South Africa can only be sound politics when they are divided on economic lines. I am trusting that despite the fact, as the Prime Minister says, that this long winded resolution in itself is an election manifesto—I am trusting that despite the fact that it is an election manifesto, it is at least sincere, and that from this Session onwards we shall be able to argue with his political party on economic lines, and that the days of racialism are finished.

But you are the biggest racialist of all.

If I could feel sure that in this instance the resolution really means what it says, even the extreme right portions of it, I would feel that South African politics have taken a new turn, and that we were going forward to a new state of affairs. That, however, remains to be seen. There are still a number of members on his side who make no pretence of concentrating on economics and who still beat the racial drum, and the debate on another motion tended me to the belief that this thing put forward as an election manifesto does not in fact represent the true feelings of the Nationalist Party. I am, however, more than disappointed with the reply of the Prime Minister to the Motion before the House. I had expected a great deal more from the Prime Minister, and in the large number of speeches which I have heard the Prime Minister make in this House on economic questions, I have never found him as unconvincing, as I found him in his reply to this motion.

What do you say to that?

What he said did not convince me, and I want, without personal implications to the Prime Minister, to quote from that very report which he produced in this House this afternoon as an earnest of something the Government were doing,—I am referring to the first report of the Social and Economic Planning Council—because if ever a report indicted a Government from an economic point of view this report does. This report shows that in the three and a half years we have been at war, three and a half years during which we have been consistently promised by the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleague, the Minister of Finance, and various other members of the Cabinet, a New Order, this report shows clearly something which I have said year after year myself that the Government has in effect as far as any new system of society is concerned, as far as any reconstruction in this country after the war is concerned, has done nothing.

What does your colleague, the Minister of Labour, have to say to that?

I am talking to the Government.

Well, he is part of of the Government.

Yes, he has a share of the responsibility to the extent of one-thirteenth.

And he knows that your bark is worse than your bite.

My hon. friend may know what he is talking about, but let me just remind him that he belongs to a Party which had the reins of government for many years, and all they managed to do was to raise a number of poor whites from 200,000 to 400,000.

Yes, and you are forgetting that your own colleague was Minister of Labour at that time.

My hon. friend has had a full forty minutes to say what he wanted to say; I hope he will let me make my speech—I want to make my own speech in my own way, and I am sure I can do it better than he can. Now, I was referring to this report of the Social and Economic Planning Council. The Prime Minister doubted certain of the figures given by that Council in regard to the position after the war. It seems clear to me that we are going to get nowhere—we find Committees are appointed ad lib. The Prime Minister himself said that we have not got the time ourselves to attend to all these things—I don’t know where he got that story from, but he said that we in Parliament have not got the time to do these things ourselves for which all these Committees and Commissions are being appointed, yet he is prepared to doubt the figures of the Economic Planning Council after they had considered the whole matter very carefully. I think that if they erred in the figures which they gave us they erred in that they did not view the position as seriously as it should be viewed, and that their figures are on the low side, and let me say this—I am afraid that we are going to be faced after the war with an unemployment problem of greater magnitude than even the re-employment efforts of the Committe which has been set up will be able to cope with. The report says that this re-employment problem is of such magnitude that private enterprise cannot cope with it. I shall come back to that later. And the report also says this:

And then the Council goes on to say—and I want hon. members to take particular notice of this:

So out of 80,000 odd European men, 30,000 European women and not less than 120,000 non-Europeans, the schemes so far elaborated in blue prints will not provide work for more than 15,000, and that is after three and a half years of war, when we know what is likely to face us after this war. That is after three and a half years of promises, after three and a half years of advice, after three and a half years of hard fighting by that gallant army of ours in the North. And then the report goes on—

Of course, we know that that is so. We hear the Minister of Finance introduce his Budget every year. We know that the whole world is in that stage, and it will remain in that stage until the people of the various countries decide to take matters into their own hands.

And that is not a war-time problem. No large housing scheme is even contemplated, and yet this country has had the worst slums of any country in the world for the last fifty years, and time and again we have ourselves in this House before the war pointed out that these horrible slums existed, and the Government continued to put the responsibility on the municipalities. There are from 50,000 to 60,000 people in Johannesburg waiting to be housed. In Durban the housing conditions of the non-Europeans are a disgrace to any civilised community, and so, wherever you go and you see that with all this planning, with all this talk, and with all these promises of a new world, nothing has been done, nothing but drift and vague generalities:

We have been advocating that from the Labour Party benches ever since I have been here, and apparently no consideration has been given to it, not even since we have entered the war, when there was an awakening of public conscience. The report reads—

The Economic Council apparently got tired of writing them down. Yes, all these examples can be continued ad lib. Why is it that after three and a half years of war the Government has made no preparation for a new economic order, why has re-construction been pushed into the background, and why has it only been talked of on public platforms. The reason is contained in the amendment of my hon. friend because it is a direct result of the profit-making system. And let me tell the Leader of the Opposition—who has now returned to his seat—to listen to my words of wisdom—let me tell him that he is also trying to square the circle, he is also looking for a new economic order, he is also trying to abolish poverty within the orbit of the capitalistic system, he is also trying to give us social security, but at the same time he is trying to keep the profitmaking system in force. It just cannot be done. The profit-making system cannot be reconciled with the needs and the wants of the majority. It has been said by Dr. Van Eck in that excellent report of his, to which the Prime Minister referred, and by other people too, that one of the most necessary things in this country is to increase production. That makes me smile and it makes me very angry too.

Why smile and be angry at the same time.

Cannot I smile if I want to?

Yes, but don’t be angry.

It makes me smile at the stupidity of people, and it makes me angry because I know that things can be otherwise because we in this House have been spending hours and hours in discussions as to the best way to get rid of agricultural surpluses. We have exported millions of lbs. of butter at a time when people here were suffering from malnutrition. We have exported 50 per cent. of our sugar crop at a time when people in this country did not have sufficient sugar for their requirements. We have exported fruit from the Cape Province; we have exported the finest fruit when the people of South Africa did not have sufficient fruit. We have exported fruit for years. There was a time when we subsidised the Italian Army, when they were fighting Haille Selassie. Yes, we have done all these things. I defy any member in this House to say otherwise; our experience of the profitmaking system is that the more you produce, the poorer you become. And it is not so only in this country; it is one of the most classic pieces of stupidity that we have been experiencing since the end of the last war, and so we are told that all we have to do is to produce more, and then we shall have this happy Valhalla after the war. Well, we know that that state of affairs will not come about. We had instances of this before the war. We have often got up here and pleaded with the Minister of Finance, but we also know that people told him that for a miserable paltry 8 per cent. return on their money industrialists were not willing to develop secondary industries here. They wanted more, they wanted 10 per cent., 12 per cent. or 25 per cent. In other words, if we have to produce more in this country, unless the Government does something about the profit-making system, we have to raise the level of profits in secondary industries. We have had the ghastly story told when we had to have mercury here that because of the profit-making system the production of mercury in South Africa could not be undertaken. The Minister of Mines—who has just come in—never dreamt of nationalising the mercury mining industry. I am surprised at him—I am surprised in a man who is as interested in the war as he is not seeing the necessity of taking a step like that.

Don’t talk nonsense.

I am surprised that he did not step in and nationalise such an essential industry.

Why don’t you nationalise the tripe industry?

And make you the controller. In our present system production is only embarked upon when a profit can be made from it. In other words, only if a profit can be made out of the needs of the people will those needs be supplied. If there is food which the people need, if there is clothing which the people need, or housing or anything which the people need, that will only be produced if there is a sufficient return on the money invested by people. In other words, the people of the country may be in great need of certain things. There may be a crying demand for these things, but if there is not sufficient profit attaching to it, these things will not be produced. So to talk about production in this country means in effect that you are talking about providing more avenues of profit, and about a higher rate of profit for the people who have money to invest. And that is the kind of new order which bn the one side the Leader of the Opposition is trying to introduce, and which on the other side the Government is trying to perpetuate. Now, we say that if you are going to be really in earnest, if you are going to be really sincere about this reconstruction after the war, you have to make up your mind about doing away with the profit-making system. This particular report says so itself. Earlier on it says this—

That is the considered opinion of the economic Planning Council, that any effort to provide employment for those large numbers of men and women who will need and demand employment after the war, cannot be coped with under the competitive system, under the profit-making system, unless special steps are taken. And so the Government will be faced, if they are to avoid something in the nature of a very serious position in South Africa, with bringing in Governmental assistance in order to help smoothing over that time. But that is no final solution. We know that after the last war in Europe in certain countries, there was a great boom, and then those countries sank into the deepest of deep depressions. And the same thing will happen here. How the Government expects to handle a reconstruction period after the war when they allow the banks to remain in private hands is something I don’t know, because it was the banks with their policy of deflation after the last war which plunged Great Britain and the whole world into a deep depression. The banks are afraid of inflation as they call it, and the banks unfortunately have effected my honourable and most orthodox friend, the Minister of Finance. The Commission goes on to say—

And that is the considered view of the Economic Planning Council, and they finish up that paragraph with this remark—

Now I have no delusions. I know perfectly well that I am not the least likely to be able to impress many members of this House about the essential rightness of Socialism. I know perfectly well that this is a House which in the main represents vested interests. Vested interests are represented on this side of the House, and vested interests are represented on the other side of the House. On this side of the House you have the mining representatives of the mining industries, you have the representatives of big finance, you have of late years a growing number of individuals who represent the vested interests of secondary industries; on the other side of the House you have South Africa’s Tories, the representatives of the rich landlords. Most of them, as a matter of fact, are rich landlords themselves. I believe that the day of representation of vested interests is very nearly coming to its close, if I know the temper of the people of South Africa today and particularly the temper of the soldier who has done his fighting in the North. When he returns from the North that soldier will be determined that vested interests are not going to stand in the way of national reconstruction. He will see to it that he gets a square deal. He is not going to be palmed off by high-falutin’ clauses drafted by eminent professors at Stellenbosch, and neither is he going to be palmed off by these Committees which have been appointed almost ad lib. by the Government. We have not got time for all these investigations. It is no new thing to us to know that there will be unemployment after this war, and we have here in our hands the solution. I am not going to suggest that if we go to bed tonight we shall rise in the morning and have a socialist system, but I do say that the Government does not need an economic planning committee to tell it that it is time they take over the banking interest in the country. They do not need an economic planning committee to tell them that we should issue our own currency and use our credit for our own purpose. They do not need an economic planning committee to tell them that. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour has been telling them that in this House for the past thirty years.

They would not believe him.

No, they believed him, but the power of vested interests is so strong that it prevents the country from taking-over the banking interest. I remember very well that at the instigation of the Labour Party we insisted on forming this very fine steel industry which has played such an important part in this war, and the vested interests would not buy up the shares. Since the Government has bought these shares attempts have been made by vested interests to put these shares on the market. I remember that on one occasion they wanted to put these shares on the market, and it was only through strenuous opposition in the House that we managed to retain the shares. So they have known the truth of my hon. friend’s contention but they have not been prepared to adopt his suggestion. There is no future for the world under a profitmaking system. Unfortunately time does not allow me to show you how this war itself resulted from the profit-making system. I cannot show you how the various countries have to export goods in order to make profit. They come into spheres of interests where they clash with one another, and economic warfare of that description inevitably finishes up with warfare of the real kind. The capitalistic system itself is responsible for it. But one of the greatest burdens of the profit-making system is this question of interest itself. In South Africa today we have a national debt somewhere in the region of £400,000,000. I believe there are mortgages on farms to the extent of something like £150,000,000.

£100,000,000.

There are mortgages on farms somewhere in the region of £100,000,000. There is a municipal debt of £150,000,000. Then there is all the debt owing to the bank; there are all the overdrafts; and I am satisfied that if we could really get down to the figures, we would find that in the Union of South Africa out of every £ of production 10s. goes to the payment of interest. My hon. friends can dispute this if they like. You take the national figure of income and you take the municipal debt and you take mortgages on houses, and you take the interest paid on vested capital, the interest paid on all kinds of loans, and I make bold to say that 10s. out of every £ which is earned goes towards the payment of interest. I remember that in 1929, out of every £ of revenue earned by the South African Railways, 5s. went towards the payment of interest. That stands recorded in the annual report of the Railways. Five shillings out of every £ towards payment of interest! This burden gradually mounts, and it means that the people who receive the interest are living on the backs of the people who produce. They do not work for it. They say: “Oh, the money does the work for us”, but I have never yet seen a sovereign on a table doing anything. I am quite sure that a million sovereigns could not build a house or till a piece of ground, but that money demands its toll and the people who have invested the money are living on the backs of the people who have earned it. I have never seen a house made of paper money with the name “Reserve Bank of South Africa” or “Bank of England” on it. You give me the bricks and the materials and the skilled labour, and we can build houses. I do not care what the economists say. I am not interested in economists. They have been wrong so often in the past that I am satisfied that their stuff, particularly the orthodox stuff of the Minister of Finance, is not worth a great deal. I say that South Africa can produce sufficient food to feed every individual in this country. I am satisfied that we have the ground in this country to produce sufficient food for everyone. I am satisfied that we have the climate to produce sufficient food for our requirements. I am satisfied that we can produce sufficient food so that none of us suffers from malnutrition. I am satisfied that we have the raw materials and the skilled labour to see that everyone is properly housed, and I am satisfied that we have the skilled labour and the raw materials in normal times to see that everybody is properly clothed in the Union of South Africa. It is no use telling us that we are a poor country. We are only a poor country in that the effort and the energies available in the country are not allowed to get their scope. As a matter of fact, the economic Planning Council admits that. They say that when the war is over we will have 200,000 men, women and non-Europeans for whom we cannot provide employment. That is what they say on the one hand. On the other hand they say that we must increase the production of the country in order to get social security. Now how can you increase the production of the country if you are going to have 200,000 people out of work? And that is the whole point. The profitmaking system does not permit of your using your labour force to increase production in the country, unless there is a profit at the end. I propose to abolish the profit-making system gradually.

All the profits have already been pinched.

“Pinched” is a very poor English word, and it is a word which is not even used in capitalistic circles. They do not even say “steal.” They just say “expropriated.” You read in reports that so much has been expropriated from various funds, and then there is a happy vote of thanks to the chairman. But I suggest that as far as possible post-war reconstruction should be in the hands of the Government. As far as possible the profit-making incentive should be taken completely out of it. I feel myself that a gigantic housing scheme, embarked upon by the Government—because I have always contended that housing is a national responsibility—I feel that a gigantic housing scheme embarked upon by the Government in which no profit was allowed to be made, in other words the stuff is not given out to contractors to let them make 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. or 10 per cent. as the case may be—I feel that a program like that may solve the problems in the country. Apart from the providing of housing it would absorb people not only in the building industry, but also in subsidiary industries as well. I feel that the Industrial Development Corporation should be used, not on the lines of supplying capital to private enterprise, not on the lines of under-writing shares for clever individuals who come along with a scheme, but the capital should be provided to people who will develop State schemes. (Laughter). My hon. friend laughs; he has boasted for years that he runs his farm at a loss. My hon. friend is a member who makes special pleas for his own private pocket. I say that there is no necessity to make any profit as far as the State is concerned, and it seems to me that the investigations of the Industrial Corporation should be on the lines that the question of profit is going to be eliminated, and in that way we may get some development in South Africa. We will never get development in this country while we rely on private profit. My hon. friend on the other side has a clause in his amendment which refers to land which is lying idle in the country. I would like to ask my hon. friends on the other side why they do not suggest that land should not be nationalised as well as the mines. In many instances—and such is an instance of buying land and locking it up for higher prices later,—in such instances they deliberately set out to retard the highest production in the country. If there is no market they will not produce.

If there is no market why do you expect them to produce?

My hon. friend says, and from his point of view quite rightly, why should they produce if there is no market. Someone must produce and if they do not want to produce, then the State must step in and produce itself. If people in the country are starving it is the duty of the State itself to step in and to produce. I can say, as Bernard Shaw said, that the whole trouble with the capitalist system is that the people just have not got enough money to spend, and if you give the people the money to spend you will get a higher rate of production. I have not much more time at my disposal, but I think that I have more or less touched on everything I wanted to deal with. In conclusion I would like to end on this note. I do not like always to attack the sincerity of the people who uphold the capitalistic system. I realise that they have been brought up to believe that this capitalistic system is essentially right; they have been brought up to believe that the profit-making system is justified. I know that many God-fearing men who go to Church regularly every Sunday, have not the slightest compunction in taking 50 per cent. from the poor man. I know that many Godfearing men are prepared to exploit cheap labour as long as they can make a reasonable profit, but I feel that we are entering on a new era. The Minister of Finance told us once that so far we had no picture of the kind of world we are going to have after the war. He said that he was not prepared to enter into any scheme until the pattern begins to show itself. But that pattern has begun to show itself; we can expect that after this war we are going to be faced more than ever with an unemployment problem, and we are going to be faced more than ever with a demand from people, more than they have ever demanded, not for what has been termed social security, but for what I term economic security. That is the kind of thing the people demand. They demand the right to work at a decent wage. I am satisfied that all this can be done. Human ingenuity has proved itself, particularly in this war, on many occasions. We find in this war that the more we produce and blow into the air, the higher the standard of living. There is a lesson in that which shows that if you do not worry about the golden sovereigns but just say: “There is the workshop, there is the material; produce,” then you will get a higher standard of living.

The only subject which the Prime Minister discussed here today was the Planning Board. But unfortunately a Planning Board takes such a long time. We on this side of the House have always said that the Prime Minister’s Planning Board was only a smoke-screen, that we would get nothing out of it. Although I do not want to attack the members of the Planning Board—because there are certain members on the Planning Board who are capable—we nevertheless feel that absolutely no guidance is given in the agricultural sphere. Nor did the Prime Minister mention a single word about the policy of the Planning Board. And then we come to our hon. friend on the other side who indicated certain directions, and he was correct where he thanked the Leader of the Opposition for good points contained in our motion. He and his Party have unfortunately again been swallowed by the capitalistic system. He admits that his Minister of Labour is powerless because he finds himself in the Government benches today amongst capitalists. He submitted nothing of a practical nature to us. Let me say this, we on this side of the House have been engaged, for the past two years, in drawing up a proper scheme. Our leader instructed us to divide ourselves into groups so that we could draw up a proper scheme in the meantime, and where some of our friends said this morning, when the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) spoke: “Where do you get hold of that wording,” I can tell hon. members that for the past two years the best brain in the country has been used in order to draw up this scheme. The Prime Minister completely forgot that there was such a thing as the Atlantic Charter. He continues to adhere to the old system. Then he asks what we accomplished when we were in power, and I admit that under the old system, patch-work was done. Under the old system one could not get away from patch-work. Now we want to provide something of a practical nature which has a purpose. In the past we had nothing but patch-work in the agricultural sphere, a patch on an old pair of trousers, until eventually the trousers were reduced to rags. We now want to provide something which is effective, something which is practical, something which is constructive. Our system, as we have built it up, is not an election cry, but the Prime Minister is trying to put up smoke-screens before the election takes place. Our scheme has been worked out on a practical basis. The Prime Minister told us that we could not prove what we said, and we say that every small item which is contained in the motion, is something on which we can build; every one of us who has dealt with his own particular subject has laid a scheme before the House on which we can build. When the Labourites forgot that there were poor people in the country who were starving, the Re-United Nationalist Party did its duty; when the Labourites failed to look after the economic interests of the people, we did something, and when those people return to their Fatherland, they will be entitled to a decent living. We propose something here which will be in the interests of everyone. But what is the old capitalistic system? The capitalistic system is this: “Declare war, and allow the man to be shot, or let him starve or become impoverished; let him go to war, and when he returns he will be a poor-white.” We want to make that man a shareholder in his State. We want to go back to what Bismarck said, namely, that the poor man will not always be satisfied with a torn shirt and an empty stomach. The people who return after this war will not be satisfied with a torn shirt and an empty stomach. They have a right to exist. The State is responsible for the welfare of its subjects, and the State must see to it that where the subject wants employment, employment will be provided to that subject. We realise that we cannot have laziness in the country. We feel that if a man wants employment, the Government must see to it that he obtains work, and that is the policy which our Planning Board adopted. When the Prime Minister spoke, this thought entered my mind: Fear, fear, fear for the future. We have now seen to it that there will be something for the future to which our men can return. There are certain points in the motion which I want to enlarge on in connection with the land settlement policy of the Re-United Nationalist Party, and particularly its policy with regard to national health. We feel that not enough is done in the platteland in the sphere of national health. We feel that without a healthy working-class, no proper work can be accomplished. We feel that the working man, the coloured person and the Native, should receive proper treatment for any disease which he may contract. At the moment there is a sort of half-hearted arrangement under which one can receive treatment for certain infectious diseases, but everything is half-baked. We propose to have a proper clinic in every ward or area, where every working man can receive proper treatment when he requires it. We feel that there should be proper housingfacilities on the farms. We feel that if we want to retain the productivity of the land, we must have healthy workers. Under our system we propose to have better health services. Then we go further and say that if we want the farmer to produce, the State must see to it that it has a trusteeship over the farmer. The farmer must have certain obligations towards the State; he must not take everything out of the soil; he must not exhaust his soil. The Government on the other hand must see to it that the farmer is able to exist. Then we have another big evil in South Africa, namely, soil erosion. We feel that the State should contribute its part in this respect. We feel that soil erosion is a national responsibility. We feel that 25 per cent. of our best soil has already been washed away into the sea, and we feel that the State should contribute its share in the future. The farmer, together with the State, must see to it that that fertile soil which is now being washed away will be safeguarded for the future. That is one of the points which I want to discuss. You may ask how are we going to do all this? How are we going to solve these difficulties? There is one way in which we can do it and that is to build more store rooms and cold storages and to have agro-economic division of areas. I do not mean that the farmers must be forbidden to cultivate produce, but that facilities should be created in specified territories for such products as can be produced to the greatest advantage. In order to promote economic production, it is necessary, in the first place, to have sufficient store rooms and cold storage facilities, and this must be under the control of the Government. With regard to the financial aspect of farming, the farmers in other countries, as e.g. in Australia, have been met to a greater extent than in our country. Originally they had the 99-year lease system there which was later changed into the perpetual lease system. They introduced the so-called “Channel Mortgages”, under which the farmers could get long-or short-term loans under the most favourable conditions. We also feel that a change should be brought about and that there should be an improvement with regard to credit facilities for the farmer, and the necessary facilities must be given to settlers under Sections 10 and 11 to enable them to conduct their industry properly. With regard to the value of the land, a thorough survey is required, and that must take place without delay. In order to get a sound system of agriculture, it is necessary to base land values on fertility and production. There must be a re-valuation of land on a scientific basis. With regard to labour, we all know to what extent the farmers suffer as a result of shortage of labourers.

The hon. member must remember that notice has been given of a motion in that connection, and he must not anticipate it.

Then I shall leave that. Then I come to the next point, the insurance of crops. There are certain channels today through which one can insure to a certain extent, but we feel that the State should undertake the insurance of crops. The organisations which exist today do not possess sufficient capital and when a farmer has worked hard for five months and the wheat is ready, and hail or rust or something else then destroys it, there should be an insurance scheme so that the farmer will not be ruined, but will still get something for his crop. In that direction a great deal of improvement is required. There is another point to which I want to refer in passing, and that is that the two Departments of Agriculture, field husbandry and animal husbandry, should co-ordinate. They belong together—the feeding and breeding of animals. We have never had a sound policy in our country; we have never had a far-sighted policy with regard to the breeding of cattle. In the agricultural schools, e.g., one finds an expert who wants to build up a specified type of sheep. He remains there for three years, and then he is transferred. A new man comes along and he has different ideas; he wants to build up another type of sheep. Consequently he breaks down everything which the first man built. In the past, thousands and tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on stock-breeding. The individual farmer does try to build up certain types, but frequently he does not possess the necessary capital and knowledge. We must—to use an English expression—have a long-range policy, under which the whole problem of heredity in connection with cattle can be thoroughly tested, and investigated. I would also like to point cut that there is no link between the agricultural schools and the universities. In other countries, as e.g. in Australia, there is liaison between the agricultural colleges and the universities. In our country one can go from the High School to the University, but if you take a practical course for two years in an agricultural college, you receive no recognition in respect of that course from the University Board. There must be liaison between the agricultural schools and the university system, and I hope that this will take place in the future. Then I come to weeds and cattle diseases. Here is something which does not receive sufficient attention at all. We noticed in Australia that weeds increased to such an extent in certain parts that the land was almost worth nothing. We have followed a very weak policy in the past, and we are still doing so today. There are certain parts in Australia where “boetebossie” (Xanthium spinosum) was so prevalent that they could no longer shear the sheep by hand, but only by means of a machine. I hope that we will not have that position in South Africa in the future. There is no doubt that in so far as weeds are concerned, we shall have to take much more drastic steps than today. In the next place, I come to controlled marketing. If there is anything which is in a real state of confusion, then it is our marketing. If one wants proper marketing, it is necessary to have more store rooms, which should be under the control of the Government. The meat farmers must have their own cold storage facilities, and more facilities must be created for the grain farmers by the State. If one leaves the store rooms and cold storages in the hands of the middle-men, who in the past have always drained the producer and the consumer, then there is no hope of getting a proper marketing system. Another question which is raised here is the importance of co-operative societies. By means of co-operative societies, the farmers get more control on the Boards. We feel that the composition of our Boards is wrong. We are in favour of the principle of establishing Boards, but we feel that their composition is entirely wrong. There are a handful of people in the middle, who do everything to ruin marketing and to smother the co-operative societies. We saw that an effort was made to smother or bring into disrepute the Mealie Control Board. The principle of establishing Boards is a good one, but the composition is wrong. I feel that there should be a Producers’ Board and a Consumers’ Board, and if the co-operative societies are used to create a Producers’ Board, then there could be a consumers’ organisation on the other hand. These two can be co-ordinated, and in this way the terrifically high prices which have to be paid by the consumers in the retail trade could be eliminated. They will no longer have to pay 2s. and 2s. 6d. for meat, and the gap between the price the producer receives and the price the consumer is called upon to pay will become very much smaller and both sections will be able to make a better living than they can today. There is another point in regard to which I feel strongly, and that is that the markets must be taken out of the hands of the municipalities. They should fall under the Union Government. We will never have an effective marketing system if they fall under the four different Provincial Boards. The Union Government should have marketing and also cold storages under its control. I also agree that our inland market is our best market, but in that respect too, more store rooms and cold storage facilities are required and we must greatly improve our system of distribution in general. It is the system of distribution particularly which is defective and which hampers proper marketing. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) spoke of food which we export. To a certain extent I agree with him. The inland market is the best market, and our own people must first be provided with proper food. Thereafter we can consider foreign markets. The inland market must come first. We then come to forestries, and there I feel that we should cultivate many more forests. Today our forests have been practically cut away, and we use many trees to provide for our own needs. There are large areas where trees could be cultivated. Finally, we come to irrigation, a big problem. Any water which falls on the platteland should be preserved and kept on the platteland. In the past we introduced quite a number of schemes with insufficient water supplies. Through false pretences, settlers came forward—also out of other countries—bought farms, and then they found that there was not nearly enough water for the land. The existing schemes should be provided with sufficient water.

I want to point out to the hon. member that in connection with this matter also, notice has been given of a motion.

I shall leave that. The country will take note of what we propose in the sphere of agriculture. Practical people, people who are qualified, and important economists, drew up this scheme, people who know what the conditions are and who look into the future. The platteland is being neglected by the Government today and the capitalistic interests in the big cities. We hope that this motion will be accepted. If the Government does not accept it, the platteland will reckon with them.

I move—

I second.