I move—

In doing so, for the convenience of the House, may I refer to the date on which it is intended that the Budget speech shall be delivered. On a previous occasion I said that I was working for a date early in March. Considerable progress has, however, been made with the preparation of the Budget. I think we will all agree that it is in the interest of the country that what one might call the period of Budget suspense should not be unduly delayed, and as I hope I can now introduce the Budget at an earlier date I propose to do so. I therefore intend to bring forward the motion, on which the Budget speech will be made, on Thursday, the 24th February. My colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, will deliver his Budget speech on the Monday thereafter, and it is intended that the Budget debate should commence on the following Thursday, that is the end of March and be continued on the Monday, Wednesday and Thursday of the week thereafter.

I again want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Mines and the Government to introduce the question of Miners’ Phthisis legislation this year. I have letters in my possession which I have received since this matter was raised in this House, in which the miners’ phthisis sufferers who are directly interested in this matter urge that we should again, as strongly as we can, request the Government to come forward with this legislation. May I just point out that the report which contemplates new legislation dealing with miners’ phthisis has been in the Minister’s hands for a considerable time, and the sections interested in miners’ phthisis have already placed their views on the matter before the Government through a memorandum, and those sections also submitted their views to the commission which investigated the matter, so that the question as to what the various interested sections feel about the matter does not require any further investigation. That aspect of the matter has already been placed before the Government by way of memorandum so that the Minister for more than a year has had before him the views and ideas of the miners concerned. I again want to emphasise this, and I want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that if this Session is prorogued without this subject having been disposed of, Parliament as such will be blamed. Parliament will be blamed and it will be said that Parliament has sat here for months and months, that it has done a lot of talking but has achieved nothing, and I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is not a matter which brooks of any delay. I want to point out that the putting off of the introduction of miners’ phthisis legislation means that the people affected do not get a pension. No provision has been made for a large number of those miners’ phthisis sufferers. In other words, the miners’ phthisis sufferers who are today affected in this matter are starving, and that being so it is a subject of urgent public importance; it is most important that the Government should reconsider the whole matter and it is most important that the Minister of Mines should come along with his Bill this Session. Recently a strong deputation, consisting of members of my own party, members of the United Party, and of the Native Representatives, called on the Minister to draw his attention to the urgency of this matter, and this was the Minister’s attitude. He first of all said he had no time to consider this question because the legislation was so complicated that he could not bring it before the House now. After a number of us had drawn his attention to the serious repercussions his attitude might create, the Minister promised to tell us at a later stage, after he had consulted his colleagues in the Cabinet, whether he would be able to introduce a Bill this Session. We are still waiting for his reply. We have not yet had it. I again want to draw attention to the serious position in that connection and I am not mentioning this as a threat, but there is a possibility that the miners will take the same kind of action in connection with the Minister’s attitude as they are taking in connection with other problem affecting them. That is the position, and the Government will have to take the blame if the miners later on, as a result of the Minister’s stubbornness, as a result of his refusing to do anything, decide to strike.

They will not do so.

I hope not, but they may. There is nothing to stop them. And I want to draw the attention of the House to this, that if they do strike they will have the support of every miner, of every shift boss, and of every native on the mines, because this a matter which affects all of them, and in order to avoid such a dislocation I again want to emphasise as strongly as I can that the Government must give this matter its attention, that it must consider introducing a Bill this Session to give these people the necessary relief. I make bold to say that that is also the view of hon. members of the United Party and they do not want the Prime Minister to be held responsible for the delay. In other words, they want the Cabinet as such to be fully prepared to give the Minister of Mines the necessary assistance to bring that Bill before the House. Parliament will be failing in its duty towards that large number of miners if it does not tackle the problem this Session, and if it does nothing but talk about it.

As one who also represents a constituency where a large number of miners are living, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). This is a very urgent matter. This Miners’ Phthisis Bill is a very urgent matter indeed and we are told by the hon. the Minister of Mines that he does not think it is possible to bring it up this year. We have been trifling with this for a very long time indeed. The hon. the Minister has told us that he feels that he wants to put a whole new Bill before Parliament, a revised Act. I do not think that there is any necessity for that completely revised Act. The hon. the Minister says he has not got the time. Actually there are only two clauses in the Bill which will have to be put right. We have had a deputation coming here from Johannesburg to discuss with two of our Ministers the possibility of a strike or no strike. As a gesture to this deputation, would it not be nice to have a statement from the Minister of Mines that he is going to introduce this Bill this Session. It would be a fine gesture to the mineworkers on the Rand, and I sincerely trust that the Minister will find the necessary time, and furthermore, I am sure that all the Rand members will be only too pleased to assist him in any way possible; we will be only too pleased to co-operate with him and to help him bring this matter forward. In my opinion if a Select Committee is not formed this year then possibly legislation will not go through even next Session, and then that means that the Act will only come in a matter of two years’ time, and it has been pending now for about four years, so that means that six years after we started to fiddle with it, we will actually have got it through. I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister to form a Select Committee this Session or to bring forward something concrete and to get it through this Session.

I have got up to put a question to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and I want to ask whether, in view of the Budget speech being put down for an early date, there in any intention of having a shorter Session? Will the Prime Minister perhaps have to go to London sooner? Members want to know what the position is. They have rented houses here and some of them live in hotels, and they would like to know how to arrange their affairs. Are we going to have a break of ten or fourteen days in April, as we often used to have in the past? Hon. members would like to know what the position is so that they can make the necessary arrangements. I should be very glad if the Prime Minister would give us some information on that point. I don’t want to detain the House but I said on the second reading of this Bill that according to the Press, difficulties were threatening on the Rand, and I asked the Government to do all in its power to settle matters and not allow them to develop. Is it not better for the Government to take steps now to have the trouble settled? Let the Government send a commission to work out plans in consultation with the miners and mining magnates to see whether they cannot settle the difficulty. It is no use sitting still and saying that things will right themselves. We have had previous experience of strikes in this country—strikes eventually result in people being killed, in murders being committed in people being shot down, and we on this side of the House stand for peace. We want peace and quiet in our mother country, and we would deeply deplore it if conditions on the Rand were allowed to develop. It seems that the miners are now going to take a ballot on the question of whether they should strike or not. I therefore again want to make an appeal to the Government and ask them to take the necessary steps to meet the people concerned. They must try to arrive at an amicable settlement. If that is not done the trouble may develop into a welter of blood such as we had in 1922. If what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) said is correct, that white and black will take part in such a strike, it will mean a serious setback for the Union of South Africa, and it will result in a serious condition of affairs not merely so far as lives are concerned, but also as regards the course of events in our own country. I only want to draw the Government’s attention to that. I do not want the Government to reproach us today or tomorrow, after things have happened, and to say that we kept quiet and did not warn them.

I want to add just a word in support of the plea that action should be taken at the earliest possible moment to deal with this question of miners’ phthisis. We are arriving in this country at a stage when public opinion is beginning to believe that commissions are intended to delay matters, and to divert attention from pressing problems until they are no longer as pressing as they were when the commission was appointed. This is a matter which has been before the country and before this House for years. We have from time to time had amending legislation. Ultimately the present Minister appointed a very capable Commission to deal with the matter. It must be obvious to the Hon. Minister and the Government—this is not a party matter today; all sides of the House, the Minister will have noticed, are in favour of legislation being introduced—and under these circumstances I do hope that the Prime Minister, who, I know, never believes in putting off things and who believes in action, will see today that steps are taken during this Session to ensure that legislation will be carried through at the earliest moment.

I also wish to lend my support to the representations that have been made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) to the Government in favour of the introduction of legislation this session to amend the Miners’ Phthisis Law. We on these benches, of course, have a very special interest in this amending legislation. For years we have been waiting for the revision of the Miners’ Phthisis Law in a way that would give some measure of justice to the native miners’ phthisis sufferer. Three years ago we did get an improvement in the law which gave us in fact something like a hundred per cent. increase in the lump sum grant which goes to the native miners’ phthisis sufferer, but still there is no continuing provision for any native miners’ phthisis victim, with the result that still today we are seriously aggravating the poverty of our native reserves by throwing back on them the derelicts of the mining industry. We have been given to believe from various directions that this injustice would be righted, when the law is revised, and, Sir, delay in this matter is not only an injustice to the native mineworker and the native community as a whole, but it is an injustice to the whole nation since the practice of throwing back the derelicts of the mining industry on the Reserves is aggravating the general poverty of the community and manufacturing those needs for which we are talking in another connection of providing special assistance from the national revenue. For that reason alone I would be prepared to support with all my weight the proposition of the hon. member for Krugersdorp that the Government now makes a move in this matter. But there are other reasons why I think the Government should not delay the general revision of the Miners’ Phthisis Law any longer. One is that it has been unduly delayed already through the accidental and unavoidable circumstances that the Chairman of the Commission appointed by the Minister to review the situation, became ill, and the work therefore took longer to complete than would otherwise have been the case. The miners who are waiting for a revision of the Law have been patient, commendably patient, over that delay; but I think they are entitled to expect that the Government itself will not extend that delay, that the inevitable delay should be regarded by the Government as involving an additional responsibility on its part to move as rapidly as possible, and they will not only be critical, they will be extremely critical if it takes a year and a half before the Government finds itself in a position even to introduce a measure in this House which will take a great deal of discussion before it is passed. I agree with those members who said here this morning that if we do not get the Bill into this House this session, we shall not get the Bill passed next session, that we shall be legislating at the earliest in 1946 and this will be a matter of acute dissatisfaction among all those many people who have a direct and personal interest in the passing of this measure. Now the second ground on which I support the demand for a revision of the Miners’ Phthisis Law without delay is this. Whether we implement the majority report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission or not, the Government itself, the Treasury, will have to come to the assistance of those victims of miners’ phthisis who are already on the list of miners’ phthisis sufferers; that is the financial assistance necessary to improve the position of those who are already victims of this disease will have to be met by the Treasury, and every year we delay in establishing the responsibility of the industry for all future victims, we are increasing the burden which the Treasury itself will have to carry to meet the situation. Sir, the report has made that abundantly clear, if it were not clear in any case. Anyone who knows anything of the working of Workmen’s Compensation knows that it will be impossible to impose on the industry the financial burden involved in levelling up the benefits now given to miners’ phthisis sufferers to any new and better standard that may be established. And that levelling up will have to come. What we are asking for is an improvement in this position in respect of present sufferers as well as a guarantee for the improvement of the position for future sufferers. It is for this reason I say that the longer we delay, the greater proportion of that burden will have to be carried by the Treasury. This matter of the revision of the Miners’ Phthisis Law is thus a matter of national interest, both political and financial. On both these counts, as well as for my initial reason, namely that we want justice, long delayed and overdue justice, for native phthisis sufferers, I support the proposition of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg).

I am very pleased that I can associate myself with the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). I can assure you, Sir, that it is a matter of absolute necessity to bring forward this legislation this Session in respect of miners’ phthisis. I have visited the Witwatersrand during the Session, and I can assure you that everybody there, not only the miners but the public, are looking forward to the steps that may be taken by the House this Session for phthisis victims. Therefore I must make an earnest appeal here this morning that something must be done this Session, and that the matter should not be held over. We all realise the extent of the work that is in hand in the various departments, but as this is such an urgent matter, we must make an urgent appeal to the Minister to reconsider his attitude and to give immediate consideration to the subject, and more particularly that a Select Committee may be appointed and legislation brought in this Session. If we delay it much longer, and I say this as one who is aware of the sufferings of the mineworkers on the Witwatersrand, it will increase the gravity of the position. Moreover the longer we delay legislation the bigger will be the problem in the future. In these circumstances I am very pleased to associate myself with the views expressed by the hon. member for Krugersdorp, and to accord him my wholehearted support in this connection.

The fact that all sides of the House and all political parties have made urgent representations to the Minister asking him to have Miners’ Phthisis legislation introduced this Session goes to prove that the people as a whole are insisting on relief being granted to a particular section of the community. It is a well-known fact that the miners have been put off from time to time, that the introduction of legislation has been postponed from time to time, and that no relief is granted. I therefore want to associate myself with the pleas that have been put up here and I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) said, that the Minister cannot say that the Government has not had sufficient time to prepare a Bill. As we have heard the Government, nearly a year ago, had the memorandum submitted to them by the miners and the Government has had the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission quite long enough to enable it to go into the matter, so that there is no need for any further postponement. There is not the slightest doubt that the miners have been more than patient. In my constituency there are large numbers of miners, and when one talks to them they all emphasise that we must induce the Government to pass legislation this Session. In view of the fact that every side of the House has been urging the necessity of steps being taken, I feel it is the Government’s duty to bring this matter to finality without further delay. People are getting dissatisfied and impatient. They have shown the greatest possible patience, but something must now be done. Somebody said that the miners will not go on strike. Well, that is something we cannot say. I want to warn the Government to prevent difficulties. They should not create difficulties by neglecting their duties. We don’t want it to be said that we have not warned the Government. The pot is boiling and it is the Government’s job, the Government’s duty, to settle the trouble before difficulties arise. We notice that a deputation will be calling on the Minister. We on this side of the House also want to make an urgent appeal to the Government to show the deputation when it arrives the greatest possible sympathy. The Government can prevent the difficulties which are brewing now. What impressed me as very fine was that when a small strike recently broke out in one of the shafts, one of the main reasons for the miners returning to work was because the natives had come out with them—and they did not want that. Even under those very difficult conditions the miners did not want that trouble—they did not want the natives to come out as well. But the Government must expect trouble if they put off things any longer and if they shut their ears to the cry of the miners. We don’t want a strike, we know the serious after effects of a strike. A strike causes dislocation and misery, and particularly in this time of crisis we want to avoid that. We want to help the Government to overcome the difficulties which are threatening today. That is why we are making an appeal to the Government not to postpone any longer. On behalf of all the miners we ask the Government not to put off things any longer, and we hope and trust the Government will listen to our cry.

I think I had better intervene at once and state what the position is as I visualise it. Let me say at once that I yield to nobody inside this House or outside the House in not merely my desire but my determination to see that the best measure is introduced to deal with this subject, which is recognised as being one which has been not completely and satisfactorily dealt with in these past years, and for which the time is ripe for amending legislation to be introduced. I say I yield to nobody, Mr. Speaker, in that. I remember here and now very well indeed the speeches I have made on this subject in this House, one year following another year. I have nothing to withdraw from any of the criticisms that I then made of the legislation as it existed then and as it exists now. I have nothing to withdraw as to the statement of what my conviction was as to the line the amendments should take. I have nothing to withdraw. But I say this, that now I realise the obligation that there is upon any Minister and upon me particularly with reference to this matter that when I do introduce legislation and ask the House to accept it, with whatever amendments the wisdow of the House may suggest, that at any rate the obligation is upon me to introduce a measure as and when, but not before, I am confident that I can put forward my suggestions with a reasonable expectation that they will meet the case. No Minister is entitled or justified in asking the House to accept legislation unless he is satisfied that the subject matter he is asking to assent to, is sound, is just, is right, and which meets the need of the situation. I have got to do that. I am prepared to do that when I am prepared with the material. But I am not prepared now, or at any future time to introduce legislation into this House just because there is a loud and emphatic cry that something must be done, and that in great haste.

Do you realise that people are in a state of starvation at this moment?

That is language I certainly could not endorse. But let me remind the hon. member that as far as legislation is concerned I have been responsible during my time for bettering the position of miners’ phthisis sufferers, advancing their position, beyond anything that happened before. They are better off under the amending legislation for which I am responsible than they ever were before at any time in the past. I do not say that the last word has been said. I never pretended that. I knew when I introduced that legislation that something more had to be done. But what I did say was this, I wanted, when the time came, to sweep away all existing legislation, which has become so entangled and so complicated that anybody who is not a specialist, an expert, can understand it. And let me make this confession to the House, that I who have given my life to the law and to the reading and interpretation of statutes, if I have to deal with the intepretation of any of these sections, I have to, as it were, wrap a wet towel round my head. I know perfectly well that those who have not had similar legal background must at least have as great difficulty as I have experienced. What is needed at the present time is a codification of the good parts of the present law, with such amendments as are necessary to bring the law up to that state which modern outlook on these problems requires. That I am prepared to do.

When is the earliest date?

I have indicated I cannot do it this Session. Next Session I hope to do it and that it will be one of the earliest Bills put before us. I shall be extremely disappointed—it will not be my fault—if that Bill does not go through the House next Session. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) said that she was afraid that if a Bill was not introduced this Session, there would only be talk next Session and that it would not go through then. I wish to clear the atmosphere and to clear the way for the House coming to a definite and clear-cut conclusion on proposals which in the main, I hope, will meet with general approval, which in their framework I hope will meet with general approval and that in so far as their machinery is concerned will meet with general approval. On the actual scale of benefits and so on, I can understand there might be a good deal of discussion and many expressions of opinion one way and another; but if I succeed in getting the framework into which this matter can be placed and discussed on that basis, I shall have gone very far to remove the fears and doubts of the hon. member for Cape Eastern. And let me say this, that I am quite confident from my knowledge of this subject, which I may claim to have given a good deal of attention to, as was my duty, that the preparation of the mere framework of this Bill is a gigantic task, a greater task than perhaps the majority of members of this House can realise to the extent that I do. The proposals that I hope to make and which are to a certain extent not completely covered by the report which is in the hands of the House, embrace and contemplate the making of provision for compensation to all sufferers from dust-producing industries, not only from gold mining but from other branches of mining and in respect of any mineral dust that affects the workers. That in itself requires machinery of a new and comprehensive character. Has the hon. member given attention to that—to the kind of machinery that is required for the purpose of dealing with that aspect of the case; and what is to be the relationship between concerns created for dealing with a mineral like asbestos and those concerned with gold? Has the hon. member considered that, given real attention to that? Having listened to the speeches made in this House, I wonder how many hon. members would be prepared here and now to tell this House the essential difference between the majority and minority reports which have been in their hands for some time. How many members are prepared to do that? I am quite confident they would be very very few. I shall be delighted if somebody will get up afterwards in this House and explain what that fundamental difference is and tell us here and now what they are prepared to pledge themselves to. I should like to hear from the hon. member for Krugersdorp whether he is prepared to back the majority report all the way through.

You know exactly what I want.

I understand that the hon. member does not want the majority report.

No, I am not saying that. You know exactly what I want. I presented a memorandum to your commission and to yourself.

That is not an answer to my question. I want to know whether the hon. member is prepared here and now—I do not wish to be offensive to the hon. member for Krugersdorp—but are hon. members prepared now to pledge themselves to the majority report or to the minority report; if so, why; and what is the difference between them? There is a silence, Mr. Speaker, which is very very eloquent. I assure the House that I have invited comments but up to the present time I have not received any answer to this problem from the Mineworkers’ Union or any other of the trade unions concerned in this, or the Chamber of Mines, or from anybody else. And it is a question that goes right to the root of this matter. The problem is on what basis compensation is to be given. I shall not elaborate this because it might take up too much time, but let me say this, that before this question is decided, I shall have to have—we shall all have to have—an intimate talk with all those who are primarily interested in this matter, with the organisations representing the sufferers and those who may be likely to suffer, the joint unions, particularly the Mineworkers’ Union, the Underground Officials’ Association and the Chamber of Mines and others. I have invited these comments, but I have not got them. How can I possibly introduce legislation at the present time without that intimate conversation and without all those answers? I cannot do it. If I were to do it I think it would be a piece of impertinence on my part. I should be without consultation giving a snap judgment on this fundamental question. I am bound to complete my investigations before I put my pen to paper.

What about giving us a Select Committee for that purpose?

A Select Committee would be in the same position as I am; they would want to have these conversations. No, the first thing to do, I am confident, is to clear the deck by having these reports considered by these interested bodies, and then in the light of their views, I can put my pen to paper. I assure the House that there will be no lack of desire, no lack of effort on my part, or by my department, for the purpose of speeding this up. The other day I saw a deputation of members of this House. They were good enough to ask to see me and to put their views to me before they came to the House, and took part in this discussion. I was very glad to welcome them and I told them what I am telling this House now, that I was not in the position to introduce legislation because I had not got the knowledge, I had not got the time and I had not had the opportunity for these consultations; but I would further again consider if it were possible to do something to meet their views. I sent for the Chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board and I have been closeted with him for hours over this question. Mr. Speaker, I can say this, that as a result of that it has become more clear to me—if possible—that it is not reasonable or right on my present information to draft a Bill, to introduce legislation during this session, which I cannot be confident is the right thing, and which I am sure nobody else can.

Will you ever be able to do it?

I hope so. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the hon. member. But that is such a movable and elastic standard that my pre-vision does not go so far. No, Mr. Speaker, this would be a case of “more haste less speed.” It would be a case of improper and irresponsible and unreasonable yielding to a very natural desire on the part of members, if I were just to throw something together and say to the House: Here it is, you should debate it. That would not be treating the House with a proper sense of responsibility. It would be an abuse of the process of Parliament, and I would be neglecting my duty, a duty that lies on every Minister only to introduce legislation when he is satisfied he can do so with due regard to all the interests involved. I say most emphatically that I have nothing to withdraw from what I have said on the subject. On the contrary, I claim the interim legislation I have introduced already, has greatly eased the position of sufferers from miners’ phthisis. But I have had enough of stop-gap legislation, and I intend that the next legislation I introduce will deal with the matter in as radical a manner as I am capable of doing.

I am sorry I did not bring my soap box with me this morning because I feel constrained to say a little more in regard to this matter. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mrs. Ballinger) about the injustice which is being done to the miners, Europeans as well as natives. It is an injustice not just of yesterday or the day before yesterday but it is an injustice which has been going on for many years and I consider that if there is a will there is a way, and miners’ phthisis legislation can be introduced this year. I feel, and I know, that an injustice is done to the miner and he realises it, and it is for this House to see that, that injustice is removed, not next year or in two years’ time, but now. I have a telegram here from the Springkell Sanatorium which was sent on the day I was described as a soap box orator. This telegram says I must continue to try to get something done for the miners’ phthisis sufferers. That is the position of the miners’ phthisis sufferers. I wish we had a law which would make it compulsory for the Minister of Finance to be present at the funeral of every miners’ phthisis victim. If there were such a law, justice might perhaps be done to the widows and orphans of those victims who are sacrificed for the sake of industrial development in this country. I assume the Minister is really sympathetically disposed towards those people, but sympathy is not enough. I do not believe that the widows and orphans of these once healthy men can live on sympathy alone. The Minister tells us that he has asked for opinions on these reports but that he has not received those opinions. I say we do not need any more opinions. The evidence led before the Commission showed clearly what was needed. The Minister therefore has all the evidence he requires, and all this delay in connection with legislation is unnecessary. The Minister asked the deputation which met him in connection with this subject whether they had read the report. My reply was that I had read it. And now he asks which report should be accepted, the majority or the minority report. As a member of the deputation I told him that to my mind the majority report was the basis on which we should act, as that dealt with the whole question from the very root and reorganised the whole situation, while the minority report was only patchwork. I don’t want the Minister to think that. I am hostile towards him because I am not, but I want the miners and the potential miners’ phthisis sufferers, of whom I am one, to receive justice. I want justice for them, and nobody in this House or in this country will blame me for feeling so strongly on that point.

I merely wish with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister of Mines two questions. The first one is this: When this morning he said that the miners’ phthisis sufferers were better off than ever they were, did he take into consideration the very high prices of the necessaries of life today? The very latest figure given to us by the Government statisticians as the average increase in the cost of these necessaries is 26.2 per cent.; whereas the Trades and Labour Council, having just completed an independent investigation, gives the figure as 41 per cent. Now I say to the Minister that even the latter estimate is far too low. I make no pretence of being one of these learned statisticians who have been quoted in this House, but I do know what I have to pay for things when I go to the store, and I want to remind the Minister of these facts, that if one of these pensioners wants to get a piece of beef that is eatable he will have to pay 200 per cent. increase over the old price. In the past he could have obtained a fair quality of meat for 8d. per lb. whereas now he will have to pay anything up to 2s. Vegetables, which are an essential of diet, cost three or even four times the prewar price. The cost of clothing and rent have risen almost on the same scale.

That applies to the whole population.

Exactly; we are none of us as well off as we were—well, except certain exceptions! I am asking whether the Minister in making that statement about the phthisis sufferers’ well-being bears the fact of increased prices in mind, because I assert that those who are drawing small pensions, or have a small fixed income, are very much worse off than they have ever been in our memory, and it is only the people in a big way of business, the people who are making big profits out of the war, who do not care to what height the prices soar.

May I say that my statement was with reference to the relative position of miners’ phthisis sufferers to the rest of the population? Relatively they are much better off.

I am not so much interested in the theory of relativity as in the actual sufferers, who are so badly off that they, quite literally, do not get enough to eat. And that is the attitude of the House too, I think. Now I would put my second question. We do not question the kind heart of the Minister, but we have more confidence apparently than he has in his great personal ability. He does not back himself to win this race. We do—if he really tries. And the immediate question I am going to put to him is this—is he prepared to appoint, or to have appointed, a Select Committee of this House at this time to consider this matter in all its bearings, because I can assure him that such a Select Committee will groom him well and back him well, and will give him a very good chance of finishing ahead of all the other horses. My contingent question is this; we know the Minister’s integrity, we know that any human being must be deeply concerned with the position in which these people under discussion find themselves, and have found themselves for a long time past: therefore I want to ask him if he is prepared to urge on the Prime Minister to recall this Parliament in this year, say in September or in October, to produce his Bill, and thus give us the chance during this present year to put it on the Statute Book? It must be a measure which is not the deplorable thing which the existing one is, but something which will not only satisfy the claimants in this case, but our own sense of what is due to these workers who have done so much to build up the prosperity of our country.

After the appeals which came from all sides of the House for legislation this Session on this very burning question, the Minister has said that he is not in a position to do anything this Session. That reply will, I have no doubt, cause a great, deal of disappointment among the people primarily concerned. The Minister has, however, indicated his difficulties. This is a very technical, a very difficult question, which he is faced with. He has had the assistance of a report from a Commission on it. Unfortunately for him it is a divided report, not a unanimous report, and he has to consider the matter very carefully. I would, however, make a twofold appeal to the Minister in connection with this matter. I may say, as has already been indicated, no one in this House that I know of doubts either his sincerity in this matter or his willingness to help these people, and help them in the best possible manner. My appeal to him is in connection with the interjection I made to him, namely when will be the earliest that he would consider himself in a position to bring in legislation? His answer was “next Session”. I would appeal to him to go into the question, to take the steps which he indicated he should take, and have his Bill ready as early as possible in the recess and publish it in the Gazette so that the public and the section of the community primarily affected may have an opportunity of studying the Bill in the recess, so that we won’t have to come back next Session and have a Bill introduced at that stage and have it referred to a Select Committee with the danger mentioned by the hon. member over there, that there may not be legislation even next Session. That is the one appeal I want to make to him. The other is this, that if there are going to be increased benefits, as we all ask for, and expect there will be, would he undertake to make these increased benefits retrospective at least to the day of the publication of the Commission’s report? That, I think, would go some way towards assisting these unfortunate people who have to wait for the Minister to do the things he indicated he has to do. I know the Minister has spoken once and cannot speak again, but I would be glad if he would indicate that he would consider these two points.

There is a matter of considerable moment in regard to the health of the people of South Africa which merits the early attention of the Minister concerned. Towards the end of last Session I was asked to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that a certain German firm had been enabled to get certain patents of very great value transferred to their representative in South Africa, and that the effect would be to prevent the public from receiving that drug until after it becomes obtainable again from Germany. The object of effecting the transfer of these patents was to prevent people from being able to import the preparations protected by these patents although some of them are obtainable from America and a number are manufactured in varying forms in Great Britain. Now, these drugs would have been of great benefit in saving life in South Africa. I find from a legal opinion of some value that the Union Government has altered the patents’ law in such a way as to benefit these pernicious people and Ī am told that two of these persons are persons who, in so far as the Government of the United States is concerned, are suspect—and yet permits have been granted in this country so as to enable those persons to obtain imports of certain goods from America. In other countries in the world there is a provision which can be used for the relief of a situation such as occurs in South Africa today. There is a law in most civilised countries that where a patent is in existence in relation to valuable drugs—life saving drugs—and yet there is an insufficient quantity of those drugs on the market, it is made legally possible for a compulsory order to be issued in favour of some competing firm for the manufacture of that particular drug. In this country under an emergency regulation—we shall learn to curse these emergency regulations before we are finished with them—the power is taken away from the Registrar of Patents to grant such an order. I may say that I am sorry Ministers are so lax in their attendance in this House. This morning about four Ministers thought it important enough to be present when Parliament opened, and I hoped that we should have an increase in their number as we went on. This is a very important matter, so I waited for some time in the hope that the Minister in charge of this particular matter might be here—but he is not here yet. There is no doubt that a great deal of resentment has been caused by the state of affairs into which this question has been allowed to descend. The Registrar of Patents was asked a question—as a matter of fact he was asked to supply material for certain replies to questions tabled by me last April as to whether the patents to which I have referred had been sealed by him, and his reply was in the negative—he said he had not sealed these patents. I produced to the Minister of Justice the Government Gazette in which the very same gentleman notified the public that these patents had been sealed by him. I maintain there is a great deal of slackness among officials in matters of this kind. If they think they can get away with it, they do not very much care what they tell their Minister, and I shall have other similar instances to bring before the House in the course of this Session; but in the meantime I want to deal with this particular matter, because it is a matter of life and death to many people, and the sealing of these patents, the entrenchment of these patents by the emergency regulations makes them invulnerable and unassailable by anyone else. Today we have the discovery of Penicillin on the Rand—a very praiseworthy effort on the part of the research men who undertook that. But what hope is there for that enterprise if the regulations are going to prevent the discoverer from getting a compulsory order for the manufacture of the particular drug? I observe that the drug for the time being is being provided—I suppose free of charge—to people requiring it. Now, I have read a legal opinion which says that unless the Government can be prevailed upon to withdraw the emergency regulation which stands in the way, it is impossible to assail or attack these patents which are merely used to prevent the supply of the drug, because they cannot possibly get the drug from Germany. Clause 4 (1) of Emergency Regulation No. 2 (which was amended by Proclamation No. 13 of 1942 dated January 23, 1942) makes provision that where the Custodian of Enemy Property is interested in a patent or patents, the Registrar of Patents is prohibited from issuing a compulsory licence to other competing firms. This in effect entrenches the German firm as against other firms who are not enemy firms and who also hold patents. In their case, if they are not able to supply, the Registrar can grant compulsory licences to the competitors of these non-enemy companies. We have the situation here that people are being prevented from manufacturing the drug. Take the supply of a very important preparation like Pirevan, the patent for which is controlled by a firm in Johannesburg. Now, that preparation is of great value in the matter of red water, a very fatal disease among cattle. There is one other matter I want to speak about and that is one of the murders which was committed in connection with the case heard in the Special Court appointed to deal with treason trails and subversive acts against the safety of the State. I must say that it is a most extraordinary thing that in this country in which no peace preservation Act was ever needed at the end of the South African war, we should now arrive at a state of affairs in which on the very day a young man did his duty by giving evidence against a pestilential Germany spy who aimed at destroying the lives of an enormous number of people who were included in a convoy—the very day on which that young man performed that duty, he was attacked by four blackguards who did their best to beat him to death. He was unable to move from his bed for over a month after the manhandling he had received. As soon as he had recovered he was required to give further evidence at the trial and he did so. On that night he was tricked into going to the door of the place where he lived, in reply to a knock—he went to the door to see who wanted him and he was shot dead on his own doorstep. Now the hon. member on my right says: “What are the police for?” No sort of protection was given that man. He was given the use of a firearm—apparently without any ammunition. In any case he was given no protection worthy of the name of protection. His suffering during that time of suspense cannot be described adequately here. What has been the attitude of the Government towards this man? His young widow left under those circumstances has not received a word of sympathy from anyone. She has not been asked whether her livelihood should be provided for. They are people of very modest means. This young man was in no way concerned with subversive activities. He was a man who virtually had no politics. He was approached by the person against whom he gave evidence on the supposition that he would be able to make use of him because he was in no way connected with politics and would not be suspected. Without any hesitation he did his duty and went at once and reported what had happened before any harm could take place to the convoy which was the subject of attack by this spy. Now, whatever the circumstances may be, many months have passed. If the Government are powerless to find out who committed these crimes—there were three attempts made on this man’s life—a live bomb was placed in his car. There were the two murderous attacks upon him and the second attempt succeeded in the murder of a servant of the State, a friend of the State, a man who had done his duty faithfully. That man should be recognised as one who laid down his life for the State, and his family should be rewarded accordingly. I hope the Government will do something to modify the effect of this tragedy, and that it will try to satisfy the people and show that the sacrifice made by this young man has not been in vain.

I am glad the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has raised this question and has pointed out that certain essential things—essential to South Africa—are still being held up. I dealt with this question on the second reading of this Bill, but unfortunately no reply was given by the Minister. I quite understand that the Minister wants to get the information before he can reply. The subject is very important and as the hon. member rightly says, it is being held up as a result of an amendment to the regulations dealing with the issue of patents. There are 36 patents concerned. It is a pity that the Department or the Minister changed the regulation at the request of the South African firm representing a German firm. Actually the original position was that a compulsory licence could be granted to firms who could make the corresponding preparation. The amendment of the regulation was to this effect: That where the Custodian of Enemy Property was interested the Registrar could not grant these compulsory licences to any other firms. The position now is that the German firm is in a stronger position than any Allied firm. We have asked that the amendment should be amended back to its original position. This amendment took place in 1942 I think. Now the matter is very serious because corresponding preparations have been imported—there is no question to their being equal in identity and quality to the German firm’s product. Now, having imported these preparations, the people who have done so are not allowed to sell them here because as a result of the German firm having been granted these patents—and they were granted as a result of the appeal to the Supreme Court—the Supreme Court ruled that, the agreement in existence amounted to this, that the South African firm was merely a nominee of the German firm, and it ruled that the agreement between the German firm and the South African firm was good in law, and it therefore authorised the Registrar to issue the patents—36 of them. Now the position is this, that no firm in South Africa holding the corresponding drug dare supply that drug except by agreement with the South African firm representing the German firm. The South African firm has been approached. They say: “We are not holding up the supplies. Any firm holding corresponding drugs can get an approval from us.” Now, let me say this, that when certain firms applied to the South African firm, representing the German firm, that firm said: “Yes, but these are the conditions on which we are prepared to give our approval. We agree to you handling your line provided you pay us 5 per cent. f.o.b. for everything you import from overseas. Secondly, that you shall not sell the corresponding product at a lesser price than we charge for ours.” So, first of all they charged 5 per cent. just for the right of these people handling the drug, and then the people who may have imported a considerable amount of the drug must charge the high price of the German product. And thirdly, it is only for the duration of the war—at the end of the war the matter will be further considered. So the German firm is entrenched until the war is over and if any other firm wants to sell the product they will have to charge a much higher price.

I shall go into this with the Minister concerned.

The reason why I have to emphasise it is because no reference was made to this very important matter by the Minister in the second reading debate. I know there are technical—not difficulties but things which may confuse the position, but a little study by the Minister will show what the position is. As a result of altering the original regulation the authorities have made a present to a German firm, the benefits of which our own people do not enjoy. And that firm represented by the South African firm is storing up 50 per cent. of the profits for the people in Germany. These profits no doubt are administered by the Custodian of Enemy ’ Property. The whole position is unfair, the House if it were to realise the significance of it would agree that it is a first class scandal.

This debate has principally concerned itself with the Miners’ Phthisis problem, and my colleague, the Hon. the Minister of Mines, has replied to that. I therefore want to confine my remarks to the questions put by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) to the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister has asked me to reply to those question as he could not stay here any longer. I want to assure my hon. friend that the fact that the Budget Speech has been put for an earlier date has nothing to do with the possible curtailment of the Session. The Government has no intention whatever of curtailing the Session. We expect the Session to run its normal course. The date now set down for the Budget Speech is the same as it was last year. Last year the Session concluded about a week before the end of April. I therefore do not think it will be possible for this Session to conclude before that date. On the contrary, I think the Session will last longer than last year. Of course, I can only express my own personal views. I expect in any case we shall run into May and I do not think it can be expected that the Session will finish before the end of April. I think it will be reasonable for hon. members to take that into account. I again want to give the House the assurance that there is no intention on the part of the Government to curtail the ordinary part of the Session.

What about a break?

My hon. friend also asked whether we would have an Easter vacation. I think that we shall be following the same procedure as we have been following in the last few years, namely not to have a recess in Easter. I do not think it is in the interest of members generally to have a long recess because it would simply mean that the Session as a whole would last longer, and if hon. members have arranged their accommodation on a monthly basis it would not be to their interest to have a long recess. I think we will confine ourselves to Easter day as we have done in the past few years.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I am afraid I have been unlucky in this debate. On Friday I had ten minutes, and now again I shall have only ten minutes before business is suspended, and I shall once more have to resume my speech this afternoon. It is very difficult to carry on a debate under those conditions. On Friday I pointed out that in any scheme of Social Security the establishment, expansion and also the protection of industries must be the most important part. I want to go further and say that it is indispensable because any system of Social Security has to depend on production, and on still more production, and on the opportunity of providing employment. That particularly applies to South Africa where one of the props of our economic life, the mining industry, is a waning industry. Time will come when the mines will be worked out and when South Africa will for its opportunities of employment and its national income have to depend primarily all on agriculture, and secondly on our own factories and industries. I have pointed out that hon. members opposite too, have come to realise that although in 1925 they strongly opposed the establishment of an iron and steel industry in South Africa, and stubbornly resisted the protection policy of the then Nationalist Party, they have now progressed so far that they themselves have become strong protagonists of industrial development, and are also in favour of the protection of our own industries. I am particularly emphasising the aspect of Government encouragement for our industries, and Government support for our industries. If we assume that hon. members opposite are convinced now that industries in South Africa must be developed, encouraged and protected, then we have to draw their attention and the attention of their supporters to certain tendencies, and also to certain recent happenings which unquestionably are alarming so far as the future of our South African industries is concerned. It has become clear these last few months that there is considerable alarm and concern in Great Britain, not so much about the result of the war—we find that in journals, we see it in newspaper articles and in speeches—but about the future of England itself and of the British Empire. There is more concern about the future of the British Empire than there actually is today about the result of the war, and that concern recently found expression in two authoritative speeches. The first speech was that which our Prime Minister made before members of the British House of Parliament and the alarm he displayed was also expressed in a speech supplementary to his speech confirming his views, made by Lord Halifax on the occasion of his visit to Toronto in Canada. A certain portion of the Prime Minister’s speech already constitutes part of a motion before this House, to wit, that portion of the speech dealing with Great Britain’s future in the political and military sphere. I do not, therefore, propose dealing with that aspect. I propose confining myself more particularly to the other implications of the speeches made by the Prime Minister and by Lord Halifax about the economic future of England and the British Empire, and its effect—if the implications of those speeches are realised—on our existing industries and on the future of industry in South Africa. That part of the Prime Minister’s speech dealing with political and military affairs referred particularly to the Russian “colossus,” but the speech also had another side. The Prime Minister very clearly pointed out—perhaps not in those actual words—that whereas on the one side he beheld the political and military Russian colossus, on the other side he was faced with, the economic colossus of the United States of America. The Prime Minister in his “explosive speech” referred to England’s position after the war, and his words were quoted as follows in the English papers—

If the Leader of the Opposition had said anything like that, or if a member on this side of the House had made such a statement, great indignation would have been expressed by the other side of the House and also by their Press. As a matter of fact there has already been a very definite reaction to the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). That is not our view of the economic future of Great Britain, but it is the view expressed by their own Leader, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s view is that England will be a poor country, that it has sacrificed everything, that there is nothing left in the till; in other words, England is poor and exhausted. Now, we come to this point: what was the reason for the Prime Minister’s speech to Members of Parliament in England, and what is the reason for the speech which Lord. Halifax made in Toronto. The Smuts-Halifax plan, if I may put it that way, holds out the prospect of consolidation, not merely political and military consolidation but also economic consolidation of the means of the British Empire. The position of Great Britain as explained by the Prime Minister himself is that after the end of the war a very serious condition of affairs will arise. England’s export trade has greatly deteriorated in the past few years, England’s factories will have to be converted and there will be all kinds of difficulties about returned soldiers—unemployment and all the rest of it. England’s shipping, owing to the war, has been greatly reduced—so there will have to be rehabilitation. England will have to be restored economically to the position she occupied before, and there is only one way England can recover her position, there is only one way England can recover the position she occupied in the past, and that is by rebuilding England’s export trade. It is self evident, and it is generally recognised, that England has to exist on her export trade. England has to exist on her factories, her export trade, her shinning insurance, foreign investments and things of that kind. But we had a statement recently from one of the British Ministers in which he clearly admitted that England’s invisible exports had already dropped by £200,000,000, and he stated that the losses which had already been suffered could be made up by a large expansion of her export trade after the war. That, as a matter of fact, was the prospect held out in the speeches made by our Prime Minister and by Lord Halifax, and that is how the position is described in the newspapers and by economists in Great Britain. It is instructive to read what the various authorities have to say nowadays. I am at the moment reading a book which was published recently, entitled “Pax Britan-Americana.” In that book the self-same view is expressed—the view of a poor and exhausted Britain which has to build up again. But what particularly alarms the people in England, as well as the Prime Minister and Lord Halifax in this connection, is the attitude adopted today by people in the United States of America. England and America are co-operating today. Everything in the garden is lovely. But there are clear indications, in public speeches and in newspaper articles, of the tremendous competition in the economic and commercial sphere which will set in immediately after the war is over. America is already preparing for it. America is not only trying to secure the export trade which it wants to get hold of, but there has already been a bit of bother, there has already been a certain amount of disagreement, especially as a result of what prominent, American statesmen have said about post-war shipping and about aviation. The leaders in England have to take post-war competition into account, and this competition will come as sure as night follows day, and the necessary preparations have to be made to cope with such competition. Something has to be done to save England’s position, and we find indications of what the policy is going to be in the speeches made by the Prime Minister and by Lord Halifax.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

For the second time I now have to find a connecting point. When business was suspended I had pointed out what England’s economic position was going to be after the war, according to the Prime Minister’s London speech. I pointed out that if England wanted to regain the economic position she had occupied in the past she had to export. Export means life to England, and therefore she has to export to regain her position. I pointed out that England was faced with this situation—that not only did she have to rebuild her factories, but that her mercantile fleet had been considerably reduced. But her greatest difficulty in regaining the position she had occupied and in rebuilding her export trade was the threatening and strong competition of the United States of America. That is the situation with which England is faced. America is so situated that she is not exposed to the same privations as England has been exposed to. America can resume her export trade in a very short space of time, its mercantile navy is two or three times as big today as it was at the beginning of the war. America already holds a large number of British bases and American statesmen and American papers have declared frankly and openly that they have no intention of returning those bases. England therefore is faced with tremendous commercial and export competition from the United States of America. What is the position, therefore? There is only one way of saving the situation and that fact is made perfectly clear in the speeches to which I have referred, especially in the speech made by Lord Halifax in Toronto—

And then he goes on to say this—

One finds that same thought expressed in the speech our Prime Minister made to the Members of Parliament in London. In other words, we must go back to the old policy that England must be the exporter and the British Dominions and Colonies are to be the markets for the goods manufactured in England. England requires those markets in all circumstances, especially in view of the American competition which is going to be tremendously powerful. If that is to be the position, it must lead to one thing, and that is sacrifice of industrial expansion in the Dominions including South Africa to enable England to resume the position she occupied in the past. If England is not to go down, not to deteriorate to the position of a secondary Great Power, she has to export. The rest of the world will, as far as markets are concerned, possibly be closed to her in view of American competition. There is only one way of saving England and that is to expand her markets in the Dominions and the British Colonies, and that means that we, South Africa and the other Dominions, will have to help, at the expense of the development and the expansion of our own industries in our own country. As Lord Halifax showed clearly in his speech, the British Empire must either consolidate or it must break up. These remarks I am making now are similar to what people elsewhere are saying. There is nothing new in them. Lord Halifax in his speech clearly said this—

A few days ago there was an article in the South African journal “The Forum” and Mr. Cope, the Editor of “The Forum”, a paper with which I think the Minister of Finance is associated, said—

I do not go as far as Mr. Cope does. I wish the Prime Minister, physically, a long life, but we shall not mourn if his political career suddenly comes to an end. But we find that the ideas which I have given expression to do not come from this side alone; they are being generally expressed, also by people who are usually supposed to support the views of the Government and of the Prime Minister. I know that these are not pleasant things for hon. members opposite to hear but if they are honest in their intentions, if they really want to see South Africa extend its industries, there is only one thing for them to do—they must face facts. If the policy preached by the Prime Minister and also preached by Lord Halifax is to be given effect to, it means that it will have to be carried out at the expense of our own industries in South Africa. These are facts which hon. members opposite must face. The Prime Minister will soon be going to an Imperial Conference. That conference has not been convened to discuss the war. I believe this Imperial Conference has been convened to discuss these question which I have raised in my speech today, and if hon. members opposite really believe that South Africa must expand its industries then they must see to it that the Prime Minister does not compromise South Africa at the Imperial Conference, that South Africa is not made to contribute at the expense of the expansion of its own industries so as to avoid the possibility of the British Empire breaking up. There is however, another aspect of the matter which I want to mention: There is a further danger, which hon. members also have to take into account. At the end of 1941 a certain agreement was entered into between the Allies, known as the Atlantic Charter. At the beginning of the Session I asked the Prime Minister whether South Africa was also participating in the Atlantic Charter and his reply was as follows—

1. (3) The Union Government as a signatory of the United Nations Declaration of the 1st January, 1942, subscribed to the common programme of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint declaration known as the Atlantic Charter. In addition, it undertook, together with the other United Nations, to employ its full resources, military and economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which it is at war, and that it would co-operate with the other signatory Governments and not make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies—undertakings which have been repeatedly affirmed in this House.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, to obtain admission to the world’s trade on an equal basis; and an explanation has already been given of that provision which signifies the abolition of tariff walls and protective policies in the country’s concerned. Let us assume that the United States of America and England succeed in working together. Then I ask: where does South Africa stand in the application of those provisions of the Atlantic Charter? Those two countries are big and organised industrial countries, and if South Africa has to carry out that provision, if it has to carry it out honestly, it simply means that in this respect too, and also as a result of the Prime Minister’s undertaking, South Africa’s industries will inevitably have to suffer. That is a matter which hon. members opposite have to take into account. They must remember that steadily, in consequence of the Prime Minister’s attitude, a policy is being adopted—and a policy which may possibly in days to come be put into effect—which can have only one outcome, and that is the curtailment or possibly the abolition of, but certainly the serious curtailment of industrial development in South Africa. I have referred to the Prime Minister’s visit to London in connection with these statements which have already been issued by him and by Lord Halifax. I have referred to the position which may arise in consequence of our signing the Atlantic Charter, and I say that I feel it is necessary at this juncture to utter a word of warning not only to the country as a whole but also to utter a word of warning to hon. members opposite to call a halt and prevent this tendency from developing. It is necessary to utter a word of warning and to say that if we want to take part in these big schemes of world reconstruction, as contained in the Atlantic Charter, and as implied by our participation in this organisation known as Unrra—because that also holds out the prospect of reconstruction of industries in those occupied countries—it can only lead to one thing, and that is that our industrial development will be curtailed and detrimentally affected. If we have to assist in the reconstruction of Great Britain, which the Prime Minister has compromised himself to do, that help can only be given at the expense of the development of our own industries. The choice will have to be made in the near future, and hon. members will be faced with this situation—that they will have to decide whether they are going to stand by the policy of South African interests and South African industrial developments first, or whether they are going to stand for the reconstruction of the world, the reconstruction of industries in the British Commonwealth and especially in England. We, as a Party on this side of the House, stand firm by the self same industrial policy which in 1925 was introduced here in South Africa by the then Nationalist Party Government—an industrial policy in the interest of our own country alone, a policy for the protection and development of industries in our own country to provide employment for our own people in our own country. We are concerned with our own people and not with the people of other countries. That is the policy which we adhere to and which we shall carry out and which we are going to extend further in days to come. It is a policy of industrial development, based on the principle of recognition of our own initiative; it is at the same time a policy in which the principle of State control and State management will also be recognised; a policy in which control and management will be carried out by means of a system of the granting of licences to ensure that only industries which have a right to exist will be established; to ensure that those types of persons who have the right and who are recognised as the right persons to establish industries in South Africa will be allowed to have a share in those enterprises. We stand for the principle of thorough and effective protection of all industries which have a right to exist in our country. We stand for the further principle that the State must also contribute its share towards the establishment of certain key industries. We have already accepted that principle. It was the old Nationalist Government which initiated that principle in the Iron and Steel Industry, and we stand for a further expansion of that industry. We also stand for the principle that as industries must be established here, and as those industries must secure the necessary markets, it shall be the Government’s policy to provide for the necessary means of transport—be such transport by sea or by air. Those are the principles and that is the policy which we stand for—a sound, progressive industrial policy based only on the interests of South Africa and of no other country. That is the policy which we stand for, and that is a policy which not only will increase our production, and expand our production, but it is a policy which will provide that essential employment which is indispensable in connection with any system of Social Security in our country.

It is important to emphasise although the point has already been made by other hon. members that the White Paper and this debate thereon marks the concluding rather than the initiating stage of the Government’s planned approach to Social Security and ancillary Social Services. That, whilst the the Government approved in principle of Social Security and its implications in a debate which took place in this House some two years ago, it embarked upon the actual investigations on these national problems a considerable time before that. The Government realised that no democratic State of the future would be worthy of its name which did not embark upon the erection of a structure of such a planned economy which would guarantee all its citizens the basic human needs and amenities—both mental and physical. The basic human physical needs are nutritious food, suitable housing, adequate supplies of heat and light and clothing, efficient environmental services, and comprehensive preventive and restorative health services. The mental needs are adequate education, occupation and recreation. Thereupon it embarked on what was a logical and rational procedure, namely, to take stock of the position. Accordingly, soon after the outbreak of war, and this is both noteworthy and commendable, for it was faced with no mean military task at the time—the recruitment, training, equipping and maintaining vast armed forces—it appointed the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission with instructions to undertake a survey of the country’s “Material Resources”. The conclusion arrived at by this Commission which are contained in its 3rd Interim Report are reproduced in the White Paper. Summarised they are: That there must be an increase in our national income if we are to afford Social Security and expansion of other Social services; that an increase in our national prosperity is dependent upon increased productivity; that increased productivity will be determined by the state of our greatest national asset—our human resources—quoting from the White Paper, “The productive energies of the nation can be put to their best use only if living conditions and the health and capacity of the people are increased”. Another principle emerged from the investigation, namely—there is the closest interrelationship between the various factors which determine our national economy. In the final analysis these inter-related factors resolve themselves into three major problems. These are: the socio-economic problem, the problem of ill-health and physical deterioration, and the problem of the “casualties” resulting from these two. There is, unfortunately, great poverty in the land both amongst Europeans, the Cape Coloureds, and the Natives. This statement is corroborated only too completely by reference to the Carnegie Report, the various reports on the Cape Coloured people, the report by the Inter-departmental Committee on Social Health and Economic Position of Urban Natives, and the evidence which was submitted by numerous witnesses to the National Health Services Commission. Associated with this poverty are encountered the four great evils: malnutrition, ignorance, overcrowding and insanitation. These in turn are directly responsible for the great amount of ill-health (Tuberculosis, Venereal Diseases, Infantile Morbidity and Mortality) and the physical deterioration of the people which became increasingly manifest as the Health Commission proceeded with its investigation. This close inter-relation between these great national problems in cause and effect are of profound importance in national planning for future social services. Success in our socio-economic sphere would not only reduce our economic casualties, but by the reduction of poverty it would eliminate the factors associated with it which are directly responsible for the high incidence of ill-health and our pathological casualties. Faced with these findings, the Government very logically established the Social and Economic Planning Council charged with the analysis of social and economic conditions and policies and with the formulation of plans for raising production and living standards in the Union. Acting on the recommendations contained in paragraph 63 (f) of the first report of that body, the Government then appointed the Social Security Committee with instructions to examine the existing social services and their expansion or the introduction of new ones. The White Paper before this House is the direct result of this logical and far-sighted policy of the Government. Moreover, again with due appreciation of the close inter-relation of the factors mentioned earlier, it appointed, in August, 1942, the National Health Services Commission to which the House had given its approval in February of that year. This also was both logical and consistent. It implied that a properly organised National Health Service, in conformity with the modern conception of “health” which would ensure adequate medical, dental, nursing and hospital services for all sections of the people of South Africa, would be necessary to reduce pathological casualties. It emphasised the other great point made in the White Paper, namely, that “health” would be essential in order to increase our national productivity. Without such increase in our national income the expansion of social services of which social security is one, and the complete range which includes health, education, housing, etc., would not be possible. In other words, it would have been little use appointing a Health Commission if simultaneously attempts were not made to ascertain the root causes of ill-health. Similarly, it would have been illogical to preach increased national production whilst nothing was being done at the same time to promote the health and to prevent disease of the labour upon which such national productivity was concerned. I repeat that the desirability of an expansion of these services, including social security, as the Right Hon. the Prime Minister has stated already has been accepted in principle by the Government and approved by this House some time ago. The various steps to which reference has been made have each in turn brought us nearer to this ideal. There was both foresight and wisdom in this logical sequence of events. There has now been laid before the House the White Paper which is in effect a statement containing the crystallised views which have emerged from the above investigations and researches. It can, therefore, never be said that in addressing itself to these great national problems of the future—the planning for social services including social security involving numerous State responsibilities, both financial and administrative, the Government did not approach its task methodically and scientifically. I venture to say that the method employed by this Government compares favourably with methods employed by other countries concerned with similar problems, including the Beveridge Plan in Great Britain. The work of the Economic Planning Council and of the Social Security Committee, has been described in the reports which have been issued on the subject and which we are told will be available soon. Some disappointment has been expressed about, the non-availability at the present time of the report of the National Health Services Commission. I desire, therefore, with your permission, Sir, to take a few minutes of the time of the House to describe the position with regard to its progress. The Commission, as members will remember, was gazetted in August, 1942, with terms of reference which covered a very wide field. It was appreciated from the outset that the Commission would be confronted by a complexity of problems and that it would have to concern itself with many phases of national, provincial and local activity. Whilst fully recognising the urgency of the needs which were crying out for attention, the Commission felt that it could not address itself with confidence to its task without becoming acquainted at first hand, with the varied conditions existing in the different parts of the vast areas of the Union. We should never forget how complex are some of our problems in this country. We have extraordinary demographical and sociological variations without parallel in any other modern State setting out to establish a National Health Service. There are many races, there are varying levels of culture as between different races and within the same racial group; there are highly urbanised communities, purely rural communities and most difficult of all, rural inhabitants becoming urbanised. There exists extreme complexity of administration of those medical services which are already conducted by public agencies. Various Departments of State four Provincial Administrations, hundreds of Local Authorities of all grades of efficiency and financial capacity all take a hand in this sphere of national activity. There exists a complicated financial interrelationship between the Central Authorities, the Provincial Authorities and Local Authorities. The Ministry of Health in this country is not, as in other countries, also the Ministry of Local Government. There are wide variations of financing of health services ranging between the individualistic method where each man pays for his own, passing through the range of co-operative as exemplified by benefit societies services paid for by employers; services paid for by the national authority, by the Provincial Authorities, by Local Authorities and by philanthropy. There is also great variation in the availability and type of personnel ranging from your super-specialists down to your native herbalists and witch doctors. In the training of this personnel there is as great a variance ranging from Universities, provincial hospitals, technical colleges and mother wit. There is also a gross maldistribution of personnel. These are only some of the tangle of factors which the Commission has been unravelling in its effort to determine national needs and resources, and to devise a plan which makes the best use of resources in relation to geographic and demographical distribution of needs—without at the same time disturbing unnecessarily the complex relationships already existing between central, provincial and local authorities, between private and public agencies. It has also had to guard against the well-meant, but frequently ill-advised efforts aimed at riveting public attention on certain gaps and deficiences. This may result in the traditional filling in of gaps, the righting of abuses here and there and leave a series of hastily improvised and half finished jobs rather than a carefully conceived and comprehensive service. With only haphazard modifications and improvisations we will continue having piecemeal and overlapping social services designed to deal with end results rather than the provision of a radical cure for the causal conditions. We are not planning for today or tomorrow: our scheme for a National Health Service in conformity with the terms of reference of the National Health Services Commission must be one which will stand the test of time for the next half century. I desire to assure hon. members that neither the social security proposals contained in the White Paper, nor the debate on them, are in any way prejudiced by the non-availability at the present moment of the Commission’s report, and for the following reasons. The Commission resolved from the very commencement that the subjects to be investigated by the Social Security Committee and the Health Commission were closely related, and accordingly early collaboration and consultation was established between these two bodies. This is in fact a suitable occasion on which to express appreciation of the collaboration by the Economic and Planning Council in connection with the work of the Commission. What was important was that the Social Security Report should be in a position to indicate the present cost structure of health services and the financial implications of a National Health Service of the future. For obviously, the acceptance of the principle of public financing of health services is an essential pre-requisite for the establishment of such a service. From a study of the White Paper it will be seen that the Committee was able to indicate roughly these financial implications both present and future—the estimated expenditure for health services in the modified scheme for 1947-’48 and the estimated expenditure for 1955. The rest is a matter of technical detail which in any case would not have been of interest to the House at the present stage. It is gratifying, therefore, in view of the complexity of the task, that the Commission should be within sight of its goal. In Great Britain which had the Beverigde Report nearly eighteen months ago, they have not advanced as far with their plans for a National Health Service, which like the Union, they are determined to have. It is of course quite a simple matter to sit in an editorial armchair and produce “Blue Prints” for national problems, and to indulge in pictorial and editorial criticism of the body entrusted with the task. One wonders whether such critics have taken the trouble to read the terms of reference, and if they have, they can appreciate their full implications. There is nothing which could have done more towards invalidating the work of the Commission and its findings than a lack of due regard and appreciation of the needs of the people—European, Coloured and Native, living scattered throughout our sparsely populated areas and in the Native Reserves and Territories. Yet, Sir, the Commission has been criticised and ridiculed because of the tour which it undertook in order to acquaint itself with these very needs. Perhaps it is an attitude which might be forgiven in those who pay lip service to National planning but whose vision is limited by a superficial knowledge of urban needs. There were those, Sir, who foretold that the Government really had no intention to appoint the Commission. When it was appointed, they gave it a long-term sentence—3 to 5 years—before it would report and now 18 months later they are lamenting the non-availability of the Report. These, Sir, are the critics who are already prognosticating that when the Report is presented, the Government in any case does not intend to implement any of its recommendations. I maintain that their worst disappointment is yet to come—when the National Health Service will be an established fact. In conclusion, Sir, I would, with your permission, quote a few sentences from a leader on this subject in a responsible daily paper. It says amongst other things—

These views, Sir, express precisely the policy of the National Health Services Commission. It is endeavouring to elaborate a plan which will be capable of gradual implementation but one which will make possible an early start with health services where the need is greatest.

It is with a sense of responsibility and duty that I have got up in this House this afternoon to put my feelings and my ideas into words. I have listened to the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), to the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan), and I have come to the conclusion that those hon. members are not in earnest. They are people who want to secure themselves against other people. I want to probe into this question. I am glad people feel so deeply, but these people are just scratching about and they don’t know what they are looking for. They remind me of a farmer who waits until the rains come, and after it has rained he inspans his oxen and puts his plough in the middle of the lands and starts ploughing, and before he has got to the other side he turns round again. That is not the way to achieve Social Security. I am of opinion that we should look at Social Security from a totally different point of view, from the psychological point of view, because we are dealing here with the security of a human being, and if we want to secure and protect man, then we must ask ourselves how far we can go. Have we got the right to secure, to protect, one individual as against another? If the reply is in the affirmative then we must ask what are the facts which we have to lay down? To my mind, however small, however trivial, I feel that these are the facts. One, that man is the only species which has a conscience. Two, that every human being has a mission; three, that every human being has responsibility, and four, which is the principal one, that every human being must learn, and must learn by experience. Books can be read on this subject, and one can discuss the matter for hours, but I want to deal with the question very briefly. I want to associate myself with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Germiston South (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) as amended by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock). We dare not be in a hurry with this question. We can bring about temporary security but we must not rush matters in regard to security for the future, because if we secure man’s position we must prevent coming generations reproaching us for having laid down foundations which are wrong. The first point I want to make is that we must remember the fact that every human being has responsibility, and we cannot take that responsibility from him, and when I say that we cannot take his responsibility from him it means that we extend the responsibility of the individual to the responsibility which one person has towards another. If we take away man’s responsibility by giving him such security that he becomes an animal, part of a machine, then we take away his responsibility, and I say we have no right to do so. Every human being wants to live his own life, wants to enjoy his moral and cultural rights, and we are not entitled to deprive him of that right. May I be allowed to illustrate that point? It is now suggested that we should build thousands and thousands of houses. If we build them all alike, we will accommodate people in houses in which they perhaps will not want to live; we must be careful if we tackle these things. Everyone wants to build his house according to his own way of thinking. The one woman wants her kitchen to face North and the other wants it to face East. All these matters have to be taken into account. I know the natives well, and we can take the native as an example. If a native leaves my farm and I employ another one in his place, the new man is not going to live in the house which his predecessor had; he builds his own house as he wants it to be built. That is man’s instinct, that is man’s desire. I just want to make this suggestion—when I say that I associate myself with the amendment then I say that this is the time for everyone to express his views, so that the Select Committee may know what people’s ideas are and on those ideas they can base their recommendations. I want to go further and recommend that the Government should proceed to introduce temporary security—that is to say, the Government should not expend such large amounts on security, but the Government should see what is going on in the country. It is the Government’s duty to be watchful, to protect concerns which have a definite calling, which are necessary against adventurers and exploiters. I also want to suggest that when prices are fixed account must always be taken of the purchasing power of the consumers. If we probe into matters we must first of all take the position of the consumers because the consumers are those who are unproductive. The consumer is the man who has to work and who has to live, and the quantity of products which can be sold depends on him, and the price the products will fetch also depends on the consumers, and our Control Boards must take that as their starting point, and they must take into account the man’s purchasing power; then they must take into account the costs of production, and then they must allow those who do the work of distribution to make a reasonable profit. Now, let me come to the future. I want to be brief. I feel that henceforth we shall have to work very largely for the future, and we should realise that social security depends on man—on the relationship of the one man towards the other. And when I say this I am not confining myself to South Africa. Providence has taught us that we must not be selfish. One country is privileged in having certain goods and the next country has something else, and providence has taught us that no matter how wealthy an individual is, he is still dependent on somebody else; no matter how healthy an individual is the time comes when he has to depend on somebody else, and that is why we have to be careful. We have to take account of the position in other countries. In this country we may have an excess of assets of one particular kind, and we shall have to find markets for them in other countries, and those other countries in turn will have to find markets here. That is the relationship of the one nation to the other. But the great thing is the future. The future undoubtedly lies in my second and fourth propositions, namely that every individual has a calling, and every individual has to learn and he has to be taught by experience. If we place our education on a sound basis there will be no danger of social security so far as future generations are concerned. What I mean by that is this: putting it simply, we have to teach the children reading and writing, arithmetic and general knowledge; they have to know both languages and I would even go so far as to say three languages—they should know the native language as well. After that our children should be made to go to trade or vocational schools so that every child will be able to carry out his own vocation. I want to conclude: I contend that if man responds to his calling, suspicion, jealousy, cowardice and egoism will disappear to a certain extent.

It is not my intention to labour the point as to the desirability of introducing legislation for the furtherance of social security, because I believe everyone in this House has agreed on that. The question is, Sir whether a measure, or measures, shall be introduced haphazardly or whether the reports of the Social Security Committee shall be referred to a Select Committee for examination. Let me say; Sir, that the people of South Africa will not tolerate any half measures and that it is most desirable that those reports of the Social Security Committee shall be submitted to a Select Committee. We are conscious of the fact that first consideration must be given to the men and women who gave up everything to fight for our freedom, a freedom that is to give greater security, a security that will eliminate the fear of want and fear of exploitation. Therefore, sir, I feel that social security shall be considered in conjunction with the reinstatement of the soldier so as to give him that greater security to which he has first claim. When we realise, Sir, that the future of the nation is at stake, that a comprehensive investigation is to be made of the country’s productive capacity as well as the purchasing power of the nation’s income, then I say, Sir, that it is most essential that those reports shall first be considered and that measures shall not be introduced haphazardly. There is no need to tell the House that the people want security and that they are prepared to work for it. We realise that greater production is essential; but, Sir, we are also aware of the lack of opportunity to give that greater production so as to increase the income of the nation, which is so much desired to give us that greater measure of security. In my attempt to put before the House some thoughts and views, I want to assure you, Sir, that I am doing so with the object of contributing towards a better standard of living for the people, and not to attack the powers of administration. I would therefore suggest that an investigation be made of the assets lying dormant in this country with a view to bringing those assets into productivity. I do not advocate the expropriation of those assets, but I do advocate investigation with a view to bringing pressure to bear on the owners by way of taxation, so as to force those assets into production. Then the cost of production requires investigation with a view to increasing the purchasing power of the nation’s income and so ensure security. The diminished purchasing power of the pound is very much in evidence, especially when the old age pensioner has to purchase the necessities of life. Therefore assistance to approved industries in the installation of labour-saying devices so as to reduce the cost of production is necessary. This will mean a greater margin of profit for distribution, as well as reducing the cost of the product to the consumer and so augment the purchasing power of the individual’s income. Everyone is entitled to an income commensurate with his productive capacity, and by having regard to the diversity of talent, the maximum production can be achieved by developing the individual’s mind to its utmost intellectual powers. The people will thus become assets of the state, and they will appreciate also that they are wanted by the state. They will realise that they are dependent upon one another, and that the less fortunate shall not be exploited by the more fortunate. When selfish thoughts that desire the isolation of the individual or a section of the nation have been removed, then collective thought and energy will be employed for the benefit of the nation and greater production will be achieved. This will not only supply the needs of this country but we will also be able to extend the hand of benevolence to those who have suffered in this war of destruction. Then there is also this question of occupational disease, which requires investigation with a view to providing security by extending the life of human energy. The system of allowing a person to contract the disease before he is compensated must be replaced by a pension scheme which will provide a pension and retire the employee before he becomes a victim, when the balance of his energy may be employed in another capacity. I therefore advocate that the Miners’ Phthisis Commission’s report shall be also examined in conjunction with the Social Security reports. The magnitude of this undertaking which is to place the social and economic standard of the people on a more secure basis, leaves me no option but to support the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss). The people of South Africa expect the Government to tackle this question with determination. They expect measures that will mould the life of a nation. They also expect a measure soon, as an instalment or something on account.

In dealing with the White Paper that the Government has placed before the House, I wish in the first place to comment upon that portion of it that embodies the recommendations for social insurance by the Social Security Committee from the point of view of the needs of the various sections of the people to which these recommendations apply; and in the second place, to attempt to comment on the recommendations of the other portion of the White Paper, that part of it embodying the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council, upon the necessity for an increase in the national income and the steps to be taken thereto. The Social Security Committee was undoubtedly faced in its investigation with a very difficult task, for that task evidently was to attempt to make recommendations embodying principles of social insurance such as either have been applied, or have been recommended for application in countries such as New Zealand and Great Britain; to attempt to make recommendations along those lines for a country such as ours where conditions are entirely different. I want to emphasise those differences in conditions between South Africa and the other countries to which I have just referred. In the first place, we are not a racially homogeneous community. Amongst the vast mass of the people there are greater differences of income than there are in communities such as Great Britain, America or New Zealand. In the second place, the more highly developed countries to which I have referred already have highly developed systems of social insurance, and of other types of benefit of that character, which in this country are either non-existent or severely restricted to minorities amongst the population on a racial basis. In the older and more highly developed countries the question of a comprehensive social insurance scheme simply boils down to a codification, and perhaps to some extent an improvement, of an existing system of highly developed social services. But the most important difference of all, to my mind is this, that in these more highly developed communities they have attained a standard of production, a volume of production I should rather say, which makes possible these minimum standards of adequacy for the community as a whole, given a system of equitable distribution; and it is unfortunately clear from the White Paper before us that that is not the case in South Africa. It therefore follows that the fundamental conditions upon which the demand for a comprehensive system of social insurance was based in the other countries to which I have referred, do not apply or apply only to a limited extent in South Africa. In these circumstances and faced with these difficulties, the Social Security Committee in carrying out the investigations it has, and presenting the report it has, has rendered a very notable national service, because they have attempted to face up in a practical and realistic way to the difficulties to which I have referred; the committee has not attempted to take the fatal course of ignoring the existence of 80 per cent. of the population of this country which some of us, at all events, feared they might be tempted to do. They have not done that, and they have made their report applicable to the whole of the community of South Africa. That 80 per cent. of the population present the real problem of poverty on a wide scale, on a widespread mass scale. Mr. Speaker, because I pay this tribute to the report of the Social Security Committee it does not follow that I am in all respects satisfied with their recommendations. In the first place, they seem to me rather to overlook the fact that amongst the non-European groups—taking more especially the African people—there exists considerable variations in their standard of living, and in their incomes; and it would therefore appear that mere flat rate benefits applicable to the various racial groups is not really appropriate. I would much rather have seen that any differentiation in contribution and benefits should be on the basis of the income level to which the individual has attained. And there is precedent for a variation in scales of benefit on this basis in our law at the present time. Our workmen’s compensation, for instance, is based on prior earnings of the disabled person. The same applies to the miners’ phthisis law. I quite agree that in the Workmen’s Compensation Act and in the Miners’ Phthisis Act there is an element of racial discrimination; but apart from that element of racial discrimination the principle is applied of accepting the basis of prior earning capacity; and that would seem to be a much more appropriate basis for discrimination than the racial one. However, that criticism which I have just made has partially been met in the recommendation contained in Section 13 of the Report itself to the effect that in the case of non-Europeans, and I assume they include the Africans who constitute the majority of non-Europeans, in case their income, that is the income of the individual, is on a higher basis he should be allowed to contribute on the higher basis and draw a higher benefit. And if it is ultimately decided that a scheme along the lines recommended in the White Paper is to be put into force, I feel that that principle also should be embodied in such a scheme. The third observation which I have to make on the scheme embodied in the White Paper is that I feel that Scheme B should be replaced by a non-contributary scheme. Whatever social insurance system is put into force, there will still be a necessity of providing some measure of support for those who are not able to make any contributions whatever. The report of Sir William Beveridge recognises that principle. That report recommends that in addition to the social security scheme which is detailed in it, there should be a non-contributary scheme also. Sir William Beveridge recognises that even under the conditions of Great Britain there will also be a necessity for a non-contributary scheme of benefits as well as a social insurance scheme. If that is the case in Great Britain it is all the more so in South Africa where the problem of poverty is very much more widespread. The benefits recommended in the White Paper have been subject to criticism by one or two members of this House on the ground that for the European they are too low and for the non-European they are too high. I suppose it is inevitable in a House comprised as this one is and elected on an electoral basis such as exists in South Africa, that such criticism would be made of any scheme which has as its object the applicability to the whole of South Africa. But I want to say in that regard that from the monetary point of view the scales recommended in the White Paper for Europeans—I am not saying they are too high; I am not saying that more is not required—but from a monetary point of view those scales do not compare unfavourably with the scales recommended by Sir William Beveridge, in the Beveridge report, for Great Britain. In the case of a family of five in receipt of the full relief, on the basis of the White Paper scheme, on account of sickness or unemployment, such a family of five would draw £3 15s. per week. Under the Beveridge scales such a family would draw £3 4s. per week, which is less than that laid down in this report. There are, of course, differences in the cost of living in Great Britain and this country. But the suggestion that so far as native beneficiaries are concerned, the scales recommended for them are too high, can only spring from a complete lack of knowledge of the needs of the people affected. A family of five in the city where the highest rates are recommended in this White Paper, assuming that all its members were on full relief, would only draw £1 2s. per week, and for a family of five that is half the income which is represented by the poverty datum line. The property datum line, as hon. members are no doubt aware, is a standard of living below which no one of any race can hope to live, and excludes the liability for rent. With a family of five, it is in the neighbourhood of £2 per week in the great cities, and to suggest that a scale of benefits that prescribes for a native family an income of half the poverty line is too generous displays—to put it in its mildest form—a complete ignorance of the conditions which exist among the African working class population. Those benefits or scales that are laid down in the Paper are low, but nevertheless their acceptance and the application by the Government would, from our point of view, mark a considerable forward step, because at the present time the native population is entirely excluded from old age pensions and from invalidity pensions except in the case of blindness, and there is severe discrimination against them in respect of such other social services as do exist. However, as the Social and Economic Planning Council reminded us, even these scales of the White Paper are not possible of application at the present time having regard to the dimensions of the national income and taxable capacity of the community. To put even these scales into force would require an increase of 50 per cent. in the national income, and it is in the light of those considerations that the Planning Council has made what I regard as a wise recommendation, that in putting a Social Insurance scheme gradually into operation, it should be applied first to those whose needs are greatest; in other words, to the most poverty stricken. And, apart from the element of justice there, there are also sound economic reasons to support such a recommendation. The low purchasing power, the low plane of living of the majority of the people of this country, is admitted to be one of the reasons which does militate against an increase in the national income. I would suggest that an immediate step which might be taken is to broaden the basis of these social services which do exist at the present time, to apply old age pensions and invalidity pensions universally throughout the community, to wipe out the discrimination against the lowest paid income groups and to broaden the basis of the present grants that are made to mothers and dependent children. I particularly emphasise that recommendation of the Planning Council which suggested the immediate provision of one million pounds for the subsidisation of the consumption of the staple article of food, maize, of the native people. I must say that I welcome the tendency which has been apparent throughout this debate not to regard social security simply as a matter of dispensing insurance benefits, but rather to regard it as security of income and security of employment. The fact that that has been recognised shows also the recognition of the further fact that the community is faced with the necessity to take resolute steps in order to increase the producing capacity of this country before any system of social security in the real sense, for the whole population, can become a reality. What are the means that should be adopted to secure an increase in the national income for the purpose to which I have referred? The hon. members on my right, the members of the Labour Party, suggest the establishment of a State Bank in their amendment. The hon. members who initiated the debate suggest the introduction or the establishment of a State Bank, presumably for the purpose of cheapening and expanding credit facilities and for stimulating production. I am with them there. I agree with the hon. member who seconded the motion, that within the confiness of the present orthodox financial system, it is unlikely that future experience will differ substantially from past experience which has been to the effect that except under the pressure of war emergency, production has been deliberately restricted by the private banks. I do not, however, think the establishment of a State Bank would be sufficient in itself. It appears to me that the nationalisation of the Reserve Bank and possibly the commercial banks would also be necessary if cheap credit is to be provided. The mere provision of cheap credit, however, does not guarantee its productive use. In order to guarantee its productive use steps must be taken to see that the volume of investment is of sufficient proportions to utilise to the full the available labour and material resources of the community, and that can only be done by State expenditure on capital and capital-consuming goods on a sufficient scale. Even the Van Eck Commission which was by no means a Socialist body has pointed out that fact. The Commission has emphasised that before the war more than half the total investment in South Africa was already made by public bodies—the State, the Provinces and the Municipalities. With the opportunities there are for the development of the undeveloped natural resources of this country there is no reason why in the future the volume of State or public investment should not be greatly increased in proportion to private investment. But the point I want to make in this connection is that the higher the proportion of investment there is in the hands of public bodies, the more opportunities there are for the State to plan the volume of investment in order to secure the fullest possible use of our resources. Even measures of that nature are not enough in themselves to secure full employment in South African conditions. In highly developed countries the securing of full employment is simply a matter of maintaining the smooth functioning of an established industrial machine, of absorbing the unemployed in the ordinary sense. In this country the real problem of unemployment is better described as underemployment, the waste of unused natural resources and the under-employment of surplus labour power. The vast masses of the labouring force are untrained for any particular occupation. They are to a large extent partly rural and partly urban. They drift from one occupation to another, and a large portion of their time is not utilised in any productive work at all. That portion with us is under-utilised owing to lack of training and lack of opportunity and I want to emphasise that whatever I have said here applies in some degree to all sections of the community of South Africa—in the least degree of course, to the Europeans, to a considerable degree to the Coloured and Asiatic people, and it applies with the greatest force to the Native population—and in their case that under-utilisation of their potential producing capacity is maintained as a matter of deliberate policy. I have seen no indication in the debate that that is generally realised, and I want to indicate to the House in what manner that is so. More than half of the native people have some kind of domicile in the native areas. The whole of the native people are debarred by law, whatever their capacity may be, from purchasing land in over 80 per cent. of the area of this country. But even in those areas where the acquisition or the hiring of land is permitted, they are again debarred by law from acquiring more than a certain amount of land—5 morgen in some parts of the country, 4 morgen in others and even less in others again. In a community that relies largely upon initiative and enterprise as a spur to production, there is in the case of the majority of the population an artificial bar upon the acquisition of more than a certain area of land, the primary means of production. Those limitations have been placed deliberately and their reasons can be seen in their effects. Almost the entire body of the native rural population is thus driven into casual labour in urban areas, in mining and other industries. They therefore become neither peasants nor industrial workers. The limitations upon the land that is open to their purchase denies them the opportunity to become self-supporting peasants. On the other hand their occupational opportunities in industry are restricted. These factors, the limitations to which I have referred, must continue effectively to preclude the establishment of a stable native peasantry in South Africa with an effective consuming capacity of its own and to turn the vast masses into part time casual, unskilled industrial workers. And the conditions that they are faced with when they are driven to the urban areas are not such as to conduce to their growth into a stabilised industrial community, owing to lack of housing facilities, the compound system, restriction on their rights to seek work, the denial of educational opportunity, the denial of the legal rights of effective industrial organisation; all those things which the working classes throughout the world have found to be a necessity are denied to this population. Admittedly an ever growing number of “escapes” have appeared. By “escapes” I mean African people who have remained in industrial areas and who live there permanently. The vast majority, however, are forced by these conditions into continued part reliance upon an overburdened agricultural economy. The permanently urbanished Africans suffer the same disabilities as those with a domicile in the Native Areas without even their advantage of access to a small holding of land. With regard to the other great section of Africans, who work on the farms, they are deprived more than the rest of educational facilities and are prevented from exercising their opportunities to find employment elsewhere. I have often before drawn the attention of the House to the factors of this nature in our economy, but my purpose in doing so in this context, the context of social security, is to emphasise that the policy that is being pursued in relation to the majority of the people in this country is quite inconsistent with their functional integration into the economic life of this country on a basis that makes for their effective contribution either to the production or the consuming capacity of the nation as a whole. There is nothing new about what I am saying. These arguments have been urged on successive Governments in this country by successive commissions that have been appointed for the purpose of making recommendations for our industrial development and yet the whole tendency is to strengthen the policy which successive Governments have been told is inconsistent with the proper development of South Africa. Our so-called native policy is based on the assumption—entirely false,—that there is unlimited manpower available in the African population of South Africa and therefore that it does not matter what use is made of the labour resources of the majority of the population. I am speaking now purely in economic terms. That, as I say, this Government and other Governments have been continually advised is an entirely false assumption. Every penny which is spent on the development of the education, the health and remuneration of the native population will bring in a heavy return in the future to the whole community of South Africa. Our industrial system is based on the principle of mass production for mass consumption on the basis of efficiency and specialisation. Yet we largely exclude from all participation in the very fundamentals of the system the majority of the people of our country and we cannot have it both ways. If we persist in a Native policy that has as its object the provision of a supply of cheap, casual labour for the benefit of certain vested interests, we cannot utilise to the full material and human resources in this country and thus achieve an increasing national income. During the last Session of the last Parliament the Hon. Member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) moved a motion in which she asked for a reconsideration of the native policy by the Government for precisely the reasons I have adumbrated this afternoon. An amendment was moved from the Government benches reaffirming that policy, calling it a policy of trusteeship. I do not call that policy any names. I do not care by what name it is known. All I say is that we know from bitter experience what the effects of that policy are, and what is giving us anxiety is the apparent recognition by the Government of the necessity to increase the producing capacity of the people of this country in order to make possible some kind of basis for social security and yet a continued failure to recognise what is implied by such a proposal. My argument this afternoon is—I have stated it before and I have no doubt I shall have to repeat it again in the future—my argument is that if we are to aim at social security on the basis of an expanding national income, then that is utterly inconsistent with the present Native Policy of the Government.

It is very encouraging to hear after the lapse of 1,912 years that people are at last adopting the idea as preached then. I suppose that there are few subjects which command the attention of all the peoples of the world more today than social security. I have reason to believe that it takes second place to war news only. Everybody thinks in terms of social security. Everybody speaks of social security, and as I indicated in my opening remarks, we are at last coming to believe that we are indeed “our brothers’ keepers.” But the translation of an idea into action is something very different from merely speaking about it. There is, of course, no royal road to success, and it is a good thing for mankind that the road that leads to a goal worth obtaining shall be full of stones, trials, troubles and tribulations. We accept gladly that the nobler the idea the better the task. We have heard quite a lot about social security from various members of this hon. House, and it is not my intention to subject hon. members to a nauseating regurgitation of social security platitudes. Today the people are asking for houses for everybody, clothing for everybody, health for everybody, food for everybody, education for everybody; in fact, everything for everybody; and I begin to wonder at the colossal magnitude of this superstructure that we are about to build in this country and that no doubt will be built in other countries overseas. Before we can put up a super structure involving so many millions of pounds upon a foundation, the first thing we want to do is to examine that foundation. It is all very fine to speak in these terms of millions but without five fingers you cannot make a fist. We must first find out that we are able to translate our ideas into action, and it behoves us to seek the avenues by which this translation can take place. I refer to the foundation of this house—South Africa. It is, of course, very encouraging to find that everyone whatever his political opinion may be, seems to agree on the necessity for social security. Well, that in itself is a great step forward. It is common ground between all shades of public opinion, so the time for social security has come at an opportune time. It has taken some time, some 2,000 years, to come to the realisation of this great truth, but now is the time—now is the time to strike—if possible. I must, therefore, examine the elements of the foundations of the house on which we wish to put this superstructure and when I examine our country I find a country four times the size of Great Britain and Ireland, and I find in this country that a very great percentage of it—over one third—is windswept desolate waste. I have heard an hon. member say that the Karoo, “Is the finest part of the country, all it needs is water.” I have also heard people say, “Sheffield is the brightest town in Britain: all it needs is sunshine.” But the fact remains that one third of this country remans windswept desert. And then we find in our beloved country two and a quarter million people—white people, of whom 1,250,000 shall we say are Afrikaans-speaking—and 1,000,000 English-speaking. We hope and we assume that about 60 per cent. of the white population is bilingual. Then we have these other millions of non-Europeans. One third of my section of the community, I am sorry to say, is classified as “poor whites.” That is to me an uncharitable term. I prefer to express myself thus: One third of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the community is living below the breadline, and are less privileged than the other two thirds. These are unpleasant facts, but they are the foundation stones on which I am asked to build this superstructure. I have referred to the coloured section—850,000 of them, and then we have about 7,500,000 natives. Let us be quite frank and honest with each other. Neither the non-European nor the native has any reason to be profuse in his admiration of the treatment meted out to him by his master—if we may use that term. No; I have heard hon. members complain, and no wonder they complain, of a shortage of farm labour. It is true that the war is a contributory factor, but there are other factors as well. Added to this we have almost one quarter of a million Indians in this country. Now, with this compositum admixtum of mankind, I have to see how I can build my social security for the future, and it must be admitted that in our economic life, we are largely dependent upon a few holes dug in the ground on the Witwatersrand. The gold taken out of these holes is taken overseas to U.S.A, and there reburied. That is the position, economically speaking. Now up to this stage I have been like the pessimist who has viewed a glass half full of water as half empty. I now propose to take another viewpoint of this glass and call it half full. Now, let me get down to this and see what opportunity there is of putting into effect this social security scheme. We have here, like in some other countries, a difference of origin, we have a difference of politics. Our differences in politics unfortunately are not without racial elements. But if we look back on the history of this country from 1933 to 1939 we find that a great deal of progress was made due to the helpful co-operation of all sides of the community. Here all sides of the community have expressed themselves strongly in favour of the development of this social security machine, and that reminds me of a very interesting scene. One day I was outside Paddington Station—it was a cold December Christmas Eve, when a cabdriver “rolled up” with a little bit of holly in the lapel of his coat. Another cabdriver bumped into him. So the man with the holly in the lapel of his coat used a most un-Parliamentary expression to the other one, and the other man retorted, “ ’Ere, Bill what’s the use of ’aving ’olly on your coat if you haven’t got ’olly in your ’eart?” Now, from what I have heard from both sides, I should say there is a good deal of holly in the hearts of people, and with the co-operation of both sides we can go forward and look ahead, but if we are divided it will be a hopeless proposition. That is my first factor towards acquiring this great goal—this very desirable goal of social security—helpful co-operation from both sides. Then the second thing would be the development of industry. That point was well put forward by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and others. And in that connection let me just say this: In days gone by we were very doubtful of the wisdom of the establishment of Iscor. We know what happened in this House in regard to the establishment of that industry, and we know what has happened since. We know that today about 15,000 people are dependent on that great industry. I am no industrialist but I see good reasons for the belief that we could develop other industries here. I was very pleased to read a particular clause in the Fisheries Bill. I am now referring particularly to Clause 4 (g). I have marked that Clause 4 (g), and I am going to concentrate on that clause, and I shall play no small part, if I can help it, in getting that clause put into effect. That is to say, that apart from the Fishery.…

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Well, let me then go into the question of the development of our wool and textile industries. I know there are certain members here who know more—much more—about wool than I do, but I still have to find that the establishment of a wool and textile industry in South Africa is an impossibility. I know that our wool is very inferior to that which we can import from other parts of the world, but we can get experts from elsewhere to help us in improving our wool. And this I do know, that if we do develop that industry, which I am sure we can do, we shall be in a position to make cloth. It so happens that all human beings do not like the same colour of cloth, so we shall have to dye that cloth, and as a side issue we can establish a dyeing industry. And then, of course, we shall also need cotton, and cotton goods, and so we shall be able to encourage the growing of cotton on a larger scale. And it does not need any superior brain to see that if we have cloth, woollen cloth, cotton and so on, that we shall require other industries—we shall need buttons; which we shall be able to manufacture here. Now, hon. members may say: “The hon. member for Gardens is a dreamer, it cannot be done, we cannot compete with the overseas market.” Well, I would go to the extent of saying that even if these industries of ours must be protected it will be of far greater benefit to South Africa to have them protected and give work to our numerous people here who are today living below the breadline. I need only mention in passing that we need not look to South Africa alone for our markets. We have Tanganyika, we have the Rhodesias, we have the West Coast and we can go higher, and so I visualise in years to come a Union of Federated States of Southern Africa. There is no reason why we cannot start that industry. I venture to suggest that it will occupy the labours of many thousands of people, not to speak of those who are dependent on these many thousands. We could also in a small way have a glass industry, and so there are various other industries which we could consider. The Minister of Lands spoke about the Orange River not so long ago. Well, this Orange River scheme was discussed 25 years ago, viz., the diversion of the Orange River. It was discussed by the late Prof. Schwartz Irrigation can employ many thousands of people—whites, coloureds and natives—the great reservoir of manpower which today is not exploited as it should be. People will say: “You can finance social security in the same way as you financed the war—if you can raise £100,000,000 per annum for the war, then surely you can raise £100,000,000 for social security”. But there is this psychological difference. Mankind will pay to the uttermost farthing to keep the enemy from the gate, but it will not pay to the uttermost farthing for internal development. And there is also this, man does not crave so much for assistance—as he craves for the opportunity of assisting himself. Under no circumstances whatever must we have in South Africa a system which will be like the pernicious dole system which obtained in Great Britain at the end of the last war, and continued up to practically the second Great War. We cannot undermine the moral fibre of our people, and that is why I am all in favour of helping my fellow man to help himself. It is perfectly true that we owe a duty to our fellow citizens, but it is equally true that the citizens of South Africa also owe a duty to the State. Just last evening the Minister of Finance was saying that he could foreshadow the disappearance of a lot of our trouble by the establishment of industries and production. I was very glad to hear these words fall from his lips. It is no use my finding work for a man unless I am prepared to keep that man well. So I want to say something about the health of the people. Knowing that we have the National Health Services Commission sitting at the moment, and realising that we are waiting with bated breath for the results of the work of that commission, I shall be brief on that point. I want to say a few words about what was hinted at in the Part Appropriation discussion by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Connan).

The hon. member must not refer to speeches made in previous debates.

I apologise. Well, my comment is in respect of venereal disease. I shall be very brief, because I cannot hope to do anything in the way of industry unless I can get my chief reservoir of manpower, that is the native in a fit condition. And I hope that the National Health Services Commission, if they do nothing else, will recommend free medical attention for at least the non-Europeans and the Natives. Will it surprise you to know—I expect not—that 52 per cent. of the natives of the Union are infected with venereal disease? 52 per cent.! Do hon. members realise that last year in Cape Town alone 3,651 new cases of venereal disease reported themselves at the clinics in Cape Town? Do hon. members know what that menas? It means that we have a venereal rate in Cape Town 60 times as much as in Great Britain, and 74 times as much as in the best regulated country in the whole world—Sweden. We have here a rate of almost 1,000 per 100,000, and in Great Britain they were very upset because they discovered last year that the average was 16.3 per 100,000. In Sweden the figures rose from 6.4 to 7.1 per 100,000, and here we have 1,000 per 100,000, and we expect to be able to use as a reservoir of manpower for our industries people infected to that extent! The reason why I mention that particular disease is because there is no disease, including rheumatic diseases and cardiac diseases, which so undermines the economy of a nation as venereal disease, and what can we hope for the future if 52 per cent. of our natives are infected. We admit it is a disease which has been handed over to them by the white man, and whenever that disease takes toll in a new nation it takes a very heavy toll. My method of combating that is very simple indeed. But I am shocked and surprised and disappointed when I am told by the Minister of Public Health, now called the Minister of Social Security, with a smile on his face: “Do you know what has happened? I have spent almost £1,250,000 on health?” I was looking for the extra nought. A little over £1,000,000 is spent on the whole of our health services. We shall have seriously to consider not only giving housing, clothing and food to our manpower, but also health, and there is no other way out of it, but to do what is done in Scandinavia, where they have compulsory notification. There are difficulties, I know. In conclusion, in regard to health matters, I think it is incumbent on every man who employs domestic servants, white or coloured, to have his servants’ blood examined. That is one method whereby we shall stamp out that great underminer of the economy of the manpower of South Africa. Now, a few words in conclusion. I am not satisfied that the worker should be well looked after and healthy only. What I still want is an educated, hard worker, a good wage earner, and consequently on the Budget I am going to elaborate to a greater extent on this point, but at this stage I wish to point out that I am strongly in favour of compulsory education for all Europeans. I am strongly in favour of free education up to and including standard X or the age of 18. I know many of my friends will say: “You are speaking about compulsory and free education in the wrong House,” but obviously if the Provincial Councils must shoulder this burden they must have the sinews of war wherewith to shoulder it, and it is no use telling the Provincial Councils to provide for these things when the Central Government does not supply them with the necessary funds to undertake this liability. As I have said, I am in favour of compulsory and free education for Europeans up to Standard X or the age of 18; for coloureds up to Standard VIII or the age of 17; and for natives up to Standard VI or the age of 14. It will cost millions but it will be worth while. I want to conclude with these words. I cannot see how South Africa can under the present circumstances, having the foundation which we have, carry this great superstructure involving hundreds of millions, unless we have all people working together in this vast country of ours, unless we establish industries, even if we must protect them them by subsidies; and further I cannot see how we can do these things unless we look after the health of the people in general, Europeans, non-Europeans and Natives, and unless we look after the education of the people of this country. If we do that then and then only we can speak of social security.

Might I begin by congratulating the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) on his speech, but might I also be permitted to temper my congratulations with a little criticism? The hon. member for Gardens, I believe, typifies the attitude of a large number of members in this House, and a very large number of people outside this House, in connection with this matter of social security. His speech was one continuous expression of goodwill. Well, we have had many of these expressions of goodwill, not only from Members of Parliament, from politicians, but from leaders of commerce and industries, for quite a considerable time, but expressions of goodwill will never get any further than just being expressions of goodwill, and I am rather inclined to think that the Prime Minister is very much in the same boat. The Prime Minister has on a number of occasions given us expressions of goodwill so far as social security is concerned, but now, when we come at this late date to the House of Assembly, we find the Prime Minister says this about social security: “Yes, we want it but not now, some time in the future”. After all the consideration which has been given to this matter, after all the investigation which is taking place in regard to this whole question, we find that according to the Prime Minister the investigation has not been sufficiently complete, and so now he calls on the House to conduct what I hope will be the final investigation. We, the Labour Party, say there is no necessity for a Select Committee to investigate this matter at this time. There was a necessity when the matter was originally mooted, and it should then have been investigated, but according to the usual Government policy this House did not seem to have the necessary intelligence and so the matter was handed over to outside Commissions. Now, it seems that these outside Commissions have not done the job as the Prime Minister wanted them to do it, and now we have to do the work, so we are to do the final investigation, and possibly prolong it for another 18 months and whether the job will be concluded is a matter about which the people of this country are going to be very seriously perturbed. I think the people of South Africa are viewing the policy of the Government in this connection with very profound distrust. I find, talking to the ordinary man in the street, that he has got to the attitude of saying, “Well, we have had all this talk about social security, but we do not believe that anything will be done,” and I myself am rather beginning to adopt that attitude. Because the facts are available—and more than available. We have been having these facts about the parlous conditions under which a large proportion of the population live for many years. We know those conditions of the population, we know what should be done, but the simple fact of the matter is that we do not do it. Things are delayed from Session to Session, from Parliament to Parliament, and I believe that the people in the country are correct when they express this view of profound distrust, and on many occasions of amusement in regard to the efforts of the House of Parliament. This question of social security and the debate in this House have also given rise to a number of topics being raised and I am rather inclined to believe that the House has missed the main point in the motion of my hon. friend, the member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). Now, of all the economic ills from which we suffer under the capitalistic system, unemployment is the most important. And at the beginning of our motion we say that we want legislation and we want it this Session, to provide for employment for all able to work at an adequate wage, and an adequate standard of living. That is our first point. We have, of course, an alternative. We say if you cannot provide employment for all at this adequate wage, then you must provide a sub-situte in the nature of allowances, also based on an adequate standard, but our first and primary and fundamental demand from the Government, a demand which so far has received no consideration as far as I can see, is that the people of this country to be socially secure require work. Actually I detest that word and I have always used the words “economically secure” because socially secure brings to my mind things which are not germane to the subject. We are asking for economic security; we want the Government to see that every person able to work shall be provided with work at a standard which will enable him to maintain a civilised standard of life, and to this the Government so far has made no reply. The reply of the White Paper is not a reply to this demand. We do not even know whether the Government accepts that White Paper. We do not know what precisely are the Government’s views on it; at any rate, the reply of the White Paper is not a reply to our demand for continuous employment. Now, there is a great deal of loose talk and a great deal of loose thinking on this matter, and I am not going to absolve even the Economic Planning Council from the charge of loose thinking. That Council find themselves in this difficulty, that the productivity of South Africa is very low, and they can only put forward their scheme on the assumption that the productive capacity of South Africa should rise at least 2 per cent. per annum, or at least 50 per cent. before 1955. But side by side with this statement, that South Africa’s productivity is very low, we have the admission that South Africa always had and is still likely to have a serious unemployment problem. The two things are contradictory. If your productive capacity is very low and you have an unemployment problem which is almost continuous, it means that your productive capacity is low for the reason that you do not put your people to work. That is elementary logic. And if you do not put your people to work, how can you expect South Africa to increase its productive capacity by 1955? On the other hand, I assume that the figures in the report are based on the fact that we are going to continue to have this unemployment problem and that when social security is achieved, even then a section of your people will draw these unemployment allowances. Here you have the position where on the one hand we are told that we must, increase production in the Union of South Africa, and on the other hand it is feared that we will have a permanent unemployment problem which will be a financial drain at least on the rest of the country who are gainfully employed. Now why must we necessarily have an employment problem? We are not, in the first paragraph of this particular motion, asking the Government for a social insurance policy. We are asking Government to make provision in this country to see that every man able and willing to work is put in a job, and that cannot be achieved merely by introducing a system of social insurance. The problem goes far beyond that. Social insurance won’t provide us with jobs. It may provide us with a certain amount of money to keep body and soul together. Here I disagree profoundly with the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), because there is no possible comparison with the figure laid down in this country and the figure laid down in England. The cost of living in England is immeasurably lower, and in real money the proposals of the Beveridge Report are far and away above those contained in the report issued in the White Paper, and so in the long run, just as the hon. member emphasised the meagreness of the amount of money paid to a non-European, so also is the amount paid to a European family of five, an amount with which it is utterly impossible to maintain anything like a European standard of living in a country like South Africa. It is just going to keep them from actually starving. But the root of the problem here lies in this question of unemployment. I have said in this House before, and it bears repetition, I believe it bears continuous repetition, that we have had the experience in the Union of South Africa during the war, an experience which has its counterpart in the United States and Great Britain and in other countries of the Allied nations, We have had the experience that if you withdraw a considerable proportion of the best of your manhood and womenhood from production, and you employ them in an entirely unproductive manner of fighting for their country, when you keep a very large proportion of the remaining men and women of the country again on the highly unproductive and wasteful pursuit of making munitions, you give to your country a higher standard of living. Let me emphasise that point, and it is a point with which the Social and Economic Planning Council were apparently not prepared to deal. When you divert a large proportion of your population to a completely wasteful occupation, and another large proportion of your population to no production at all, apparently the result is that you have a higher standard of living in the country concerned. We in South Africa have got approximately a quarter million people, Europeans and non-Europeans, in the army. We have provided them over a number of years with complete economic security. But they are contributing nothing to the actual production of the country. They are not employed for that purpose. They are employed for the purpose of fighting. So they contribute nothing to the production of the country. And amongst these quarter million people are some of the most productive workers we have got. We have, on the other hand, a very large proportion of the remaining part of the population, the most skilled of our men and women being employed in the unproductive work of producing munitions which will be torn asunder in the air; and yet for the last four or five years South Africa has had generally a higher standard of living than ever she had before, and I would like the Economic and Planning Council to explain to me just precisely how this occurs. Why is it when you are blowing your wealth in the air, why is it when you are concentrating the cream of your manhood and womanhood on fighting for your country—that you will have a higher standard of living than you had when the whole of these people were available for productive work. The answer is very simple indeed, and the answer is just precisely this. During the period of the war the people have enough money to spend, and they spend it, and despite the fact that we are actually short of imported articles we are still living on a higher scale today in the Union of South Africa than we were living on before the war, because the Government has raised the standard of living, particularly in the army, to a level in the case of a man and woman and two children to something like £232 per annum. They have admitted in the scale of wages which is laid down by the army that they should pay the average scale for a family of that description. But in actual peace time it is about £84, well under £100. It is found possible in time of war, in time of crisis, to pay the people of this country the wages they should receive, but it is not found possible in time of peace, and we have been warned on every hand that apparently on the conclusion of hostilities we shall have to go back to the bad old days. If the White Paper on social security means anything at all, it does mean that that plan has been formulated, and has been based, on a South Africa of pre-war time, and that the obvious lessons which have been drummed into us every day and at every street corner during the war have not been learnt and have not been paid attention to. I want to say this to the Economic and Planning Council. They may be composed of a considerable number of economists; I am always scared of economists; I know in the mid-Victorian days when the workers struggled to earn an existence we were always told by the economists that such and such could not be done because production was too low. We were told by the economists that if a workman was given more wages he would only spend it in the bar.

Dog racing.

Dog racing is the story today. But what I want to say to the Economic and Planning Council and to the Minister of Finance is this: Is he or is the Economic and Planning Council prepared to tell me that South Africa, in the first instance, cannot fend for itself. I am sure he would be a bold man if he did. I say and say definitely—the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) was talking about the windswept deserts of South Africa—there are windswept deserts in South Africa, but the trouble in this country is that we are too fond of talking about having a poor country instead of admitting that we are a poor people in a rich country. It is not a poor country. To carry our population of a little over 10,000,000 in the vast areas we have in the Union of South Africa is a good economic proposition. This is literally a rich country, but it is too full of poor people; and we do produce, or we did before the war when we had the spectacle that we used to provide and ship food to the people of Europe, while our own people were starving. We were doing that for years, and the Labour Party in this House often tried to draw the attention of the Government to the absurdity and stupidity of that policy. But it is a policy which apparently is still going to be continued, unless the Minister of Economic Development has something up his sleeve. The Minister of Economic Development is a very shy Minister. I admire his modesty very, very much indeed; at least I am going to pay him the compliment of believing it is modesty; or it might be that he has not any plans at all. At any rate, he was sufficiently modest not to reply to a few words I said in a previous debate. He has been so modest as to refuse us any information in this debate as to what his plans are for the economic development of South Africa. We want to know these plans, because the issue of the White Paper telling us how much we shall have to pay in taxation for very low and minor benefits, does not take us very far along the road. The problem that is confronting this country, and the problem for which a solution will have to be provided for the people who are fighting, is how to find work for the people; and secondly, what proposals the Government have in mind now, not in 1949. We are not concerned with 1949. Some of us might not be here, and it is certain that a number of people who are fighting for us today will not be here. We want to know what are the proposals. I say that if the Minister of Finance is prepared to say openly, and to show me that the Economic and Planning Council, or any other economist finds that we cannot feed ourselves, I may be a little convinced. But all my knowledge of the subject goes to show that there is no possible shadow of doubt but that in the Union of South Africa we can grow a sufficiency of food and a very great variety of foods which can not only feed the whole of our population on an adequate standard, but can possibly furnish a surplus for export to less fortunate people. Has the Minister of Finance or the Economic and Planning Council, or any of those other bodies which have been set up during the last few years—they are getting so numerous that I can never remember to tabulate them all—can any of these bodies tell me that in the Union of South Africa we cannot clothe ourselves. It would be nonsense, it would be preposterous to make such a statement. We produce the finest wool in the world in the Union of South Africa. We have a sufficiency of manpower. We could get the machinery if we were really interested in it; and so in the Union of South Africa we can definitely clothe the whole of our population. But, Mr. Speaker we don’t do it. Do you realise just what tremendous development there would be in the boot and shoe industry at Port Elizabeth if every head of a family bought a pair of extra boots a year. For that matter do you realise what development there would be in the dairy industry if every family bought one pound of extra butter a year—not a week. We would not have any butter for export. We need not be locking for export markets, and that is the crux of the whole situation. I remember years ago telling Mr. Havenga that I was quite sure that he was going to recommend me for a knighthood, because I had found a country with 8,000,000 people which will be prepared to buy only South African goods. He said he would if I could prove that statement. I then suggested that the market happened to be the Union of South Africa, and that it was composed of the 8,000,000 non-Europeans, who today have no money to buy anything. Here we are talking about industrial development; here we are setting up boards; here we are producing long-winded and verbose reports—we know everything about ourselves Mr. Speaker, these days, we know what the working man’s earnings are, we know the facts about the economics of South Africa; and we are continually deluding ourselves that we are a poor people. We are actually a poor people, but we are essentially solvent. We can feed ourselves; we can clothe ourselves. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to tell us we cannot house ourselves in the Union of South Africa. I am quite sure that he cannot. I am quite sure that he could not produce any logical economic argument to convince me that given the will and the purpose to do it, the people of the Union of South Africa could not house themselves adequately. And in fact we do no such thing. In South Africa we have, as I have said so often, not profited by the mistakes of the older countries of Europe, and we are today a young country with bright ideas and brains and energies. We are today a country with some of the worst slums to be seen in the civilised world. The housing of South Africa is a disgrace to South Africa. The conditions under which people are prepared to live, under which people are forced to live is disgusting in the extreme, and we are not going to cure it with all these high falutin’ ideas we have now about a state medical service. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) was talking about the prevalence of venereal disease in the Union of South Africa. But the prevalence of venereal disease in the Union of South Africa is purely a question of housing. You bring your natives into the towns and you herd your natives together in locations. You herd them together in barracks and you do not allow them to bring their women-folk in, with the result that there is prostitution and venereal disease. If these natives were given decent living conditions it would do far more to reduce the incidence of venereal disease than all the state medical services in the world because it would tackle the subject at its very root. And so I could go on in respect of almost every other disease. Tuberculosis is as prevalent in South Africa as in every other country; and this too is a question of housing. People do not get tuberculosis when they are properly fed and housed. Nor do people get most of the other diseases which are such a problem in South Africa, when they are fed, clothed and housed. Nor do people develop into a criminal class unless they are so born, if they are properly clothed, fed and housed. And so the problem comes back to this question, the very elementary question of feeding, clothing and housing ourselves. It is a most remarkable thing about the human being, that we face up to some terrible problems, and we solve them. Confronted with such problems the ingenuity of men probably knows no bounds. The development of the aeroplane alone during this war is standing testimony to that. Its efficiency has continued to increase until we have now an aeroplane with a speed of over 500 miles an hour. As soon as one method of exterminating humanity is invented, humanity reacts by producing some other weapon which saves us from being exterminated. We tune in on our wireless and hear voices seven, eight or ten thousand miles away. There is no end to our ingenuity. Humanity in general is very clever indeed, but the one problem it has not so far been able to solve is this very elementary problem of our bread and butter, which is the most important, and we have not been able to solve that, because so many people have not been able to solve it. They give lip service to it, of course. We have had all these lashings of goodwill thrown at us until we have been almost stunned by it. I never knew there were so many well wishing people in the world. But when we come down to tintacks we hear, as one hon. member has said: “You must increase production or you must encourage private enterprise.” What we must do is to feed, clothe and house the people. There does not seem to be any insuperable obstacle to that. You have the economists writing hundreds of pages to show how it cannot be done. We feel that it can be done. Even within the ambit of the capitalistic system itself I believe a measure of economic security can be achieved. I am satisfied, of course, as the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) so ably pointed out in seconding this motion, complete and adequate economic security cannot be achieved under the capitalistic system, but a very large measure of economic security can be achieved, a measure, I am satisfied, far beyond anything envisaged by the Economic and Planning Council. Then, as far as I can see at the moment, the Economic and Planning Council does not envisage any really serious alterations in the economic structure of the Union of South Africa. And it is obvious, of course, that if you are going to leave the future of South Africa to the free play of private enterprise, if the post-war period is going to be conducted on the basis of a profit motive, then it is quite obvious that the Economic and Planning Council is correct. I have heard very many stories of co-operation. I have heard so much goodwill being bandied on the ether and from the pulpit, on public platforms and the daily press.…

And from Labour.

We are not only people of goodwill, we are not too much people of goodwill sometimes. There are a great many people in this country I would painlessly liquidate without a single teardrop, and there are many institutions I would pull down tomorrow like Samson, without worrying too much about it. So we are not only exuding goodwill but commonsense. All this talk is very nice. We hear: I like my brother, he should have this and that—but. We say “but me no buts.” We want to see the people of this country adequately fed and clothed and housed, and we are determined to put that as far as possible continuously before the people. The people of this country want to see that done, and they believe it could be done, and they are in the mood and temper to see it is done, and to sweep out of existence anything which stands in its way. What is the Government’s reaction to our plea for a State bank? As far as I gather they have no reaction at all. They just adopt an attitude, that the Labour Party has been agitating for 30 or 40 years and that it is just one of those things they, the Government, are not prepared to consider. But the position of the private banks today is that the private banks can make or mar the prosperity of this country. If the private banks make up their minds after the war to go in for a policy of deflation, it does not matter what the Government does, we must of necessity have a depression in this country. If the banks restrict credit, if the banks decide to withdraw loans, if they decide to deflate the currency and to get paid back what they have lent out in real money, which is of course 100 per cent. more valuable than when they lent it—and that is the only way they make money—the Union of South Africa will be faced with a very complete and severe depression. On the other hand, the currency which is issued and the credit which is given by the banks is not based on any inherent stability of the banks themselves. That credit and the currency is based on the stability of the country. In other words, they are using your credit and my credit, and the credit of the people generally to make their profits, and they make very fine profits indeed.’ It is unfortunate, of course, that the economists and a particular brand of politician have always managed to suggest, rather than to state openly, to people, when this question of a State bank is discussed that behind it somewhere is the idea of a printing press which is going to turn out notes to replace value of hundreds of millions, and that eventually the country will become bankrupt. They have taken these days to quoting the horrible example of Germany, quite forgetting that Germany deliberately set out to make her currency valueless. And they also quite forget, to quote the case of Germany after she had stabilised her currency, when Germany for many years showed the world not only how she could run her own finance, using the credit of the State for the State, but how without gold she could engage in competition with countries that had gold; and she did that with the Union of South Africa. She entered into an agreement with this country, as my hon. friends will remember, which I objected to, and the grounds of my objection were to the Nazi system. But I must say this, that the wool agreement worked well and that this country did not lose a penny as far as that wool agreement was concerned.

We might have lost it at the outbreak of war.

I am not dealing with that question now. I did object to the wool agreement on the ground that I would not have had an agreement of any kind with Nazi Germany. But that does not detract from the fact that it worked well, that Germany showed the world how to run a financial system based on her own credit, and without gold. And we in this country can run our own financial system without any assistance from the private banks. In the last war the Australian State Bank actually financed half of Australia’s total war expenditure, and this matter will interest my farmer friends; in one season when the price of wool had fallen very considerably, the State Bank of Australia actually purchased the whole of the wool crop. They printed bank notes and issued to the farmers the amount that was realised for the whole of the wool crop. They bought it at a fair price, and then they held on to this wool crop for six or seven months, until such time as the market had recovered to its former level, and then they sold the wool at a higher price and gave the money back to the farmers, destroying the notes they had printed. That shows what can be done by the people of a country using their own credit on their own behalf, and it can be done in the Union of South. Africa. One knows, of course, that the very pulse of the capital system is the private banking system. But it is obvious to the most superficial observer that our trouble in the pre-war days and in every country of the world almost was that millions of people who were able to work could not find work. Our troubles could be traced to the operations of the financial system. I do not blame the factories. I do not blame the industrialists who had pioneered national industries in this and other countries, but they are themselves just as much in the hands of the individual or collective private bankers as are the people of the country itself. You know, Sir, that it has happened that the banks by an arbitrary decision have on occasion completely ruined an industry and have thrown thousands of men into the streets unemployed, with all the attendant suffering to their wives and dependants, merely because it suited their book. This apart altogether from the practical necessity and practical benefit that would accrue to us from a State Bank. The power today that lies with private banking institutions is a power which should only be in the hands of the State, and which should be used by the elected Parliament of a State. We imagine that we govern this country; we do not. This country is governed by financial interests. Every country, bar Russia is governed by financial interests. Those financial interests have no patriotism. Banking is not a patriotic institution. You can take that from me that when it suits them to ruin the Union of South Africa, and when it suits them to ruin Brazil or to ruin any other country, the private banking interests will do so. So I feel that the Government, in this instance, by referring this matter to a Select Committee, has really burked the problem. They have run away from the whole problem. The motion of the Labour Party raises two things very clearly, this question of giving social allowances and social insurance, however important though it may be, is actually subsidiary to the two main points we raise in the motion. First of all we say that continuous employment should be guaranteed for all the people of this country who are willing and able to work.

The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), one of the newly elevated Press barons, is invariably interesting and stimulating, as he was this afternoon, and strangely enough I found myself sharing a good many of his views. He was outspoken. I think the time has arrived when we should be outspoken. The time has arrived when we should, tell the Government that it is on trial; because it is on trial this Session. The public is not prepared to condemn the Government beforehand, it is not prepared to condemn the Government unheard, but the Government is on trial and the country is waiting to see whether during the course of this Session something is going to be done—not whether we are going to have a comprehensive social security code—the public does not expect that that should be ready this Session—one has to be reasonable, but the public is waiting to see whether the Government is going to lay the foundation at least during this Session upon which will be built such a comprehensive code. This is not the time for complacency. The hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) who spoke earlier this afternoon—I don’t know whether he held a brief for the Minister, or whether he spoke entirely for himself—said that in respect of social security the White Paper was the concluding phase. I want to tell the Government that the White Paper is not only not the concluding phase, but that, in so far as Government responsibility is concerned, it is not even the first phase, and that the Government has a long way to go before the country will be impressed merely with good intentions. The hon. member, if I understood him correctly, sought to present this case, that everything that has been done so far by the Government in relation to social security was the taking of one step after another in logical sequence. That may well be. I do not quarrel with that. But I say that nothing that has yet been done commits the Government in any degree or direction whatever. All that has been done, and granted the one step has followed the other logically—but all that has been done so far has been work, and very valuable work, which in no way binds the Government, and that obtains equally in respect of the Select Committee to which this matter in the light of the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) is to go. We have had an investigation by the Planning Council. We have had a preliminary report, a most valuable report. The Government is not bound by that. The Government has not indicated in any single statement which is binding whether it accepts that report or not. I am not going through the whole sequence, but the same applies in respect of every report we have had since. It applies equally to the report of the Planning Council contained in the White Paper and the report of the Social Security Committee. And apart from the indications of the Prime Minister, there has been no binding act on the part of the Government which commits it in one direction or another. My quarrel is that precisely the same will apply in respect of the Select Committee. The Government is not bound by what the Select Committee will recommend; the Government will be free to reject the recommendations of the Select Committee in toto. True, it will be a logical step, but it will not conclude the matter, and I say again that the foundation for social security, in the Government’s own interests, must be laid this Session, and the foundation will be laid when the Government declares what it is prepared and intends to do. Now, it is an unfortunate thing, and it is a remarkable thing, and it happens so frequently that Parliament assembles, having waited for months and months for some report, for some step to be taken, that the report or the step is taken just at such a moment when it is not possible for the Government to do much about it, when the Government is obliged to ask for time. We had it with the Food Controller, the separation of the functions of the Food Controller from the office of the Minister. An agitation was on foot in the country month after month, but eventually that step was taken when Parliament had almost met. We do not know today the extent of the authority of the Food Controller, we do not know to what extent he enjoys authority which will give him those functions which the public expects of him. And the answer of the Government will be, “He has only just been appointed, the matter will be investigated and dealt with in due course.”

What about the Phthisis Commission?

Much the same applies to the Phthisis Commission.

Then you must blame your Leader for that.

Perhaps so; I was sorry the Minister of Mines did not give any undertaking in respect of that report.

It is the Government’s fault.

One of the speakers this afternoon stressed the necessity for some plan which was not haphazard, and I think any responsible person will be entirely with him. The country does not want some patched up plan which will appeal to the popular palate but which would be without any substantial foundation. Now, before I pass on I think it will be appropriate to say this, with reference to the commission over which the hon. member for Yeoville has presided so ably for many months. I referred to that commission earlier on in this Session, and I made my attitude clear then, that I did not want in any way to reflect on the commission, because its report was not yet available. I did not charge the commission with undue delay in the completion of its labours, but I do say that it is unfortunate that that report is not available at a time when the Select Committee—if it is appointed—will be discussing social security. To my mind it is impossible to consider social security with all its implications without reference to the health plans of the Government. Very well then, may I, in those circumstances, make this suggestion—and it is also an appeal—I understand that the deliberations of the commission were concluded some four months ago. I assume that the members of the commission must be agreed on the broad principles upon which their report will be founded. I want to suggest therefore to the responsible Minister that he should appeal to the Chairman of the Commission to submit an interim report which will indicate to the country the broad principles upon which the Report will be founded. I believe if that is done it should prove of valuable assistance to the committee—if the amendment is adopted—which will give consideration to this matter. Now, I do not quarrel necessarily with the appointment of a Select Committee. In itself it does not mean very much, it is not conclusive. A Select Committee can be the logical course and the right course to adopt in the present circumstances. It can on the other hand serve the purpose which unfortunately so many Select Committees have done in the past—the purpose of evading a responsibility at any rate for the time being. Which of these two purposes this Select Committee will serve depends entirely on the intentions of the Government. Either it can be a Select Committee which the country will in time to come say was the natural and logical next step, or it will say that the Government sidestepped the issue by appointing a Select Committee. I want to say that the Government dare not allow the country at any time to fasten on to the second explanation as their conclusion. The Government must convince the country of its good intentions. Now, the Prime Minister has indicated that the Government will accept this amendment, that this is proposed because it is the next logical step. For my part I would have preferred to have seen a Select Committee suggested rather more committed than this one is in the nature of the work it is called upon to do. The terms of reference to the Select Committee are as vague as they can possibly be. There is nothing to suggest that the Select Committee is required to adopt such of these recommendations in the Social Security Committee’s Report as are within the economic reach of the country. It can reject all these recommendations, and report accordingly to Parliament. If it does we shall, of course, not be laying down a foundation for social security, and I leave it to the imagination of the Minister in charge, in the light of what I have said, what the reaction of the country will be. ’ Now, the Prime Minister gave expression to a thought which I am sure one would like to feel correctly represents the position. He said it was unnecessary to debate the principle of social security because the country wanted that to be done. I think that by and large that is correct. And to the extent that it is correct I feel the country owes a good deal to the labours of that organisation, over which the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) presides. It has served this very necessary and useful function, not that it has created a demand for social security—that is inherent in the conditions under which we live, but what the association under the able chairmanship of the hon. member has done is to have awakened the South African conscience and to have made it abundantly aware of its desire to have social security. I freely pay that modern tribute to the hon. member and his organisation. Well, I say that I believe that in the main it is correct that the large proportion of, the public of South Africa wants social security. But there are two enemies of social security of whom we should take heed. There is the one who is an obvious one, who is more enamoured of the slogan than of the principle. I refer to the politician who wants to talk social security for the next few years, but does not want to see it come into being because it serves a useful purpose. And then there is the other one, the alleged friend of social security, who tells you he is all for social security if we can afford it. And there lies his sting—you can leave it to him to recite a case to convince you that we cannot afford it. That is his real attitude to it, he does not want social security any more than the man who debates it for political and ulterior purposes. Now, the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) I think typifies the sort of enemy of social security whom I have described—the man who says: “I am all for it, but beware of the cost—there is the national income and all that sort of thing, we cannot afford it.” And then he proceeds to repeat that complacent story which we have heard time and again, that we have not done so badly after all in any event, and then he goes on to tell you what we have spent in respect of social services, and he tells you that what we have spent does not compare unfavourably with what other countries have spent on it. If one is impressed with him one feels there is hardly any need for social security, because we have really done very well. The principle which appeals to me in social security is that it postulates a different outlook for the people in respect of their responsibility to their fellow men. In our social services, so far the maxim which the Government has followed, not only this Government but past Governments, has been how little need we spend on these services. Our outlook if we accept the philosophy of social security, is how much can we possibly spend. Now I want to say a word about the Planning Council and I want to point to this extraordinary situation. The Government has appointed a Planning Council. The Government is not bound by the Planning Council—the Government can reject every recommendation it makes. That is not likely to happen because the difficulty is that if it rejects the recommendation of the Planning Council it must be in the face of some other alternative recommendations, and it is difficult to know where those recommendations would come from. In effect, the Planning Council is the sole guide of the Government. The point which emerges from this is what is the status of this body, in whose hands lies very much the creating of the framework of our economic future, the body which will guide the Government in the next succeeding years. What is its status? That body itself, appreciating the difficulties under which it was asked to work, asked for a charter, asked that it should be put on the Statute Book and given a legal status. The Government did not see fit to do that. So we have a body charged with the greatest responsibility to shape the future, a body upon which the Government so strongly leans, a body which in turn has no recognised status, no well defined authority, and composed of part time members. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you were building a new and expensive home, would you employ a part time architect? I would not. And I think if the Planning Council is to play the part in the economic life of South Africa which we expect of it, and which it is held out it is going to play, then it will have to be given a status commensurate with its responsibilities. Now, I want to say this, the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp makes an attack on our economic system, and the Prime Minister indicated that there was no need in his view to interfere with the economic system. I am prepared to say that the Prime Minister is expressing a view which will commend itself to many, but it is subject to this proviso, that we must make a concerted attack on the inherent weaknesses in our present system. For my part, if the Government makes a frontal attack on monopolies, and thereby touches on what I believe is the root of unemployment, then I shall be satisfied to see the present system continue. But it must be a very strong attack on these weaknesses. One final word: The Prime Minister referred to the re-employment of our soldiers as being our first duty. I think our returned soldiers are the first to recognise that their problem is part of the whole problem. You cannot deal with the re-employment of the soldiers as an isolated problem. You have to deal with the whole problem of unemployment as you have to deal with all aspects of social problems. I believe that the serving soldier and the returned soldier will be the first to demand that the foundations of social security should be laid this Session. We should have from the Minister of Finance, who holds the purse strings and who has so much say in this matter, who is one of those who has been the second kind of friend of social security I have enumerated, we should have from him a declaration committing the Government, and such a declaration as will evoke us to say that the foundation of social security has been laid.

When we on this side criticise, we do not do so out of vindictiveness towards the Government. But we as the Opposition feel that we must be honest with ourselves, our country and the Government. Since we are dealing with such an essential matter which concerns the whole population and the whole country, I am sorry that there is not spontaneous unanimity in this House. The needs are so great arid so serious, and nevertheless there is not unanimity in this House. I have in mind the front benchers on the other side, for example. I we were to ask them what they think of social security, I am deeply convinced that it would appear that they are more interested in social self-advancement than in national social security. Let us ask this question: Where is the root of the trouble? We are living in a country which is rich in every respect—rich in raw materials, rich in minerals, gold and diamonds. Our country seems to be a rich country and notwithstanding that it is also the poorest, country in the world. In looking for the basic cause of poverty, malnutrition and under-clothing, in South Africa, I say that the fault does not lie with South Africa. We must look for the fault elsewhere. As in the case of all countries on which foreign countries have a stranglehold, we also experience these troubles in our country. Does the Minister who is responsible for this matter really take it to heart, or is it England’s interests that he is concerned about? The moment we really live up to the idea of South Africa first these difficult problems will solve themselves. But that is not the case as far as the present Government is concerned. As I have said, when we criticise we do not do so out of vindictiveness, but we want to make our contribution in bringing about a change and an improvement in this state of affairs. If we come to this conclusion, it is clear that the safety of England is of greater importance to this Government that the safety of South Africa. If there had not been an England, there would not have been a problem of social security in this country; it would have been a matter of the past; it would have been solved years ago. But we as a country and as a nation are under the firm heel of another power, to such an extent that whichever way we try to turn, we find ourselves outmanoeuvred. Take, for example, the United States of America. The United States faced this problem a few hundred years ago, and perhaps even to a greater extent and of more serious dimensions. But since America got away from this retarding influence, since that date America has been able to make headway. She then saw better days and was able to take care of her own people. There were no Boers to rebel against England; the English themselves did so, and they were not worse Englishmen because they threw off the yoke, but they became better Englishmen who were able to take care of their own country: Our English friends in this country will not be worse Englishmen if they place South Africa and South Africa’s interests above the interests of all other countries of the world. They would then be true and good Englishmen. We want to create a better South Africa; it must be done; it cannot be otherwise. We should like to process our own raw materials here, our own mineral riches. We should like to see our own factories and industries in this country. We should like to see this country providing employment and good wages to its sons and daughters the pride and honour of our Government. But when our raw materials, with the exception of very few, are sent overseas to England where they are bought for 2s. and we have to buy them back for £1, it surely stands to reason that England would be able to provide employment for its millions. There is no unemployment in England. The money flows out of this country and we are left here with a hungry nation with meagre wages. We are exploited in this manner in order to keep the motherland alive. That is what we feel, but that is not what our Government feels. That is how we understand the future of South Africa, but they understand it differently. That is why I think the time has arrived for us to process our raw materials and minerals in this country, with very few exceptions, to convert our industries into a national affair in order to take care of our own people. We sympathise with England; she is an island; she is small. I say that we feel that England will be in a critical position if all her subordinate countries were to tear themselves away and establish their own industries. All those thousands and tens of thousands of factories would then collapse. I say that we realise this, but it is not our fault; it is England’s affair and not South Africa’s. Just as it is England’s affair to provide employment for her people and to guarantee them a civilised standard of living, so it is the bounden duty of the Government of South Africa to take care of its own sons and daughters. We would like to create a better South Africa. We are not satisfied with the prevailing conditions, and we feel that those conditions can and must be improved, and I can assure you that the Nationalists Party, the official Opposition has burnt its bridges. We want to stand and fight and we feel that whatever it may cost, South Africa must be made economically independent and the bonds of slavery which strangle her must once and for all be severed. In the present circumstances the authorities are fishing on dry ground. What type of immigrant are we getting in this country? The very worse type. We should like to have a few of those noble Englishmen here. We should like to open our gates to them, to men who come to this country not as parasites.

I think the hon. member must come back to the point.

Hear, Hear.

Don’t you like hearing the truth?

We want immigrants who can contribute to the building up of South Africa, immigrants who will come here to work hard together with the labouring classes of the country, with one great object in view, namely to make South Africa a country which will be able to take its rightful place amongst the nations of the world. I say that we do not want parasites and exploiters in this country. Poverty and malnutrition have become great evils in this country; they have become a danger. Poverty and disease are today becoming plagues. If the country combats other diseases and spends large sums of money in restoring and placing on a sound footing the health of the nation, so it is the duty of the Government to regard poverty and malnutrition and small Salaries as diseases, and to do everything in its power to eliminate these dangers. They can be eliminated. As I said at the outset, we are a rich country; we need not ask anyone for assistance. We have everything we want in this country. We have the necessary brain power. We have the money and the ability. It is not necessary for South Africa to be the economic slave of other countries. What is our Government doing? It is playing hide and seek. That is its big task, to play hide and seek. It is all very nice for the Minister to talk about and to think of the returned soldiers. We are expected today to think of the welfare of the returned soldier, and we are told that nothing can be done today for the people who find themselves in this terrible position, because the Minister is engaged in organising to place the returned soldiers in employment and preparing to assist them. As other speakers have said, here we have the foundation for the returned soldier. I know that all this big talk about the returned soldier, all those good plans will come to nothing. Many of those returned soldiers will be neglected. Many of them under the so-called wonderful protection of the Government will struggle just as hard under the burden of poverty. We ask that once and for all the Government should lay the foundation not only for the returned soldier. It is not only the returned soldier who is the son or the daughter of the country; we are all sons and daughters of the country, and if provision is made for the returned soldier, provision must also be made for our sons and daughters who did not participate in the war. They are also doing their duty. They are doing their duty in the form of heavy taxes. They must also be taken into consideration. I say that it is a wrong and impracticable argument on the part of the Minister that he cannot do anything, that he must first organise in order to assist and to place returned, soldiers in employment. We have sufficient money to place the returned soldier and also to put this great question of national security in order. I say that in this matter the Government is engaged in playing hide and seek and leaving the people in this state of hunger with an object which in my opinion is not so praiseworthy. I want to put this question to the hon. Minister: Is the object to refer to this matter to a Select Committee and to postpone it indefinitely in that way; is it really the Government’s intention not to make a start this year nor perhaps next year, if the war continues? Is it the Government’s Intention to keep the nation in a state of hunger and in a state of poverty? Why? To force them in this way to join the army, to make cannon fodder of them. The Government knows that under the ever increasing pressure of poverty there will be thousands and tens of thousands who will enlist and sacrifice their lives for the sake of making a living. Is it the intention to fall back on the old excuse that we must take care of the soldiers? Why not say: “We want to force more people to enlist by means of malnutrition and hunger?” Or is this perhaps the reason, that the Minister is afraid that it is becoming dangerous for the capitalist and the parasite? If national security becomes an accomplished fact, will not the capitalist and the parasite then be in danger? Is the Government afraid of the capitalist and the parasite and is it because of that that it does not want to tackle this most urgent problem? Must this matter suffer shipwreck for the sake of the capitalist and the parasite and the speculator in this country? The Minister even goes so far as to appoint commissions and committees as Select Committees, and his purpose in doing so is to shield behind those commissions; and that magic word is used to raise the hopes of the nation. These commissions are appointed to show the people that the matter is engaging the Government’s attention, that they are going to give effect to their promises, and on that magic word elections are won and the nation always has to be satisfied with promises. The country is not asking for enormous sums of money. A great deal of money is spent on these commissions, but we are not asking an enormous sum for this matter. It will not cost so very much. It is solely and simply organisation and policy and the application of something which is really necessary in this country. It is necessary—it is urgently necessary. Money cannot rectify it, but good organisation and good policy can do so. We ask that the Government should do what other countries are doing and what must be done. That will be the salvation of the nation, and not this underhand game. The Government fights shy of the very basis of a sound policy. That clashes with other interests. It clashes, and I believe therefore that the present Government is not going to lift a finger to give practical effect to these promises until such time as that other problem in which it is more interested has been solved and the war has been won. When the war is over and this Government remains in power, I am afraid that they will continue to play hide and seek and to make pretty promises until there comes a third war; then that third war will again have to be seen through, and so it will go on, as in the past, from war to war. And as long as that Government is in power the country will groan under poverty and hunger and misery. Those are the conditions which exist today. Our markets are unstable. The farming community on the platteland, both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, is suffering today. They try first this avenue and then the other avenue. When a small light appears on the one side, that light is immediately dimmed and the market falls because there are manipulators—manipulators in the form of speculators and market monopolies—and the plattelander has to work like a slave without making any progress. His bonds and debts accumulate. Emergency relief is being provided to the farmers. Is that not evidence of the position in which the platteland finds itself? There must never be such a thing as emergency relief. It is a disgrace to this country that it should be necessary to grant relief to the platteland, to the farmer. He must be provided with the necessary werewithal so that he can honourably maintain his position and bear his burden and be able to pay off his mortgages and his debts. The platteland does not spend money unnecessarily. They have no bioscopes and all those other pasttimes. Far removed from all these pleasures, they slave from morning till night, and notwithstanding the fact that they slave and toil in order to earn their daily bread, their debts accumulate and things are impossible for them because the middleman the speculator, bleeds them to death. Does the Government want to say that it does not know about it? It knows it as well as I do. Who does not know it in this country? Who does not see it? A few years ago the price of young cattle rose, and do you know what tactics were adopted by the speculators? Three speculators travel round. The one in front offers the farmer £3 for a young beast. These three speculators are hand in glove. “No,” says the farmer, “I have heard the price is £6.” Then the second one comes along and offers him £2. He says that the price has fallen. “No,” say the farmer, ‘T cannot sell at that price.” The third comes along and offers £3 10s., and by using these tactics those three speculators buy a few hundred cattle making a profit of £2 10s. on every beast. Does the Minister want to say that he does not know about it? Hon. members on the other side know about it. They know of this wicked exploitation, of these pernicious blood-suckers who live as parasites on the blood of the farmers in the platteland. We merely ask for a change in these conditions. We ask that the Government should give this most urgent matter its attention. We ask that the Government should act as the father of the country and of the people, and that they will not be afraid of the capitalists, the speculators, the parasites and these whose hands are soft, who do not know what it means to put their hands into cold water, and who make twice as much profit as the man who works day and night like a slave. Our country becomes poorer by the day, and whether the Government wants to admit it or not, I say that the need is becoming greater every day, and for that reason we make this urgent plea, with all the seriousness at our command. We are not asking for mercy. We do not want mercy; that would be ignoble. All we ask for is justice. We ask that the Government should not take care of a certain class only. We are pleading for our side, but also on behalf of that side of the House, and although there it not spontaneous unanimity in the House—the front benchers do not feel as we do, especially my hon. friend who sits in front of me and who represents capitalism—we are glad that there are hon. members in this House who feel as we do. The Labour Party and the Dominion Party feel as we do. The time has arrived to bring about a change in this beautiful country of ours, this country of sunshine which can be converted into, a country of joy and happiness.

All good things come to those who wait, and it is a privilege to me to address this House, which consists of people who decide the destiny and welfare of our citizens in the country. I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Finance is in the House. I represent him here. The Minister Of Finance may perhaps make things difficult for me if I remain silent indefinitely. We know that he dips his hand into the pocket of more than one business man. My constituency, with the exception of farmers, is well representative of the people of South Africa. We have a poor section there, the middelman—I refer to the officials, some of them, however, are above the middle classes—business men, professional people and there are also a few capitalists. Pretoria is not such a rich city as its big son, Johannesburg. I want to confine myself, however, to the first group and that is the needy and their needs, the lowest rung in our national life. I said on a previous occasion that I realise that we could not effectively and successfully fight two battles at the same time. We must first concentrate on the war of steel. In this connection I refer to the manifesto which I issued during the recent election. In that I said—

I am determined, however, tentatively to leave in abeyance the fight against poverty until such time as we have won the other war. Then will come the war against poverty, which has declared war on this nation for more than forty years, and which previous governments have unfortunately not had the courage to tackle. Before I go into this, I should like to thank the Government of the day for the great interest which it has taken during recent years in the poorer section of our people. I welcome this comprehensive report,—the White Paper—which has been laid on the Table, and which shows us precisely what our position is today. I also approve of our sending the recommendations to a Select Committee for final attention. I am also indebted to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) for the sacrifice which he and his Social Security Committee have made to make the people of this country social and economic conscious. I am all the more gratified because I know that 90 per cent. of the members of his organisation are English-speaking, although those members know that nearly 90 per cent. of the Europeans who have to be assisted are Afrikaans-speaking. That, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction; it makes for the building up of the nation. This baby which was born in Natal is a healthy one, and we welcome it. I am also pleased that the subject is receiving the serious attention and support of all parties. It is further proof of its importance. I am sorry, however, that the Leader of the Opposition introduced politics into the debate and attacked the Prime Minister by saying that he did not have a plan. I just want to remind him that he was without a plan for a period of ten years or more, that it took them more than ten years at that time to convince the people to put them in power by representing that the poor people would be helped, and instead of that, after they had formed their Government, the Leader of the Opposition travelled about in South Africa and told the people what a good custodian of our freedom England was. History teaches us that the primitive people were barbarians and that those who were richly blessed with wordly goods, very often treated the less privileged classes like slaves. That has happened during the first years of our South African history. It therefore gives us a good perspective of the regrettable inequality in our national life. But a child is selfish while he is very young, but begins to share things as he grows up. A nation, too, later becomes conscious of the existence of false values and then accepts responsibility for everyone justly—and that is the trend today. Any country which accepts this policy of social and economic security, is the latest model of civilisation and education. The State remains the guardian of the nation and therefore its father. A father is usually more concerned about the weak. People who at this period of our history place greater value on the extras of a life of luxury than on the bread and butter of their neighbour’s children are in my opinion somewhat uncivilised and lacking in education. I would now like to portray to the House the poor man as he really is, and his needs. We are fortunate in being descended from two national groups which come from the best of the European nations, but we must remember that nearly 100 per cent. of them came here to lead an independent existence. Fate so ordained, however, that some of them dropped out on the way. It is not necessary to enumerate all the reasons for this. I can only say that those who settled here as farmers, as agriculturists, dropped out and in due course lost their sense of balance, when the migration took place from the farms to the cities, to the factories and the commercial world. Today many of them are not sufficiently developed and sufficiently trained to maintain their positions successfully. A large section of them—my own people—constitutes fertile soil for party politics. It is here that sectional racial feeling is fostered. Because such a large section, nearly one-firth of our European population, lived below the breadline before 1939, there are amongst them an enormous number of sick and people who suffer from highly infectious diseases. In these circumstances many criminals are then created. The Social Security Committee and the Planning Council states that fifty per cent. of our children leave school at the age of 16, that only 11 per cent. of them reach standard X. I think I am entitled to say that it is the poor man’s child who leaves school before the age of 16. If a child leaves school before the age of 16, I ask this House what knowledge he has of life at the age of 20 or 25, when he has to assume responsibility in some sphere of work or other, and take care of a family in many cases. Although physically he is grown up at this stage, those who are honest will have to admit that mentally he is still a child. As a result of his slight development, he can never take his rightful place in the community or successfully hold down his employment. We sometimes spend 10 years or more in keeping a child at school, in order to teach that child to do his work successfully and so to earn a wage. Of those ten years or longer we do not spend a single month in teaching him how to live. We devote very little time, if any at all, in teaching him how to spend his wages. In order to support this statement, I must unfortunately refer to the mineworker. I do so with due respect. I have relatives amongst them and also many personal friends. Nearly all of them come from the platteland and the small towns. The majority of them farmed successfully and had to leave school at a youthful age. If one knows them personally or investigates their cases, one finds that the greater majority of them owned two or three motor cars before they paid the first deposit on their own house. That does not apply to them only, but to nearly all citizens who were not wisely trained. If any hon. member doubts this, let him visit the dog races in Johannesburg for one evening and see what goes on there. Then he will agree that in one evening more damage is done to the character of that section of the people and to their economic development, than can be built up or rebuilt in twelve months or more. Those people are babies in the hands of the commercial world and a prey to the gambler. There are tens of thousands of them who have to be protected against themselves. I maintain that by equipping the child or the young person well mentally before he begins his independent career, you save him from ignorance and its consequences and save him for the nation. An investment in the intellectual knowledge of the people pays the greatest dividend. In our country we have eight million natives, and close at hand we have the yellow world in the East. The Europeans in our country ought to know what they are doing and the State must not take care of 15 per cent. of the population only, but also of the remaining 85 per cent. Then I feel that there is something wrong with our syllabus in the country and I am strongly in favour of training the grown-up people. It may seem drastic for the State to intervene in this matter, but in order to be kind one sometimes has to be cruel. The people must be taught how to make the best use of their earnings in order to become self-supporting; they must learn how to govern their own affairs successfully. We should have social workers and training centres which can be attended by grown-up persons who did not have the opportunity earlier. I make bold to say that what one learns in one year after reaching the age of 20 is of more value than all the years at school before the age of 16. We hear a great deal about soil erosion. Everyone realises the danger of erosion; we see it with our own eyes. But I think I am right in saying that the human erosion and neglect amongst our people during the past 20 or 30 years has not been less disastrous. The right hon. the Prime Minister said at Potchefstroom on the 25th March, 1942—

We see therefore that the right hon. the Prime Minister believes that more interest must be taken in our fellow human beings than has been the case in the past. All the resources of the country must be devoted to that purpose. Except for gold, coal and a few other minerals, our raw materials are still lying fallow, and I am sorry to say, our human material also. Both are thirsting for development. In the report before us we are told that we cannot go too far in the direction of assisting those who require assistance, because our national income is too small. We can only increase our national income when we develop the resources of the country wisely and provide employment to the people. These two things must go hand in hand. Employment must be provided to those who, as a rule, do not work; I am now referring to the pre-war days. Employment for all is the foundation on which we must build. If we do not do that we may as well forget about social and economic security. The State must adopt a firm policy. Private enterprise to whose mercy the poor white has been left for So many years, must know where it stands and what it can risk and what it cannot risk. Where it lacks a spirit of enterprise or is not prepared to undertake the risk, the state must undertake that development. I therefore look forward to the day when the motto in our country will be: “Buy South African products manufactured in South Africa by South Africans and for South Africans.” Private enterprise cannot be killed. Personally I fear that too. If we did that, we would kill the very best in the human being, since everyone strives for improvement, but I must agree with other hon. members that we must exercise a large measure of control. The profit motive must be controlled. The individual who strives only for personal gain for his own small circle, must find that he does not fit happily into the new world to come. Fortunately we have many people with initiative who place service to the nation on a high level, and who realise that the national interest is worth more than their own immediate gain. We all belong to the State. The State has the power to control everyone. I believe that the State can inspan everyone in its service. Hon. members of the Opposition have held out the Atlantic Charter to us and maintained that freedom of trade would ruin us. They did not read far enough. If they go further they will find that there is another section which refers to freedom from want, and if we are guaranteed freedom from want, I believe that the interests of the people in this country will be placed above freedom of trade. Charity begins at home, and the first step will be to guarantee the people freedom from want. I believe that our Government will look after its own people before looking after others. True democracy takes into consideration the interests and progress of the weak. That is the will of the nation, and if it is not carried out, democracy is not maintained and then it becomes a fiasco. I want to conclude. I believe that this Government has an effective plan, it has received a mandate from the people to carry out this plan, and if we successfully tackle and carry out this matter, a new milestone will be reached in our history, and this Government will be remembered as one of the monuments of that history. We shall carry out the duty and the responsibility which rests on us. Hon. members will say that I am preaching to converts. I must remind them that for a very long time there have been converts, but we must now proceed to take practical steps, then only we shall be doing our duty—and what an honour it is.

If there is anything that will cover every branch of our national economy it is social security, and the debate we have had has ranged over a tremendous field. We have had a number of amendments placed before us to the original motion by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). Now, in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) we are asked to instruct the Select Committee to deal with the question of employment, and I think that that is just as it should be. If there is one thing which will take away the need for social security, it is the provision of adequate employment for every section of the community. We have heard from the Minister of Labour that he has a cure-all for this thing. He says abolish capitalism. I am sorry the Minister is not present, but I should just like to ask him this question: Can he adequately define what constitutes a capitalist today? Does he feel that a man who has worked himself up, and has got a little business and who has got a home, is a capitalist? Is the man who has worked all his life and saved a little money and who has got a house of his own a capitalist? No, I think this question of capitalism is far too deeply ingrained in our national economy for it just to be swept away in the way the Minister of Labour wants to do it. I think it is a matter which will require far more consideration and I do not agree with the Minister in his sweeping statement that we can achieve everything we want by abolishing capitalism. Now, I have been connected for many years with an industry which has played a most important part in this country. I am referring to the engineering industry, which is a key industry. Almost every other industry is dependent on the engineering industry. It supplies all the machinery necessary for every industry. Take transport for instance, everything there is dependent, on the engineering industry. We in that industry have our difficulties just as every other industry has it difficulties, and in this connection I want to refer briefly to the question of steel. Steel is supplied to us by our great Corporation, Iscor. Now, I have heard it said in this House that there is a likelihood of there being a surplus of steel. I wish I could believe that. It would put a very different complexion on the whole situation as I see it. But all my information is to the contrary. Instead of there being a surplus of steel, there is likely to be a shortage, not only immediately after the war but for a long time after. In this connection I want to refer to one industry which has been started in this country, and which is showing considerable development—the manufacture of agricultural implements. If we can get the co-operation of Iscor and get steel at a cheaper price than we can get it today, I feel convinced that great things can be achieved in respect of the industry which I have just mentioned. On this question of a surplus of steel, may I mention that this country will require in excess of 1,000,000 tons per annum to keep its primary and secondary industries going on a decent scale. If we look at the capital structure of Iscor we find that that concern is not run on public utility lines. Although it is a semi-Government institution it appears to be run on a profit making basis. It has to pay certain returns to its shareholders, and of the shareholders, the majority shareholder happens to be the Government. Now, one wonders whether the Government cannot use its influence with the Corporation to reduce the price of steel. Iscor does not market its products direct, it markets them not through one but through two selling channels. Surely that means that these two selling organisations must be building up overheads which must affect the price of steel before it reaches the consumer. That is a point which the Minister might go into. I have considered this question of social security from several aspects. I have considered it from the point of view of raising the living standard and also from the point of view of lowering the living costs. Raising the living standard, as I have mentioned, is one way by which we can go towards our goal of social security, and if we can lower the living costs we are equally going in the same direction. Let me mention one thing, the price of bread. Bread, I believe, is subsidised by the Government to the extent of approximately £1,200,000 per annum. But surely subsidising bread means shifting the onus from one part to another part. You have to get that money from the taxpayers. The only thing is that the lower paid people, the lower paid classes, are not paying it, it is paid by the people who pay taxes. We must attempt to lower our costs by producing more and by producing at a lower cost. It is no use giving a subsidy and giving subsidy after subsidy just to reduce the gap between the producer and the consumer. We have heard this question of producer and consumer mentioned repeatedly and we know there is a gap, between the producer and the consumer. The narrower that gap can be made the better for the country as a whole. But where that gap cannot be narrowed, it obviously is the duty of the Central Government to step in and act as a liaison between the two.

At 6.40 p.m., the business under considerable was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 17th February.