I move—

This motion which stands in my name is obviously intended as a motion of censure. I want to express the hope therefore that this motion will be seen in that light by the Government and dealt with in that light; in other words, that according to the practice of Parliament, this motion will have preference to other business and that it will not be pushed aside or interrupted on every occasion by giving preference to other business, as has become customary of recent years in reference to motions emanating from this side of the House at the commencement of the session. I thought that this motion was necessary because in my opinion there is nothing which is so keenly felt today, which so accurately interprets the views of thousands in this country as the contents of this motion. You may say that it stands to reason that we as members of the Opposition and our supporters in the country should adopt the attitude which is embodied in this motion. We on this side have no confidence in the Government. We on this side of the House differ, and differ radically, from the Government on essential points of policy, and for that reason you will say that it stands to reason that a motion of this nature will interpret the views of this side of the House. But I think it is a matter of common knowledge that as far as the contents of this motion are concerned, the Government is not only on its defence today as against this side of the House, not only as against its political Opposition in the country, but it is on its defence as against its own supporters. I think I am justified in saying that there has probably been no Government in the history of this country which has lost the support which it had at the time of a General Election within such a short space of time. During the election, or immediately thereafter, the Prime Minister, together with his co-Ministers, in this House and outside the House, made great play of the victory which they had achieved and the confidence which the country had shown in them, and the mandate which they had got from the people, which they had got for a long time to come. More sensible opinions were expressed on the other side of the House, opinions which were more frank than those expressed by the Prime Minister and his co-Ministers. I have in mind the speech which was made by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), in which he said to the Government: “If you think that you achieved this victory at the General Election because the people are of opinion that you represent the best Government which the country can have, you are mistaken; the Government won simply because there is a war in progress and because the greater majority of the people felt that we should not and could not bring about any change while the war was still on, but you are mistaken in thinking that you actually won on your merits and on the strength of your general policy and administration. You are sorely mistaken if you think so.” Not even a year had passed after the General Election, when the Government started to complain of criticism and serious criticism of its administration and its policy on the part of its own supporters. Moreover, of late wherever Ministers have appeared or held congressses, it has not been a question of the Government being on the defensive against its political Opposition as much as it has been a question of trying to pacify its own sppporters, and not only pacify them, but in some cases they have gone so far as to beg of their own people not to make the task of the Government more difficult through criticism. I say therefore that the contents of this motion represent the opinions and feelings not only of the political Opposition, but of a large section of the Government’s own supporters in this country. That dissatisfaction which is undoubtedly widespread throughout the whole country is justified. I need not tell you that today there is a state in this country which can only be described as a state of emergency, especially in the sphere of the provision and distribution of foodstuffs to the people. There is a feeling, which is also found amongst the Government’s own supporters, that this Government knows what is right, that it knows what is really in the interests of the country, but that it is incapable or unwilling or unable to put into effect what is in the interests of the nation. There is undoubtedly a feeling of dismay in the country today, a feeling of dismay because it was hoped that at the end of this war a better general state of affairs would come into being in the future, also for the less privileged classes, the lower-income groups. Now, however, it is felt that very little can be expected of this Government, that we in South Africa more particularly, are faced with great dangers which threaten the nation’s future and that the Government is not equal to the task of solving these problems. There is the accumulation of the national debt; there is the exhaustion of our resources; there is the future of our monetary unit. In connection with all these matters, and having regard to the depression with all its attendenat difficulties which one must expect there is great unrest in regard to the inefficiency of the Government. We know that the previous war brought labour difficulties and strikes in its wake, and today while the war is still in progress, the Minister of Labour again reports that during the past year there have been no fewer than 250 strikes. There is the danger of Communism, which has become greater and more serious especially owing to the trend of the war in Europe, not only to Western Europe and the world, but particularly to South Africa, and coupled with that the serious and urgent and dangerous colour problem with which we are faced, and which has been made infinitely more dangerous and more difficult through the very policy of the Government in our country. South Africa’s future is at stake, but there is a feeling amongst a very great section of the population that it is worthless to appeal to this Government to ward off the dangers. What the Government’s defence will be to this motion I do not know, but there is one line of defence, if it may be termed a line of defence, which we have also had on other occasions and which We might again expect, a defence which on such occasions we have had time and again, and that is that the Opposition is moving this motion simply with a view to making political capital out of it. Well, I assume that in this case, too, the defence will be on those lines, and for that reason I want to deal with that briefly before I proceed. In the first place I want to point out that the criticism of the Government’s administration which is embodied in this motion does not emanate from the Opposition only; it also comes to a large extent, from his own supporters and leading supporters on the other side of the House.

What do you know about that!

Are those supporters making political capital out of the state of emergency in which this country finds itself? But an argument such as that usually proves that those who are on the defensive have a poor case. If they had not had a poor case, they would not have been able to advance this argument of making political capital out of a state of emergency, because how can one make political capital out of a case unless one has the support of the people in the country? The fact that that argument is advanced shows that you dread the nation’s judgment. But this matter is a political matter, and if it is a political matter, what prevents any political party and political Opposition from bringing this matter before the House by way of motion? Surely it is the duty of the Opposition to criticise the Government, but if ever there was an occasion when the Opposition had the right to speak on such matters, it is in regard to this matter. One can advance the argument of making political capital out of a situation where the criticism is only of a destructive character, where one’s sole purpose is to frustrate with a view to attaining a political purpose, and if one can offer nothing in its place if one cannot suggest a better course. But that is not the case in connection with any one of the matters contained in this motion which is being brought before the House by us. I say that we have the right and the fullest right as an Opposition to bring our motion of disapproval of the Government’s policy and its action before the House, There are three matters which are mentioned in this motion, and in connection with all three of these matters, what I said a moment ago, is true. In connection with the food question, it is not the first time that we are acting in the matter today. As an Opposition we have already acted in this matter, and acted forcibly, during the last session of Parliament. For example, we exposed the policy which the Minister of Agriculture is following in connection with the meat question. We seriously warned the country in connection with this matter, and the trend of events in connection with this matter, which we also touch upon in this motion has indicated how right our judgment was on that occasion. There is the question of national health. If there is any section of this House which has the right to move a motion of disapproval in regard to this matter, it is this side of the House. The policy which was proposed by the National Health Services Commission, the report of which is mentioned in this motion and the report of which the Government has rejected, as far as its fundamental recommendations are concerned, is not coming before this House for the first time. It did not come before the House for the first time through the report of the Health Commission, but on this side of the House the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) pointed out almost year after year when the Public Health Vote came before the House, that we would not succeed in placing the health conditions in this country on a satisfactory footing unless we introduced a national health service. But as far as the party is concerned, in whose name he also spoke, I just want to point out that long before the Health Commission reported on this matter, the Nationalist Party published its socioeconomic policy or programme; the party made it known to the country and we repeatedly asked: “If you want to criticise it in this House, do so; we will welcome it; if you want to attack it on the platforms outside, or if you want to attack it at your congresses, do so; we welcome it.” As far as health services for the country are concerned, it is stated here very clearly—

That is followed by a statement of our policy under various heads. Inter alia—

That is followed by—

This is all set out in detail, but then, inter alia, this passage follows—and that is the point which I want to make—

In other words, it must be a national health service—

In other words, the policy of this side of the House is the policy which was laid down by the Health Commission and more particularly in connection with its fundamental recommendations which were rejected by the Government. I say that if any section of the House has the right to move a motion on this matter such as we have moved, it is the Opposition in Parliament. With regard to the question of social security I can only say that this side of the House, the Nationalist Party, is the only Party which has laid down a policy in connection with this matter, with the retention of private initiative. The Labour Party has a different policy. They want to abolish private initiative but I say that this is the only Party which has come forward with an all-embracing, effective, radical and practicable program, with the retention of private initiative. You can ask us, if you wish, on any point concerning social security what our policy is and we are prepared to give you a reply. I now come back to the motion itself and I want to say on this charge against the Government which is contained in the motion, that this motion has a background, and we can best judge its contents, we can best judge its merits if we look at the motion against that background. The first point which I want to mention as the background to this motion is that in connection with all the matters which are mentioned here, the Government assumed supreme power, especially in connection with the food question. The Government assumed supreme power. In this state of war which exists and the dislocation which has followed in its wake, the Government has placed itself above private initiative. That was not the case during the previous war. During the previous war, the Government could not promulgate emergency regulations in every sphere; it could not fix prices etc. That private initiative, whatever may have been its disadvantages at that time—and there were disadvantages attached to uncontrolled private initiative—nevertheless provided the nation at that time with the food which it required. The Government has elevated itself ; it has assumed powers unto itself over and above private initiative. Therefore the responsibility which formerly rested on private initiative, today rests with the Government. The Government assumed powers over and above Parliament. Even when Parliament is in Session, the Government promulgates emergency regulation after emergency regulation to deal with matters which formerly no one would have dreamt of dealing with, except with the permission of Parliament. You have therefore pushed aside Parliament and you have assumed the powers of Parliament. As far as the exercise of those powers are concerned, you have even gone beyond the original intention of those emergency regulations, as you explained them to Parliament. The responsibility will therefore be yours if anything goes wrong, but there is something else which we should see against the background of this motion in order to be able to judge it properly, and that is that this country in the normal course of events, produces sufficient and can produce sufficient food for the consumption of the people, so that from that point of view there was no need for that state of emergency to arise, if there had been a Government which had done its duty in connection with these matters. When this House decided in 1939 whether or not we would participate in the war, what was the argument which was advanced on that side of the House? It was this: If we did not participate in the war our products—and agricultural products were contemplated—would lie in the harbours and rot, because our country produces more than enough for its own consumption; and to be able to live, to be able to carry on our farming operations, we must export. What does that mean? It means that this country produces sufficient food and can produce sufficient food so that there was no need for a state of emergency such as we have today to arise. I say that we must view this motion and the charge against the Government against this background. But there is another factor which we must bear in mind in order to be able to judge this motion properly, and that is the expectations which this Government itself aroused. This is a Government of promises. The Government announced at all times that through its policy specially—and it could safely be left in its hands—a better state of affairs would come into being once this world war is over. There was such a flood of these promises that it nearly overwhelmed the people. You ask when you did so, when the social security movement came into existence and when it issued pamphlets, a foreword by the Prime Minister appeared in one of the very first and one of the most important pamplets, and what did he say in that pamphlet in which the programme of the social security movement was fully set out? He said: “What you propose is good; what you propose is something which we can and will strive for,” and he added: “It would not be beyond the financial powers of this country to give effect to it.” What is that other than a promise, an undertaking on the part of the Government to take satisfactory steps in that direction? Thereafter the Atlantic Charter was called into being.

The ex-Charter.

He grasped one provision In that Atlantic Charter, namely to improve the conditions, the living conditions in the world. He grasped that and said: “I adopt the Atlantic Charter for myself, for my Government and for my Party,” and that was not enough, but at Bloemfontein he made a speech and there his own Bloemfontein Charter saw the light of day. But he as well as others clearly intimated, quite correctly, that one could not carry out that colossal programme unless one had the monetary means; in other words, unless the nation’s income was increased; and then the Prime Minister, as is his custom, started to build castles in the air. He spoke of the tremendous increase, the tremendous progress which had been made in the industrial sphere during this war and the tremendous progress which would be made after this war. And do you know what he said on one occasion? He said that our industries in this country when the war was over, would expand so tremendously that not only would we be able to provide employment to those on our hands, the returned soldiers, but that we would require so much additional labour that the population of this country would not be sufficient to cope with it and that we would have to embark on a policy of immigration from Europe on a large scale.

What does the Planning Council say?

What is that other than raising hopes in the minds of the people? Does it not mean that the people are given to understand that this Government is going to ensure that that industrial expansion does take place? Promises, large-scale promises and numerous promises! Take the Minister of Demobilisation, for instance. As usual, he also had something to say.

One hundred thousand houses!

And in his own constituency—whether he was frightened into making that statement by Mr. Dorfman, I do not know—but in any event he made a statement to the effect that this Government solemly undertook to see to it that as far as foodstuffs were concerned, no one in this country would suffer any shortage of food and that everyone in the nation, no matter how poor, would be able to buy food at prices within his reach.

Just look at him now!

We shall not go into other statements on the part of other Ministers. But this Government appointed commission after commission, and it has not stopped yet. And what does the appointment of those commissions mean? It is tantamount to a promise to the people that the Government will give its serious attention to those matters, and that it is appointing a commission in connection with the matter concerned because it is prepared to take steps in that direction. All those commissions which are appointed are tantamount to promises. The newspapers which support the Government have almost daily during the past year published in capital letters gigantic plans which the Government has in mind, thereby raising hopes in the minds of the people of great things to come. This is the Government with vision! Speech after speech from the Throne in the past few years has contained promises—vague promises but nevertheless promises—that the time has eventually come when those things will be put into effect. The result of it all? In the first place, when the election was over last year, almost immediately the election was over, the Prime Minister spoke in Port Elizabeth. At that time the election was something of the past and what did he say on that occasion? He said: “Folks, you should stop talking so much about social security. We are engaged in a war. We are concentrating our efforts in that direction”; and he added: “Do not ask for the impossible.” In other words, leave those things. The Government raised hopes; the Government was going to do those things, and now it reprimands those who cherished those expectations and who are asking the Government to deliver the goods, to fulfil the mandate which they got. To those people he said: “No, it is wrong; leave it alone.” The Minister of Finance also had something to say, and he started to warn against the costs of the proposais. He forgets what the Prime Minister said in his foreword to that pamphlet, namely that it is not beyond the financial capacity of the country, but he says: “To think that we are able to continue with taxation on the present scale, to think that we can afford expenditure on this scale, is simply foolishness”; and he warns the people against overoptimism.

“Pay as we go.”

And what do we hear from the people who cherished those expectations, especially in connection with the report of the Health Commission which, from the nature of things, is an essential part of social security? What do your own people say? Some of them are on the benches opposite. They say the Government made promises; they raised hopes; they went so far as to appoint a commission to go into this matter, and now they reject the essential, the fundamental recommendation or recommendations of that commission; and they go so far as to say that the Government committed treason towards its own people and towards the nation.

Who said that?

Your own people said it. I know why the Government makes promises of that nature in these times. Although they did not want others to build castles in the air, the Government itself did so freely. There is a war on; you are demanding sacrifices; you are demanding blood. You are demanding tremendous financial sacrifices on the part of the country. How do you propose to satisfy the people who make those sacrifices? Will you satisfy them by saying to them: “What you are fighting for is not a question of freedom only; it is not a question of danger, but you are fighting for a better world, and you are now making your contribution towards bringing about that better world.” That was at the back of your mind, but it means that you were not serious in holding out the promise of a better world. You were not serious, and today the people are beginning to discover more and more that in painting that future you were not and are not serious. I am dealing briefly with the charge which is contained in this motion. The first point is that we condemn, we disapprove of the laxity and the incompetence shown by the Government in connection with the provision and distribution of food for the people. It is not necessary for me to enlarge on this point. It would be unnecessary for me to do so, because one hears this charge in connection with this matter all over the country today from tens of thousands of families. The state of affairs which exists, those scenes which one witnesses daily of queues in front of butcheries and shops, indicates that there is practically a state of emergency in the country as far as food is concerned. These are conditions which one only finds in places where there is actually a shortage of food and starvation. If it is serious in the case of all families, it is most serious especially in the case of those who even before this war, found themselves in necessitous circumstances and who suffered from malnutrition. And I want to remind you that that class includes anything from a quarter to a third of the people of our country who even before the war suffered from malnutrition. Even before the war they suffered from malnutrition, and today those people together with all the other factors, have to suffer deprivation as a result of this state of affairs. I say that they are the chief sufferers today. The Government realised the necessity, as far as the provision and distribution of food is concerned, of adopting measures to deal with the situation, and for that reason it created machinery to do so three years ago. A National Nutrition Council was set up. It was established in 1942. When one looks at the terms of reference of the National Nutrition Council and one bears in mind the position which exists today, it strikes one as a tragedy. For what purpose was the National Nutrition Council called into being; for what purpose was that Board, its machinery, its controllers and others, called into being? Let me read what its duties were in the first place: “To deal with the provision and distribution of food and to put an end to malnutrition, and not only malnutrition which came into existence as a result of the war; “to ensure an improvement in the diet of the people; to investigate and to strengthen the food resources of the country.” But that is not enough. The Government invoked the assistance of a Parliamentary Advisory Committee, from which it excluded the Opposition. It was an informal Parliamentary Advisory Committee which had to advise the Government in connection with this matter. What results were achieved? Let me tell you what the results were. There are three things which are essential in connection with the provision of food in the country. The first is artificial manure. The second is farm labour and the third is the proper provision and control of marketing. These are the essentials if one wants to make proper provision for the food of the people. What happened in that connection? Let me take only one aspect. I do not propose to go into everything, because other hon. members will go into it. I want to mention only one example and that is the provision and distribution of meat, which is one of the most important foodstuffs of the people—one of the essential foodstuffs. Let me say candidly that I do not think a greater mess has been made in connection with the administration of any important matter in the whole history of administration of this country, than was made in this case. This matter stands out as a monument to the laxity and inefficiency of the Government. May I be allowed to draw attention to a few points? First of all there was the scheme which was announced in this House and we pointed out that it was a half-baked scheme. We pointed out that it was announced here without consulting any part of the House. It was obviously announced without consulting those who had the most interest in it, namely the various farmers’ organisations, because they were immediately up in arms against it. An unconsidered scheme was proposed, without consultation, by a new and inexperienced Minister. We criticised it and our criticism was justified to the full, that that scheme on the one hand deprived the farmers of an income which they had had up to that time, and that on the other hand it did not benefit the consumers in the country in the least. Is that the way to initiate the serious and important matter of providing foodstuffs? I come to the second point. Due to pressure from various sides—no matter where that pressure came from—the Minister of Agriculture then altered the scheme in one way after the other. Almost every day when we opened the newspapers we expected a new alteration. That was an admission on his part that his scheme which had been subjected to criticism from this side of the House was not satisfactory. One alteration was made after the other. He started to fiddle with the grading of meat. In order to encourage farmers to send cattle to market and because he had robbed them of an income which they had previously had, he announced that grade II meat would now be regraded to Grade I.

He said it, but did not do so.

Naturally not, because how can you change Grade II meat to Grade I meat by means of a regulation? That was the first alteration. After that he, under pressure from the farming community which rightly asked: You are taking away part of the income we have had up to now; we must now bear the loss and how are we going to be helped when after the war there are bad times? And they asked for a long term scheme. The Minister at first was unwilling to agree to that but eventually he unwillingly agreed that he would be prepared to entertain a long term scheme. That was another alteration. Still there was no meat on the markets and the Minister then resorted to another measure. He promised a premium to those who would send cattle to market within a certain time, which was an admission on his part that the previous prices had been too low, and now he is temporarily increasing the prices by means of this premium.

Where did I refuse to make it a long-term scheme?

Here in this House.

Eventually he adopted a desperate measure in order to be rid of the insufficient and unsatisfactory nature of his scheme. He directed a request to the Prime Minister to be supplied with tinned meat; he threw whale meat on the market. Eventually he looked to the west, later to the east, and still later to the north in order to obtain permission to import meat. But eventually, from the point of view of the country and of his first scheme, he appeared with the most foolish measure of all, namely, when he announced that he was now placing the control of meat under the Marketing Board, and he said that he would give the Marketing Board, which under the ordinary laws had no power to fix the price of meat, the power also to fix the price of meat by emergency regulations. In other words he was now repudiating liability for the whole meat scheme of which he himself had made a mess; he was passing it off on to the Marketing Board and the powers which he himself had had he gave to this Board. In other words, the Minister of Agriculture abdicated as far as this matter was concerned. But the most foolish of all is that just as soon as he felt that his scheme was a failure and that it was being sharply criticised from all sides, he began to look for scapegoats. First he attacked the farmer. He said that the farmers’ organisations wanted to organise, that the unorganised farmers organised to keep cattle from the markets in order to exert pressure on the Government.

Where did I say that?

The Minister said it in public. What is more, he threatened the farmers that if they did not send cattle to market he would take steps and would import cattle from South-West Africa and Bechuanaland. First he put the blame on the farmer.

Where is the proof of that?

After that he placed the blame on the speculators. They had bought up the cattle and were keeping it from the markets in order to wait until the Government would eventually give way. When even that was not acceptable he blamed the Nationalist Party, saying that it was responsible for the failure of the Government’s scheme, as if this Government is not one which took all the power into its own hands and which can govern the country by means of emergency regulations! Finally they said that it was sabotage. It is not sabotage on the part of the nation but sabotage on the part of officials. The officials then asked: Please, if one of us is guilty, we give you the fullest opportunity and we challenge you, if there is anyone in the Public Service who is committing sabotage, to bring a charge against him and to punish him. Draw up an indictment against him and give him a chance to defend himself. Well, up to now, you have not yet accepted that challenge.

What does the Minister of Lands say now?

Yes, and the Government’s own whip made that accusation ridiculous. He said that in that accusation against the officials there was not a grain of truth or that there was no grain of proof for it. Evenutally the real truth in connection with the matter came to light. That was a fact which for a long time had been concealed, whatever the reason therefor might have been. The fact, however, then emerged that the Government had been exporting the foodstuffs of the country on a large scale throughout all this time. We produce enough. It was unnecessary to have conditions of emergency in the country. England makes provision for her own population in her own country and she does it well. America looks after her own population. All the belligerent nations make provision not only for the front line but also for the people on their home front, but this Government exports food and allows its own population to starve. And now we come to the most ridiculous of all. We cannot put it otherwise than to say that it is the height of foolishness. On the one hand the Government is exporting food, and on the other hand it imports it. I shall not enlarge on this last point. I shall leave it to others. It is the unpreparedness of the Government in connection with its satisfactory programme of social security. All I can say in connection with this is that we have got to know the Government in connection with this matter. In the first place it took its hat in its hand and went to the various parties to encourage them to enunciate their programmes. The Government itself did not bring anything to light. It only said: Trust the Government; that is all. It appointed commission after commission about this matter and then it once again appointed a commission to study the reports which former commisions had issued. Eventually it took refuge in a select committee of this House which had only a limited time at its disposal and with a mandate, as the select committee itself expressed it, that was so limited in scope that it excluded the larger and more important portion of any effective scheme for social security. No, I am convinced of this, that a satisfactory scheme of social security will not be obtained from this Government, simply because its support in the country and its constitution is of such a nature that it cannot do it. Nobdy has stated this more clearly to the country than a colleague of the Prime Minister himself, namely the Minister of Labour. He said that this is a capitalistic Government and any efficient scheme of social security for which sacrifices will be asked from the nation, and especially from the more affluent portion of the population, cannot be expected from such a Government, because the capitalistic supporters of that Government will not support it. He said that the Government is the servant of high finance in the country. It cannot do so. The last matter to which I wish to refer here is the report of the Health Services Commission. The importance of this report of the Health Services Commission consists of the following. The first is that this report deals with and gives a solution for a long existing scandal. I say that deliberately. It deals with the condition in the country as far as concerns national health which is a long-existing scandal. You see today in the lack of hospitals or accommodation ….

May I remind the hon. member of Rule No. 74. There is already a motion on the agenda in connection with the Health Services Commission and I would ask the hon. member not to deal with the merits of the matter.

I abide by your ruling Mr. Speaker. I only want to say that I am now dealing with my disapproval of a policy of the Government in discarding that report.

The hon. member may proceed.

That is the first reason why this report of the Health Services Commission is important. Hospital accommodation is lacking and even where there is still hospital accommodation, hospitals are standing empty because there are no nurses. There are no nurses although there are hundreds who wish to be trained, but there are no facilities for training. As far as conditions in the rural districts are concerned it is a scandal. There are people in the rural districts who, because they cannot pay for medical services or because there are no medical services available, simply have to die. The second is that this proposed health service is an essential part of any scheme for social security. If you were to omit it or if it were not satisfactory, if no proper provision is made for the health services of the nation, then any scheme for social security is ineffective and insufficient. Discard it and you are discarding social security. A further point is the following. It suggests a solution which is the only one which can be called a solution. What is suggested here as a solution is a solution which is desired by the nation, namely that instead of what there is today there should be instituted a national organised health service. This idea is not new. I have already referred to what is contained in the programme of the Nationalist Party, but it is also suggested by the Health Board which has been brought into being through the machinery of the Department of Public Health. Years ago it was already mentioned in the report of the Hospital Commission. It is the expressed wish of the medical profession. It is the policy laid down by the most important congress which was ever held in South Africa in connection with poor whites, namely the congress at Kimberley which I think was held in 1933.

In 1934.

Yes, it was after the Carnegie investigation. I thus say rightly that that is the only solution. It is obvious. The nation desires it and it is the only solution, that instead of the existing health services there shall be instituted a national organised health service under the control of the Department of Public Health. How did the Prime Minister receive this? In the first place with praise. When the Prime Minister praises something of that nature I am always on my guard. He praises it; it is is a beautiful ideal! But we know him. Just as soon as it gets warm for him on terra firma he seeks refuge in the clouds. Therefore his praising of these recommendations, saying that they were ideal, at once aroused my suspicions. He also immediately went further and said that he was not prepared to execute the essential and fundamental aspects of that report. He mentioned the cost thereof, in passing. But the most important is that the provincial system was an insurmountable obstacle. Therefore he falls back on patchwork as far as this matter is concerned. After this attitude of the Prime Minister over what I might almost call the kernel of a scheme of social security, he cannot blame us when we say that we believe nothing of the Government’s promises. He cannot blame the nation when it does not believe those promises.

The nation does not say that.

I myself had something to do with this matter because I was also Minister of Public Health for a while and there are some of the recommendations which I have mentioned here, inter alia, those of the Hospital Commission, which is a Commission I myself appointed. I worked with the matter myself and I say that the only solution is a national organised health service. That is the only solution of a condition of chaos such as reigns at present. I gave the House information anent this matter time after time. In connection with this matter I played open cards with Parliament and with the nation and I said that you could never put health services in the country on a decent footing without a national health service. What did I do then? I will tell you. I brought the matter to the notice of the Provincial Administrations. I had the same experience that the Minister has today, that there was a mesaure of opposition from their side and that their argument was: If you take this matter out of the hands of the Provincial Administrations you will subject the whole provincial system to danger and every time they guarded in order to retain the powers they have today. I was faced with that. What did I do then? I said that if it affects the provincial system so deeply and if it is true that the old provincial system will be destroyed thereby, then I will not sacrifice the health of the nation, the life of the nation, for such a system. The nation’s interest, the nation’s health comes first. Therefore I said that if that is the case let us confer, together, my side of the House and the other side of the House, in order to see how we can surmount the difficulty. Let us together hold a conference in order to lift the matter out of the arena of party politics. The Prime Minister rejected this suggestion. He would not co-operate. Yes, he wanted to make political gain out of it. I said that the matter was of so much imnortance to me that I wanted to take another step further. You cannot touch the provincial system or a very important aspect of it without substituting something in its place, and I said that if that is so, let us then appoint a commission to investigate the matter and which will also investigate a suitable alternative to local government. I went so far as to try to appoint a commission. What did the Prime Minister do? He fought us tooth and nail. The Prime Minister and his side of the House went so far as to try to persuade those of us who had asked to serve on the commission to resign. The Government was in this position that under the circumstances, where they experienced opposition even in some circles in their own party, they simply could not manage it. Who has placed us in that position? The Prime Minister and his party in those days. And what do some of the important members on the side of the Government say today? Listen to what the Minister of Finance said at Grahamstown: It had become obvious to him what the position is. I do not know whether he had in mind the health position or other matters, but before the congress of the Midlands Association of Public Bodies he said—[Translation]—

That is what the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, said. He had in mind that the process was already in existence. It is of importance whether we are going to play open cards with the provinces or not. Do you again wish to bring into existence a system whereby the provinces will be rendered powerless in order afterwards, when they are powerless and no longer able to help themselves, to force them to subjection, or are we going to lay our cards on the table? I do not say that I was prepared to go the whole way but I was prepared to allow the matter to be thoroughly investigated with the help of both sides of the House in order that the matter might be kept above and outside party politics. So now the Minister of Finance says in his speech that this process of making provincial councils disappear is perhaps already in existence. It is then of importance to know whether the Government has put its cards on the table for the provinces to see, or whether it is first going to render the provinces powerless in order afterwards to force them to subjection. I believe that the nation should be treated honestly and openly with reference to such a matter and that the nation should be taken into one’s confidence. I believe that you can take the nation into your confidence regarding this matter and that the matter can be laid before the nation. I can give the Government the assurance that we are prepared to co-operate in this connection. Let the Government have the matter of the installation of a national health service thoroughly investigated, and let it go to the root of the matter. You are not faced with an opposition like that I was faced with when I had the Prime Minister and his whole party against me and also had opposition in my own ranks. That naturally rendered the Government powerless at that time. But if you want to execute what is suggested by the report of the Health Commission you will have our wholehearted support. There it stands in our social and economic programme, in our programme for social security. If you do not do it, it will not be our fault, but yours. I am sorry that the Government, where co-operation in connection with such essential matters is so necessary, where you have to deal with an emergency condition of the nation, instead of cultivating a spirit of co-operation, does just the opposite and that especially in recent years it is out to cover itself by arousing prejudice on the part of a portion of the nation, the more unthinking part of the nation, against the Nationalist Party and against the Afrikaans-speaking person and all his institutions. You attacked the church. The Prime Minister did not say a word about the actions of the Minister of Lands, although the Minister of Lands is under his authority. You attacked the Afrikaans-medium schools. Time and again you make attacks on the Reddingsdaadbond and other Afrikaans institutions, and eventually you as a Government adopt a policy of exclusion, to throw all Nationalists out of all situations in connection with which the Government has anything to say. We have never before hand anything like that in South Africa. You talk about national unity. Is that the way to encourage national unity? You speak about the difficult conditions which will exist after the war, which will demand the united strength of the nation. Is that the way to bring it into existence? I have never believed in what you call the national unity which is your aim. I have from time to time tried to expose you as far as that is concerned. You are now exposing yourself. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel fully justified to bring before the House the laxity and delay and incapacity of the Government in connection with this matter. That laxity, this delay, this incapacity is criminal. Therefore I move this motion.

I second formally with the proviso that I may later be allowed to speak on the motion.

The charge that has been made this afternoon against the Government by the Leader of the Opposition is one of uhpreparedness in regard to the post-war situation. The hon. gentleman, Sir, has told us that this is a motion of censure, it is a motion of no confidence in the Government and in all its works. And then, Sir, there was a certain amount of very obvious wishful thinking. The hon. gentleman went on to suggest that the Government was on its defence, not only against the Opposition, but that it was also on its defence against its own supporters. The hon. gentleman was attempting to take two hurdles when he said that. He took it for granted that this Government was on its defence at all, a rash assumption after listening to what the hon. gentleman has taken an hour-and-a-half to say. He has also assumed, because there may have been a certain amount of criticism from time to time on the part of the public, and because hon. members on this side of the House or their supporters may have ventured to express an opinion on public policy from time to time, that therefore the Government is on its defence against its own supporters. It is quite obvious that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite are attempting to regain lost ground by drawing attention to these matters, and, through their complete misunderstanding of what has been happening, to gain some political advantage from it. The hon. gentleman, by his reliance upon these public criticisms, shows his complete misconception of the democratic system. So steeped has the Opposition Party been in the doctrines of Nazism and Fascism that, they believe that one dare not open one’s mouth. If one dares to criticise his own party one ought to be sent to a concentration camp. The result is that when there is a certain amount of criticism it is welcomed opposite as a vote of no confidence in the Government. Let me tell the hon. gentleman opposite that this Government thrives on criticism, and that the criticism it has received from its supporters has been constructive criticism. And let me add one further word. It is members on this side of the House, members behind the Prime Minister, who are doing tasks by way of constructive criticism, that ought to be done by members of the Opposition. So we can smile when this evidence of wishful thinking manifests itself and hon. members try to cash in on something which is quite proper and understandable under a democratic system. The hon. member has told us that he is introducing this motion because there is a state of emergency in this country. Well, Sir, I am glad to hear that the Leader of the Opposition, after five-and-a-half years of world conflict, at last realises that there is an emergency in the land. He has been living in the clouds for so long past, dreaming of a. Hitlerian republic, that he has only now begun to realise there is an emergency in this country. It is as well there has been a Government in power under a Prime Minister who, from the start, realised there was an emergency, and who, at the outset, gave a proper lead to the country. Let us get down to realities. The hon. member has made this charge of unpreparedness. I will attempt to meet what the hon. gentleman has put up and to deal with some of the matter in so far as they concern the aspects he has mentioned this afternoon. He has dealt with health, with social security, and he has dealt with food. May I just say at this moment that it is somewhat significant that when the hon. gentleman refers to the preparations for a post-war world in South Africa, and when he introduces a full blooded motion, a comprehensive motion dealing with post-war preparations, he makes no mention whatsoever in that motion of plans for reinstating our returned soldiers in civilian life. There is not a word in this motion about demobilisation plans, nor so far as I am aware, is there anything on the Order Paper in this connection by way of motions from any other member on that side of the House.

That is very weak.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is discussing the preparedness of the country with regard to post-war activities, and if he suggests that preparations for reinstating ex-volunteers in civilian life, form no part of those preparations, let him say so. He cannot have it both ways. Either the hon. gentleman is entirely satisfied with the Government’s plans in regard to returned soldiers, and he has no criticism whatsoever to make in regard to all the plans which have been carefully laid in the course of the last twelve months, or the hon. gentleman is being callously indifferent to the needs of these men. Let him say which it is. He cannot have it both ways. He can let the country know which he means. But it is pretty obvious that hon. members opposite are not interested in matters of demobilisation, and in matters of reinstating our men and women who have been fighting to enable the hon. gentleman to come to appreciate, after five-and-a-half years, that there is a state of emergency in this country. They have no interest in that; they are only interested in Hitler, though mark you. Sir, that interest is waning—

Now try and answer.

People ask for bread and you give them that.

I repeat that the charge against the Government is one of unpreparedness, and, in order to appreciate the Government’s approach to this matter, in order to decide whether the Government is prepared, or whether it is culpable and has failed to take due and proper precautions in regard to the future, we must remember the background against which it has had to work. The hon. member has been fortunate enough to live in a country where, after five-and-a-half years of war, he can get up and freely plead for a better post-war world. This Government for the past five-and-a-half years has been immersed in a war effort. It has had to start from nothing. The Prime Minister, after giving the country a lead five-and-a-half years ago, had to build up our armed forces, he had to establish war industries, and he had to maintain internal security. In other words, he had to start from nothing. Those were momentous and dangerous days when we were preparing the country to withstand the dangers from within and without.

Get on to the meatless days; that is more to the point.

The Government set a lead at that time. We set a lead in regard to the immediate needs of the country, and, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, this Government was able to carry the country through those dark days, and there were people throughout the length and breadth of this country who were prepared to go down on their knees and thank God for the lead given by our Prime Minister. It might have been pardonable if, in view of all the preoccupations of the Government at that time, they had omitted during those days to turn their minds to post-war requirements. We were living in dangerous days, we were living in difficult times. We were not receiving assistance from the hon. gentlemen opposite in carrying out the war effort. With all these preoccupations, with all these embarrassments and perplexities of carrying out the war effort under these difficult conditions, if the Government had not been able to focus its attention on the post-war situation, it could reasonably have been pardoned. But Sir, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was welcoming Hitlerian victories, we were already getting on with the job of post-war planning. This early vigilance of the Government in regard to post-war planning is significant of the whole policy of the Government from the start. Take, for instance, the action of the Prime Minister in constructing his military hospitals in situations where it was known they would be of value for civilian purposes after the war. The military authorities always consulted the Public Health Department beforehand, so that the hospitals could be placed where they would be useful after the war. When things were at their darkest we were already looking to the days when we would be out of our difficulties. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has talked about hospitals. He himself was Minister of Public Health for nine years, and it was only in 1932 he appointed a commission to go into a matter raised in 1926. The Prime Minister has been building hospitals which I hope to take over for tuberculosis and other purposes, and they are the best hospitals in the country. We have been getting on with the double job. We have been concentrating our minds not only on one side of the job. I go back to the early days when we were in the trough of the war. In August, 1942, we appointed the Gluckman Commission. That date is significant because it was in August, 1942, that the hon. member for Beaufort West was rashly telling an audience at Fraserburg—

That is what the hon. member had in mind, in 1942, when we appointed the Gluckman Commission. While we were carrying on the war effort we were already thinking of postwar planning, but the hon. gentleman was dreaming on those lines, and was trying to make a point about America not coming into the war. It was in those difficult days that we started to plan for peace. May I just say a word here in regard to that planning. If we are to plan for the next 50 years, as it may well be, we have to plan carefully and along scientific lines. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) talked at that time about the second front that would never come. But it came after very careful planning. North Africa came, but it too came after very careful planning. In these days there is sometimes impatience, and it is imagined that we can produce results without scientific planning. But if we rush into these plans without careful thought it may in some cases lead to very serious trouble. In all the steps the Government has taken it has sought to approach these matters concerning the post-war world along scientific lines and it has given these matters most careful thought. I should like to say more about the National Health Service Commission report. That report has been before the country for some months, and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the chairman and the members of that Commission for the painstaking and most careful way in which they carried out their task, and for the manner in which they fitted themselves by research and by investigation for placing that document before the country.

Are you thanking Dr. Luke as well?

I thank all the members of the Commission for the work they have done, and I feel that a valuable document has been placed on record. The Government has for some time been in consultation with the Provinces in regard to financial matters, and when the Government received this report it was quickly apparent that, linked up with the discussions on finances, was the question of control of hospitals, and so we proceeded to discuss the recommendations of the Gluckman Commission against the background of the financial relationship between the Central Government and the four Provinces. It quickly became apparent that all the Provinces were unanimously against the recommendation in the Gluckman Commission report that the Central Government should deprive the Provinces of the control of hospitals. The Provinces took a firm line and said they were not prepared to agree to that control being taken away from them. The Government was then faced with this position, that, if it was going to implement this particular recommendation in the Gluckman Commission report, it would have against it the obstacle of an Act passed by this House in 1934. Act No. 45 of 1934 provides that Parliament shall not abolish any Provincial Council or abridge the powers conferred on Provincial Councils under Section 85 of the South Africa Act, except by petition to Parliament by the Provincial Council concerned. The Government cannot take away administrative control of general hospitals from the Provinces unless the Provinces formally approach Parliament by petition. We are then faced with this constitutional position, and the Government had to decide whether it was prepared to embark on a constitutional conflict at a time when the urgent need was to get on with the merits of the case. We consulted with the Provinces, we went into the matter to the fullest extent, and the Government decided that the proper course in the interests of the country as a ‘whole, and in the interests of the health needs of the country, was not to waste time on the constitutional question, but to get on with the health matters themselves. Negotiations have been taking place with a view to seeing whether the Provinces are prepared to provide extended hospital services. The recommendation of the report is that there should be a free hospital service. The Provinces have now met in constatation with the Government and have accepted in principle the provision of a free hospital service throughout the whole of South Africa, with certain reservations made by the Free State Province in regard to finance. They have accepted that in principle. But they have made it clear that for a number of reasons it will not be practicable to bring into operation a free hospital service except over a gradual period. That, of course, was recognised by the Health Commission itself. That was always recognised by all the members of the Health Commission. That because of a number of circumstances, even accepting the principle of free hospitalisation, that principle could not be implemented for a long while. The Provinces have now accepted that principle. They have agreed in principle to a co-ordinated Hospital Board for the Union in order to align policy in the four Provinces. That is a big step forward. The Leader of the Opposition refers to the crying need for a National Health Service; what we need is a full and adequate service for the needs of this country, and it seems to me that patients are not going to worry very much whether they are going to be treated in a hospital run by the Provincial authorities or whether they are going to be treated in a hospital run by the Union Health Department, so long as they receive adequate treatment. That is the acid test; so to split hairs over constitutional issues and to lose sight of the merits of the case, is to waste time.

What does the Commission say about that? It cannot happen under the present system.

The Commission has expressed its views, and on this particular point. I would remind hon. members it was not altogether unanimous. There were members who did not wish to disturb the existing constitutional position, and there appears to be no reason why under a proper co-ordinated system, and with the financial assistance which will be made available by the Central Government, a hospital service, providing a service for all who need it, cannot be instituted. The Government has decided to implement another of the recommendations of the Commission which is regarded by the Commission itself as fundamental. It has decided to proceed with the establishment of Health Centres. The Commission has pointed out that Health Centres are the basis of a National Health Service. We are starting with Health Centres which the Commission itself has put forward as the basis of a National Health Service. Last year Parliament placed upon the estimates £50,000 to enable a start to be made. A committee has been at work, under the chairmanship of the chairman of the National Health Services Commission, carrying out investigations with regard to a commencement being made with these Health Centres.

How much of the £50,000 has been spent?

I will tell the hon. member how much has been spent. So far as I know not one single additional Health Centre has as yet been started as a result of that £50,000 being placed on the estimate. But that fact is an indication of what the Health Commission itself realises, the fact that if you accept things in principle it does not mean that you can immediately translate them into reality. There are practical difficulties at present in the way.

Promises.

Not false provinces. The Health Centres will be started as soon as we get doctors. You cannot get doctors unless doctors are available; you cannot get nurses unless nurses are available.

What do you mean by a Health Centre?

The hon. gentleman will have an adequate opportunity of hearing what Health Centres are when we come to a fuller discussion of this matter; and if he does not know what a Health Centre is, he is not justified in making interjections. We have then made a start. We have accepted the principle of establishing these Health Centres ….

Where?

… where free services will be given.

Where?

They will be given where they are most needed—where they are most needed in the opinion of the health authorities.

But you have your local doctor's.

The Health Commission contemplates the establishment of something like 400 health centres throughout the country. They will be staffed by medical and dental officers and nurses and so forth, and there free treatment will be given. Educative work will be carried out. They will not be in the nature of hospitals, but the primary object of these Health Centres is to place the emphasis on the preventive side of health work.

Your local doctors will help.

Well, Sir, that is the position. I am not this afternoon going any further into the question of the Commission’s report. That is a matter which is coming up for discussion in a full debate, but so far as the Government is concerned what has been decided is the constitutional issue. The question of the control of hospitals has been decided. It remains with the Provinces. The Health Centres will be established by the Central Government and it has been decided to undertake the full cost of these Health Centres. It has also been decided to maintain control and responsibility for tuberculosis, venereal diseases and other formidable infectious diseases.

You always have done.

That is nothing new.

My hon. friend may have learned about other authorities being concerned with these matters if he read his books a little more carefully. There are other matters concerned with this problem of public health, which will be more germane to the full discussion. Then the Leader of the Opposition has referred to social security. He has inferred that here again the Government has done nothing in the way of adequate preparation. He has told us that if the country wants to have 100 per cent. security, it must come along to the latest programme of principles of the Nationalist Party—the latest revised edition of the programme of principles of the Nationalist Party. He says there is no subject on social security on which you will not get an answer if you consult the programme of principles of the Nationalist Party. In other words, it is a kind of political lucky dip which is produced by the hon. gentleman. Every ailment is cured by the Nationalist Party. Well, the Government has here again proceeded in its investigations, regarding social security, along scientific, rational lines. In January, 1943, again when hon. members opposite were much more absorbed with outside matters, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister appointed a Social Security Committee.

What happened to that?

It was appointed to investigate and report on the existing social services in the Union and to recommend a social security scheme for the future, having regard to the productive capacity of the Union and other factors. That committee reported towards the end of September, 1943.

And its report was referred to another committee.

At any rate, it was immediately referred to another committee; we did not take six years to refer it to another committee, as was done with a report by the Leader of the Opposition on one occasion. That report which was produced by the Social Security Committee, was then submitted to the Planning Committee for its comments.

What happened to that report?

Another Committee.

The Planning Committee produced its comments and these two reports, the report of the Social Security Committee and of the Planning Committee were then submitted to ….

Another Committee.

…. no, not to another committee, but to Parliament, and Parliament in its wisdom decided to send it to a select committee.

Another Committee.

No doubt the disappointed member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) would like us to discard Parliament in these matters. He would be delighted if we eliminated Parliament but unfortunately for the hon. member, the disappointed tipster for Beaufort West, there is still a Parliament in this country and this Government proposes to follow constitutional procedure. This report was referred to Parliament and Parliament itself decided last year to send it to a Select Committee. The Select Committee met; it was not able to complete its labours. Incidentally the hon. Leader of the Opposition this afternoon suggested that we had sought to limit the work of that Committee and the scope of that Committee. My recollection of the matter is that it was the Opposition members of that Select Committee who sought to limit the terms of reference and the scope of the Committee by excluding any reference to non-European persons. They themselves sought to do that, and it was the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) who moved—

It was an hon. member opposite who attempted to limit the scope and jurisdiction of the Committee.

Look at the first amendment which was made in the Committee.

I am dealing with the facts.

You forget the first amendment.

That Committee was not able to conclude its deliberations and in the recess there has been a follow-up of the work of that Committee by the Government, and the Government itself has now given its consideration to the whole matter, after it has been properly thrashed out, and in the course of the next few days there will be laid upon the Table of the House, by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, a White Paper in which there will be set forth the Government’s proposals in regard to social security, and the steps it proposes ro take this Session. That White Paper will be followed up by the introduction of the necessary Bills to give effect to the Government’s programme. The hon. member with visible disappointment does not interrupt now.

We want to see what is going to happen.

I would suggest to him that, in his own interests, he should not attempt any more rash prophecies, even If they are in regard to social security.

What about the 30,000 houses you were going to build; what has happened to them?

The Government will then have placed before the House its programme in relation to social security, and there will be placed before this House the necessary Bills to implement that policy. The House will, therefore, very shortly have an opportunity to discuss these matters, and to see that we are bringing these matters to finality. It is not for me this afternoon to give any indication as to the merits of the proposals. Those proposals will be contained in the White Paper. My purpose this afternoon is merely to refute the facts alleged by the Leader of the Opposition, the allegation that we are unprepared. Our action in regard to social security is one more refutation of that baseless charge which he made against the Government.

We still want to see what is going to happen.

There is just one more reference I should like to make, and that is to food. The main question of food and food control will be dealt with by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. But the hon. gentleman opposite has suggested that there are many sections of the community who have no food available to them. I would remind the hon. gentleman that it is this Government which accepted the principle of subsidising protective foodstuffs for the lower-income groups. I would remind the hon. gentleman that it was this Government which four years ago established the National Nutrition Council, planning for the post-war years, a Council which has been investigating nutritional matters and putting up recommendations to the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Agriculture. Then, following upon the recommendations of the Council, following upon the policy adopted by the Government, we have embarked upon a national school-feeding scheme. Last year we had £800,000 on the Estimates for that purpose. We have established depôts throughout the length and breadth of the country at which a variety of foodstuffs are sold at cheap prices. Last year at the Salt River depot alone food to the value of £29,000 was sold to members of the lower-income groups, and we now have these depôts run either directly by the Department of Social Welfare or by the local authorities with the assistance of the Department in all four provinces of the Union—in centres, inter alia, such as Port Elizabeth, East London, Krugersdorp, Benoni and so on. We have started a fresh innovation. We have accepted the principle of establishing communal restaurants.

You have accepted so many principles but have carried out so few.

These are no doubt matters that the hon. member knows nothing about but nevertheless they are going on. We are not carrying on the policy of letting a so-called surplus go to waste; even in times of food shortage, we are making arrangements in order to place cheap foodstuffs within the reach of the poorer sections of the community. All along the line our policy, during the war years, has been a policy of building up. We are building up the health of the people; we are building up the physique of the people. [Laughter.] Let me remind hon. members opposite that there are many young men in this country who, as a result of going through our physical training battalions, have been turned into good healthy citizens, and that principle has been accepted for the future. These physical training battalions will remain in the future. They will be part and parcel of our post-war programme. But these things escape the minds of hon. members opposite. This is all part of social security. It is all building up, but they cannot recognise social security when they see it.

We cannot see anything.

We are looking for mountains and you are pointing out antheaps.

We need a magnifying glass to see what you have done.

It is not necessary for me to go further. I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. gentleman which more particularly effect the Ministry under my jurisdiction, and I would say, finally, that what the hon. member has alleged, this charge, so far from being a charge of incompetence, will enable this House to show that it realises that during difficult years, we have done our job. We have not been deterred; the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has not been deterred by all the attempts opposite to put a spanner in the works. We have got on with the job. There may have been mistakes from time to time; we are none of us infallible, not even the youngest of us! But the Government has always been ready to recognise constructive and helpful criticism and, helped by its own friends, it has lead the country through these difficult years, and, despite wishful thinking and the desperate efforts on the other side to regain lost ground, it is going forward and it is going to produce social security and welfare amenities for this country.

We are here dealing with a motion that expresses disapproval of the laxity of the Government in certain respects in connection with the provision and distribution of food, and secondly, in connection with its fundamental rejection of the National Health Services Commission’s recommendations, and furthermore over the Government’s unpreparedness in relation to the anticipated post-war conditions. If there is anything that will make it clear to the House and the country that the Government has no good case, and actually that it has no defence, then I have only to refer to the speech made by the Minister. The Minister’s speech was interlarded with Hitler, Hitler, Hitler! He punctuated his speech on the food problem of South Africa on the report of the Public Health Services Commission and on post-war problems time and again with exclamations of Hitler, Hitler, ten times over. I kept note; and when he was a little weary and when he was a little at sea over his defence of the Government, he turned to the second front. The second front itself he brought up four times, but then going astray again in his defence of the Government, he turned to the Russian front, and after he had been to the Russian front he became entangled in America’s conduct after the war. When I mention the seventeenth occasion that the Minister’s speech was riddled with things that had absolutely no relation to the subject we have under discussion, then the country will realise that the Minister actually has no defence, and that he would really like to evade the practical problems. He attempted to obscure the whole subject. The Minister stated that on our part it was simply a case of attempting to make political capital out of certain difficulties. If capital is made for the people of South Africa, valuable capital that will effect an improvement in the health conditions and the economic conditions of the country, then we want to make this political capital; we want to make political capital out of it for the people of South Africa. The Minister went further and said that it is simply on account of our having a democratic system that their own supporters are able to criticise the Prime Minister and the Government. I think that that is absolutely a good thing, that they have the liberty to criticise them, but it is not a question of criticism; it is on important problems, vital problems for the country, that their own members have criticised the Government, and the Government has paid no heed to them. In other words, it has not been bare criticism, it is a case of vitally important matters having to be rectified and which have not been rectified. Now the Minister has gone further in order to obscure the matter still more, and he has said not a single word has been stated from this side of the House regarding demobilisation and the future of the returned soldiers. I should like just to say this to the Minister, that if he does not hear about the returned soldier from this side of the House, he should know that it is because we include in our rehabilitation programme every individual in the land, whoever he may be, and we include in our new economic programme the provision of a home for every member of our population, as well as an opportunity to make a living and a chance to set up on a sound basis for himself and his dependants. I want to say this to the Minister, they exaggerate the emphasis that they place on the returned soldier at the expense of the rest of the population of the country, and that is not a thing that the returned soldier sets great store by. There is not a single person in the country who is not in one way or another connected with a returned soldier, and if the emphasis is placed entirely On the returned soldier and not upon social security for the whole population, the returned soldier will not think highly of it. What he wants is a complete scheme of rehabilitation of economic conditions, and of social security for the whole population. The Minister then made a further attempt to escape from his difficulties when he referred to hospitals by telling us of the military hospitals that have been built. Everyone knows that hospitals must be built for military purposes in special places. I hope that they will be valuable in the future, and I hope that use will be made of those hospitals as far as possible. But for the Minister to come here and tell the House that those hospitals represent their first effort on behalf of national health, on behalf of the health of the people of South Africa, only makes it absolutely clear that the Government, as I say, have really no plan at all, and actually have not the ability to deal with the matter in a proper way for the country. I come now to the report of the National Health Services Commission. I am perhaps less disappointed than most of the people of South Africa over the funeral oration by the Prime Minister on the fundamental principles of that report. I say that I am perhaps the least disappointed, because I perhaps harboured the fewest expectations. Less than two years ago I stated that there was enough information, that there was enough information available for resolutions to be taken on certain necessary principles that are incorporated in the realisation of a public health service for South Africa. The Government would not take those resolutions at that time, and everyone knew that to establish any public health scheme for South Africa two things were essential. The one was that an end should be put to the divided control over public health. That has been the stumbling block for the past 20 years. That has been condemned in this House for the past 15 years. In the beginning the Minister of Finance, when he was in Opposition, condemned that. Earlier and later we on this side of the House condemned it. It has been a well-known fact that the Government had first to take a stand in regard to this problem before they appointed a commission with such wide terms of reference to conduct an enquiry over the course of years. The Government had first to take a stand over that problem. Was it prepared to put an end to the divided control by depriving the provinces of powers, or was it prepared to furnish financial power in another form to the provinces in order to continue that work under the supervision of the Central Government, and under the supervision of the central machinery that will have to be created to carry out such a health scheme? The Government declined to make a stand. It did not do anything. In the second place, it was clear to all that a national public health scheme would cost anything from three to four million pounds a year, or more. We did not know how much. We do not know today how much it will cost, but we knew that in the early stage our estimate for that public health scheme would have to begin with about two to three million pounds, and that it would have to rise gradually until that scheme embraced the whole country. The Government also knew that. They knew that it would mean a big sum in terms of our estimates to establish the scheme, and the Government ought to have taken a line in reference to that problem before the commission sat, so that the commission could have known in connection with their enquiry: We are now going to conduct an enquiry, and we know that the Government has certain plans, and that they have taken a certain line over important fundamental problems, and we shall have to base our report on that. Now we come to the end of the whole of the work that has lasted for two years, I am very glad that I did not accept the Minister’s invitation to serve on the commission. I want to say honestly that I felt beforehand that it was a question of procrastination, a question that had to do with the elections. The Government would not take those resolutions which I have spoken about, and that for reasons which will be quite clear to people who have knowledge of the behaviour of the Government. Today it is clear to the rest of the country. The Government wanted to convey to the people before the election that they were a government who would actually take the field in total war against ill-health and against evil conditions in the country.

Who would do big things.

The Government used this throughout the whole country in their election campaign; it was the big promise that was held out before the whole country. Everywhere it was stated on the platform: “We are now going to institute a comprehensive enquiry, and we are going to safeguard the health of the population; we are going to establish a population that will thrive economically because it is healthy.” And that was the reason why the commission had such comprehensive terms of reference that it took two years before it could bring out its report. Now I am wondering what the Government’s plan will be after two years if they are still there—which is greatly to be doubted. I foresee that at that stage they are going to say to the people: “We have our plans in order; return us again to Parliament and then we shall take steps to give practical effect to the recommendations of the commission.” So it can go on ad infinitum, and the report of the commission can be used at every election to hoodwink the people. Curiously enough, that succeeds at times, but I do not think that in this case it is going to succeed. We have no further illusions over the intentions of the Government. We know what the plan and purpose of the Government is. We have no further illusions over the ability of the Government to give effect to a report of such a commission as this. We did not cherish any illusions over the Government’s good intentions in connection with this matter. We knew that it was simply a plan on the part of the Government to throw dust in the eyes of the people. That sort of thing goes on incessantly not only with national health, but also with other matters; investigations are continually being made to convey to the people the idea that the Government is going to do something, and that the people have only to believe in the Government. Well, on the next occasion the people will no longer believe in the Government. We know that this has only been a pretence for election purposes on the part of the Government. We know that never before was a propaganda campaign conducted in the way this campaign was oyer a period of three years in order to deceive the public with high-falutin’ ministerial pronouncements about a millennium that the Government was not in a position to provide the people with. Did the Government not know before this commission commenced investigations that the provinces had control over the hospitals?

The Minister of Demobilisation apparently did not know that.

Had they then not made any provision in connection with the matter? Almost everyone knows now what the Government’s plan was with regard to this commission, that the Minister of Public Health is still endeavouring to give the outside public the idea that the Government is going to do something. A week or so ago it had a further opportunity to inform the country what they really were going to do. They are establishing twenty clinics. He has not, however, told us on what system and according to what plan they are going to establish these clinics. Are they going to follow the plan proposed by the National Health Services Commission; is it the plan that there should be a group of doctors and nurses and social workers in the clinics who will provide the necessary services in a definite area? We ought to know whether it will really be within the framework of the proposals that have been made, or within the framework of a public health plan which the Minister has himself evolved? It does not help matters now to ask the Government to go over to a general health plan for the whole country. That plan has clearly miscarried. I am sorry about that. I am afraid that the intention of the Government is to set about the work in some such way as this. Last year £50,000 was voted for clinics. Mention is now made of twenty more clinics. Perhaps the following year five more will be established, the year after that ten and the year after that fifteen. But this manner of things leads us nowhere, although the Government has every year an opportunity to present something as prospective. Actually, nothing is then done of any real significance. That is not the way in which a government should carry on, and if the. Government does not make a plan to attack the matter systematically, the results are going to be disastrous for the health of our population. The Government is doing that because certain things are standing in the way. These do not only affect the health of the people; the delay of the Government dislocates also the whole economic life of the nation. We know that there are few countries in the world where the workers are physically so enfeebled as in South Africa, but the Government lets God’s water run over God’s acre. Matters are just in that position, and they will have to remain at that. There is never an alternative plan suggested. No, we must at least make certain that as far as concerns the health of the population, no stumbling blocks shall stand in our path. If there are stumbling blocks we must move those stumbling blocks out of our way. The country obtained certain information from the National Health Services Commission, and we know that this is an integral part of social security. It will not be possible for us to bring the economic life of South Africa on to a higher level, unless we tackle the health of the population as a whole in large way, with a comprehensive scheme, with a view to placing public health on a better footing. Consequently it is necessary that at this stage, when the world is envisaging better things, we should frame plans to furnish South Africa with those services. It is the duty of the Government to do that. If good schemes are proposed by the Government, we on this side of the House will accord them our whole-hearted support. We cannot adopt the attitude that as the population of South Africa have been all these years in that condition we must simply be content with that. That is not the case. We in this country are faced with the alternative that democracy here must accomplish certain things if it does not want revolutionary processes coming into South Africa, which will aim at dictatorial powers being granted for a dictator to be given the opportunity to do certain things in the country that democracy apparently does not want to do. What we propose as a public health scheme in a system of social security boils down to the protection of South Africa against those revolutionary processes which will arise in South Africa after the war if the Government does not now frame plans to improve the position in the country. It is not too early to do this, but it is almost too late. The Government apparently does not realise that it is working hand in hand with those revolutionary forces in our country as the result of no steps being taken for social security, for public health, and for the improvement of the economic life of our country. The Minister and the Government keep their eyes focussed on the war position. In the address given by the Minister a week ago, the Minister again indicated that the Government is concerning itself with the war and he added that it was only right that the Government should be occupied with the war. Yes, the Government is now so busy with the war that it cannot think about post-war conditions. It is so busy with the war that it is not in a position to see clearly what is happening in Europe at the moment. It is engaged in assisting the revolutionary conditions in South Africa, because it is staring so fixedly at the war that it cannot for a single moment pay attention to post-war conditions, and to the results of the war. I turn now to the Minister’s function as Minister of Demobilisation and his actions in connection with the returned soldiers. He has levelled the charge against us that we are not interested in those people. We are interested in every element in South Africa. We are interested in every living soul, in every individual, in the condition of his health, in his physical and spiritual welfare, and also in his economic stability. The question of national health brings us also to the question of housing. In this connection the Minister has made many many promises. Some three years ago he spoke about 30,000 houses. Last year he brought this figure down a little, but although he has talked a great deal about that, very little has been done. We condemn that in the Government, that it has still not made plans with an eye to post-war conditions and that it actually has not the ability to make those plans. I want to direct the Minister’s attention for a while to the post-war plans. Let us leave to one side for a moment the larger matters that are involved in that connection, and let us glance at what the Government and the Minister are doing to protect the returned soldier, particularly those who receive a monetary grant. Take those who receive a grant for the purchase of clothes—How are they protected? The returned soldier receives £30 at a certain place in a town. He receives a cheque that is paid to him, and at that place that he is paid out there is a person who tells him he must go to this or that tailor to obtain his clothes. He goes there and he has to pay £17 17s. for a suit of clothes. I cannot afford to pay as much as that for a suit of clothes, but nevertheless the returned soldier is advised by the person appointed by the Government to pay out the money, to go to this firm or that. The Minister will now perhaps say that I must provide the proofs of that. I would advise him to send a returned soldier to that office to see what happens.

From tomorrow of course it will no longer happen.

Yes, that will of course be the position. I am mentioning it to point out to the Minister that the vultures are already sitting there ready to prey on the returned soldier who receives monetary support from the Government.

Was it not your duty to convey that information to me privately?

No, it was the Government’s duty to make investigations in regard to how far the vultures are already sitting around the returned soldiers to prey on them when they get financial aid from the Government. I am pointing to the fact that the Government must prepare plans to protect in every respect the returned soldier who receives financial assistance, because the vultures are already sitting waiting for them. My allegation is that this Government has absolutely no right to attempt to govern this country in the future. It is its duty to the country to make way, because it must itself admit that it does not possess the ability to grapple with the nation’s problems. It must also acknowledge that it has no intention to tackle any problem that is really fundamental in principle. It is absolutely necessary that those problems should be tackled, because if this is not done we shall be assisting the revolutionary elements, and at long last the Government will be left with the problem. A moment ago the question was asked why we did not specifically refer to the returned soldiers. We did not mention them specifically because our plans are designed for the whole population. But just look at the other side, at the plans of the Minister of Lands.

You would, of course, put all the 200,000 in gaol.

If we look at the plans of the Minister of Lands, then it is perfectly clear that it is the policy of the Government to get rid of the services of hundreds and thousands of people, or to displace them from their holdings, and to put returned soldiers in their place. The returned soldier cannot set any store by that. If there ever has been a government which has told the people beforehand that it was not able to govern the land, that it had not the ability to give work to the whole of the population, then it is that Government on the benches opposite. They have stated beforehand, and it has been in their mouths on every platform, that they would provide work for the returned soldiers. But they have said not a word about the rest of the population whom they are going to displace from their livings to make room for the returned soldiers. There will, of course, be a smelling out process. I assume that if there is anyone on the side of the Government, if he makes it well known that he is one of the pals of the Minister of Lands, he will not be displaced from his plot. If he is prepared to prove that he is not opposed to the Government then he will perhaps be allowed to remain. That is certainly not the way to govern a country. I do not say that the Minister has already done that, but it is possible that that will happen. The fact, however, is that it has been intimated to hundreds and thousands of people that they will be put off their land, and I say that the Government thereby condemns itself. By that they have themselves told the country that they are not fit to govern South Africa. Instead of them coming along with plans to embrace every individual in the country, they proclaim to the world that they have not the ability to provide work for all. It does not concern me that people’s surplus farms are bought out and that these are being given to returned soldiers who want to farm. But why should hundreds and thousands of plot holders be thrown out? What is going to happen with those holdings? They are going to place people on those lands who have absolutely no capacity for that sort of farming, and who are not acquainted with that particular type of farming. The returned soldier intimates that he would like to have a farm, and the Government says “good.” The Government is going to take from the farms people who are acquainted with the nature of the farming on that land, and in their place it is going to put people who are ignorant of that sort of farming. The Government has not the ability to create work. It knows nothing about it, and that is why the only plan that it has is to put other people out of employment to make room for the returned soldiers. They themselves refer with pride to the fact that they are going to put other people out of work. I only want to say this, that the returned soldiers do not attach any value to that sort of treatment. What they would like to see is that their country and all the people of the country will have an opportunity to share in social security, which boils down to this, that everyone in the country must have work. The foundation of such a scheme is work for the whole country, and for every individual, and that the position of the individual should be so developed in the country that he will be able to make a decent living. The Government has revealed its incapacity. Ministers have shown it in their own speeches, and hon. members opposite have done the same, and consequently I cordially support this motion of censure and of no confidence in the Government, knowing that every thinking person in the country condemns the Government. Not only those who are being rendered workless by the Government, or who are being dislodged from their lands, but the whole population of South Africa is indignant over the behaviour of the Government, and they condemn the Government for its incapacity to take action to relieve the present situation.

I really think that the time lias arrived when the Government should avert it gaze from the war for a little while, and concern itself with the interests and requirements of its own land and people. Just now one of the Ministers opposite rose in his place and tried to tell this side of the House how the Government was trying to create a heaven on earth in South Africa. Fortunately it did not take the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) long to refute the assertions of the Minister. The Minister has attempted to tell us here about the great things that the Government has performed. He has stated that during this period the Government has worked miracles. We are living in a time when money is abundant, and he says: “Look at what we are doing, we are giving food to the school children.” Let me say at once that we on this side of the House welcome the fact that the school children are obtaining food, while we are saddled with a government that is powerless to solve the problems of the country. But it is a disgrace for any government to state that it has brought the land to such a condition that it has actually to provide school children with food in order that they may be able to continue their studies. The Government could at least have seen to it that in this time of prosperity every breadwinner, every father of a familiy, would be in a position to support his family so that it would not be necessary to distribute food among the children of the country. It is not only members on this side of the House who are dissatisfied. On the benches opposite there are sitting members who are convinced in their souls, and are feeling hurt that the Government has brought about such an unfortunate position of affairs. What happened in October of last year? The Government went so far as to convene a conference of newspaper editors at Pretoria. It had to ask those newspaper editors to please keep the party policy more in the foreground, and to make the public a little more satisfied. We should very much like to know in this case who paid the costs of this conference when the Ministers in their distress and anxiety were driven to the medium of a press conference to attempt to soothe the people. I maintain that the principal purpose of that conference was to strengthen propaganda for the United Party, and if the money for that came out of our Treasury the Government perpetrated an injustice towards the people, because no government has the right to use State funds for party propaganda purposes. I say that every thinking section of the community, including supporters of the Government, is very sore at heart and very worried over the position that has been created in this country, especially with refernce to the distribution and provision of food. What happened when the Minister of Agriculture introduced his meat scheme? Shortly after that we found that in Johannesburg when the slaughter oxen arrived, a bid would be made of £14 or £15 and then the Government buyer would come in and drive up the price to £26 and £27. That is the reason why the prices have soared skywards. Then the Minister came forward with his meat scheme, and he was the cause of meat becoming scarcer and scarcer. It was not long before the Minister had dumped the country into such a position that in the streets of Johannesburg the people had to stand in queues to obtain a piece of meat. In passing I would just say this, that at 7 o’clock in the evening I came out of a butcher shop and the people were already beginning to form up in a queue. At 10 o’clock I was there again, and there they were standing for a distance of a couple of hundred yards so as to be able to get a piece of meat in the morning. I saw women of 60 and 70 asleep on the pavement. Worst of all is the fact that the Government permits its newspapers to appear every morning with announcements that the following day there would be sufficient meat. This Government will be judged by the people of South Africa for these misdeeds for which it is responsible. I wonder whether any of our Ministers has ever gone and looked at what is happening in the butcher shops. I believe not, because as far as I know the Minister of Agriculture let it be known that as far as he was concerned he was sleeping quietly and restfully.

I never said anything of the sort.

I never noted that he had denied that. But we go further. How does the distribution of meat really take place? In my constituency there are four butcher shops reasonably close to each other. Three of the four are actually closed down, but at the other one the people stand in a queue 100 yards long. Why? Later I found that that butcher has a brother in the wholesale trade. Now the Minister comes along and he states that the distribution is entirely in order. I maintain that there is the greatest disorder that has ever prevailed in South Africa. In the Minister’s own constituency his opponent at the elections has three butcher shops. He closed them down because he could get no quota, while the others flourish because they are able to get meat. That is another proof of the chaos that prevails. We find that the silent member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) got himself into great difficulty. I feel sorry for him. But I want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Ministers who are sitting opposite. We were in the difficult position in Johannesburg that there was practically no meat. At Heidelberg there was plenty of meat, and the hon. member for Springs transgressed. But can the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture, as Afrikaners, place their hands on their hearts and really tell us that while they have been concerned over the conditions, and while they themselves could not get meat, they have not gone 40 miles and perhaps more to obtain meat? No, I think that the hon. member for Springs—he has my sympathy—was just unlucky to be caught. We find that as a result of the Government’s method of distribution—we shall revert to that later—the wholesale trade and the retail trade are busy attempting to do business in the same localities where the organisation must do its work. Is it surprising that hundreds of carcasses have disappeared without trace? Why cannot that be put a stop to? The control is such that in Johannesburg alone more than 300 overalls disappeared without a trace at the abattoirs. There is another thing that I would like to know from the Minister. While there was no meat for the ordinary consumer, the Chamber of Mines was in a position to provide its natives with meat every day in the compounds. Here again a definite line has been drawn, and I maintain again that it was not compound meat. I have seen it myself; it was first class meat that was sent to the compounds while the ordinary consumers went hungry. There are today thousands of children on the Witwatersrand who have to go to sleep without having a piece of meat as a result of the misdirected efforts of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister ought to give some thought as to the number of wholesale dealers in meat there are today on the Witwatersrand. So far as I know the Imperial Cold Storage practically holds a monopoly today. We shall yet pluck the bitter fruits of that.

The wholesale dealers are still busy buying out retailers.

Yes, the process is still under way. But it is not confined to meat. A little while, ago mothers could not obtain a single egg and the price was 5s. a dozen. At that time the Minister had a million dozen cola storage eggs which had become bad. The Minister has made himself guilty towards the poor section of the community of unpardonable mismanagement, and it is not only the case in regard to meat and eggs. The Minister permitted the export of butter on a large scale to Rhodesia.

On what large scale?

The result is that there is a scarcity pf butter and cheese. I have only one name for this Government and that is that it is a scarcity government in a time of plenty. The Minister has stated that no proof can be produced that he has ever stated that farmers sabotaged the meat scheme. Does the Minister forget how he attacked the farmers at a meeting at Germiston, and asserted that the farmers bore the blame, because they sabotaged the meat scheme?

I never said that. I challenge you to produce proof.

But you said that.

The Minister went further, and on the same platform he stated later after he had attacked the farmers that the speculators were the cause of the failure. By way of interjection I stated that if the Government was so weak as not to be able to control the speculators, then in heaven’s name let it hand over the reins of government of the country to us. But the Minister then looked for another scapegoat, and he came to the clerk of the weather. It was then the weather that was to be blamed. Does the Minister not know that here in South Africa we have uncertain weather? The Minister then stated that after the shearing season things would be better. Does he not know that cattle do not grow wool? So the Minister went away and darted about hither and thither, but in the meantime women sat down in their distress and our children suffered hunger. It became so bad that the women stormed the Minister at Pretoria. Then the Minister came out with amazing declaration that 85 per cent. of the home-grown food in South Africa was exported and had to be exported. Has the Minister ever taken us into his confidence and told us of the contract that the Government entered into with the British Ministry of Food? No. Now he comes at last to light With the correct explanation. I can now understand why there is a shortage. The other day the Minister stated that he was providing food to 27 neighbouring states in Africa. It does not redound to the credit of the Government that it should be exporting food while its own people are suffering from hunger. The Minister ought to have taken into account that every year is not one of prosperity in regard to agriculture. What do we find today? The Minister is in a fix. The whole of the mealie harvest is a failure, there is a big drought. Has the Minister made any provision? No, he has been providing food for other countries. Accordingly, I maintain that the Minister has failed. As soon as you venture to attack Ministers they retort that there is a war on. That is the only answer they can give. One day the war will be a thing of the past, and thé people of. South Africa will pass judgment on the deeds of the Government. Mention is made here about the national health. The Department of Public Health is a very important department. After the last Great War we had the ’flu epidemic which mowed down thousands of women and children. The seriousness of the matter is obvious, and this department was called into being to be vigilant in respect of such matters. Today we are faced with a serious contagious disease. What has the Minister of Public Health done in the last year? The press has sounded warnings about epidemics which might possibly occur. Have precautionary measures been taken? Medical men have emphasised that the congregating of people and children must be avoided. Has the Government dealt with that? No, until the day before the schools closed the Government had done nothing, but the day after that it was decided that the assembling of children must be avoided. What was the cause of that? It was because the Victory Fair should first be held and not be spoiled. That was of greater Importance than the health of the people. I want to warn the Minister that after the war such things can be expected. As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has stated, we stand on the edge of famine, and where starvation comes disease and epidemics follow on its trail. The Government should no longer sleep. It should be on its guard, and adopt timely precautionary measures. What has the Government done in connection with the epidemic that has now visited our country? In Cradock a century old pamphlet was distributed. It strikes at the honour of the Government that timely precaution should not have been taken. Today panic prevails throughout the length and breadth of the country. There are other diseases as well. There are many cases of smallpox, while there is not enough serum available. Let the Government look a bit more closely to the interests of the people, and not only be concerned with seeing the war through. I come to the last point. We must condemn the Government because it has been lax with reference to the anticipated post-war conditions. Take the case of the soldiers who are returning. You will hardly find a soldier who is satisfied with the policy of the Government. The other day a soldier said to me: “I have been shot to pieces, and what do I get when I come back home? My wife has to stand in a queue for a bit of meat. There is hunger in my house.” Many of our people have to live in a garage and in the slums. If we talk about that, then the Minister of Demobilisation stands up and he prates about 100,000 and 1,000,000 houses that he is going to build. When is he going to make a start with them? In every sphere there is great dissatisfaction. What is the Government’s policy in connection with provision of employment? Its policy is that it will solve unemployment by creating unemployment. When we on this side of the House come along and say that the Government of the country is responsible for seeing that every man in the country who wants work obtains work then we are charged with trying to make political capital. I can assure you, Sir, that ugly things will happen in South Africa if that is the line the Government are going to take. I know of people who have been put out of their employment when soldiers have returned. It is only right that the returned soldier should get work, but the Government should not then throw the other man on to the street. It is unpardonable to attempt to solve unemployment by creating unemployment. What will happen on the railways and in the harbours? About 15,000 railway employees have joined up, and some 11,000 or 12,000 have been engaged on a temporary basis. Those who return must again be absorbed in the service, and that is all to the good, but must the other 12,000 be thrown on the streets? When we talk about social security we must see to it that there is work enough in the country for every man, woman and child who wants work. Then and then only will the Government be able to claim that it is doing something in the direction of social security. There has been talk of industrial expansion. We appreciate that. That is the policy of the Nationalist Party. But I roundly declare that we do not trust the Government to carry out this policy. We have had experience in the past. If the Government, wants to pursue such a policy, then it must abandon its idea of wanting to strengthen Britain in the economic sphere at the expense of our industries. We shall be glad if the Government drops that policy. I do not want to go fully into the position of the workers in South Africa at this juncture. The Minister of Labour, however, permits today that the interests of the great majority of workers are not protected. Instead of that he allows communism in South Africa to be strengthened. The Government must see to it that the workers are protected. Otherwise they will promote the spreading of foreign ideologies in our country. This sort of thing will cause us misery in the future, in the near future. I only want to express the hope that if other Ministers stand up to take part in the debate, we should hear more arguments and better arguments than those we have received from the Minister who has just sat down. I think he has done harm to his own party and to the Government. Anyone, no matter to what political party he belongs, has to accept the three big principles contained in the motion. We want to have a proper provision and distribution of foodstuffs. Food must be brought within the reach of ever woman and child in South Africa. In the second place, we must see to it, and I hope that everyone on the other side of the House will agree to it, that the report of the Public Health Commission is adopted. We cannot wait any longer. As regards social security, the time has arrived when we should stand together to solve the post-war problems. Therefore I make an appeal to every right-thinking Afri kaner. There is chaos in our country, and there is only one policy that can save the country from ruin, and that is the policy that the Nationalist Party has for the future.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 24th January.