When this debate was adjourned, Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the food question, and particularly the position in regard to meat and the meat scheme. I would like to remind the House once again that the hon. members opposite have continually told us that they support the principles of this scheme.

Yes, only the principle.

They have told us, Sir, that they are friends of the scheme, and I have no doubt that supporters of any scheme will do everything they possibly can to make a success of it.

We have done that.

The attitude taken up by hon. members opposite is to voice protestations of their support and they are today saying they have done everything to make a success of the scheme. I think if there is one party, one body of people in South Africa who have done everything they can to make the task of the Minister difficult in making a success of this scheme, it is the party opposite.

Rubbish.

They have consistently tried to put it off. The motion they brought forward last session was designed to delay the scheme, though as you know, delay would have been dangerous. I think that they wanted to delay it with the idea that they would bring it forward themselves at a more opportune time, at a time when they could launch it and make a success of it. [Interruptions.] Notable members of the Opposition party did everything they possibly could to stampede the National Woolgrowers of South Africa ….

Rubbish.

… in order to get that body to publish resolutions in opposition to that scheme before they could understand what it was all about. The National Woolgrowers offered strong opposition to the scheme, and on the basis of incomplete information in their possession even threatened to boycott it. When, however, they found they had been misled they changed their attitude and said that they would now support the scheme. The majority of farmers throughout South Africa, Sir, are strong supporters of the meat scheme and are determined to make a success of it. Hon. members opposite want to gain the political support of those farmers, and this explains why they persist in saying that they are supporting the principle of the scheme, while at the same time they do everything possible to wreck it and to prevent it being made a success. They know that the people in the towns, the consumers, are also supporting the scheme ….

No.

Hon. members opposite are doing everything they possibly can to drive a wedge between the producers and the consumers in South Africa, and between the consumers and the people who are trying to make a success of the scheme.

We are trying to prevent them making such a mess of it.

The attitude of hon. members opposite is in sharp contrast to the attitude of hon. members on this side of the House. We criticise our Government when we think they are not doing their very best ….

Nonsense.

We criticise in a constructive manner, and as a result we have been able to do something to improve the position. Hon. members opposite, however, criticise with the idea of driving wedges here and there, they criticise with the idea of making the position difficult, and they are trying to make it appear that they are the friends of the poor people in the towns, they are the friends of the rich farmers, they are the friends of the returned soldiers, they are the advocates and leaders of all these movements that are being strongly pushed and are being made a success of by the Government today. The Opposition tries to put out a little propaganda here and there with a view of spreading the belief that credit is due to them for the inception of these wonderful ideas. They think the people of South Africa will swallow that sort of stuff.

Are you going to start now wth your constructive criticism?

I am going to make what I consider some constructive suggestions, but before I do that I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister of Agriculture for the way in which he has stood up to the position and the way he has faced the difficulties. On many occasions I have seen him battling to try to improve this food position, which we all know is difficult. In tackling this position the Minister has moved heaven and earth to bring in supplies when they were hot available in South Africa. I think he is’ entitled to a little praise for the work he has done during the past six or eight months. Now, Sir, I said that I thought certain improvements were necessary. I would like to suggest some of these improvements, and I hope the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) will not say that if any improvements are brought about it will not be the same scheme. If anything can be done to improve the position I say that it is the Government’s duty to do it, and to try to effect any improvement, no matter where the suggestion comes from. If the Opposition, who are such very great friends of the scheme and who want to make a success of it, will put forward constructive suggestions, I am sure they will be welcome, and if they represent improvements, these suggestions will be given effect to.

Let us hear about your new scheme.

I would not presume to recommend a new scheme, but with the experience we have all had of the present scheme I think we could certainly suggest one or two improvements. [Interruptions.]

I do not intend to be put off by interruptions and I will explain briefly to the House exactly what my ideas are in this connection. The first essential is to improve the distribution of food. Improvements are indicated, and I think that the people of South Africa are perfectly satisfied that they have a very good supply of food, but that the distribution has not been all that it might have been. Our people are satisfied to tighten their belts and to make a few sacrifices provided they know that verybody is being treated alike, and that the sacrifice is necessary for the benefit of the war position, and to improve the lot of people in other countries who are helping us to fight the common enemy and whose food position is not so good as our own.

In other words, I would like to suggest that some policy of rationing should be tried at the earliest possible date. I think it would be best to organise a system of registration of consumers with retailers. I think it is quite impossible for any scheme to be a success where the distribution is left in the hands of a body of people such as the retail trade. I do not think it is fair to impose this strain on them over a lengthy period, nor do I think that it is possible for them to give satisfaction to the general public. I think that a system of rationing along these lines should be tried at the earliest possible date. Nor do I think it necessary that it should be immediately applied right throughout South Africa. It could be tried in one or two areas. It is not likely that we would get a perfect scheme in the beginning in the same way—

As the meat scheme.

I think we should try it and in the light of the experience gained we would soon get an effective system.

What about the I.C.S.?

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is very liberal with his advice. I would like to remind him of the type of advice he has given to the farming community in the past. I was present at a woolgrowers’ meeting at Bloemfontein a few years ago when the hon. member advised the woolgrowers to try to get a free market for their wool in place of the guarantee that was offered by the British Government. The hon. member advised them to sell their wool to Japan and to Italy. The question was raised how these countries would be able to pay for the wool. His reply was: “Sell it to them on credit.” That is the type of advice that the hon. member for Cradock has been giving to the farmers of South Africa. I wonder if the hon. member would have been quite so happy as he is now if the Union Government had accepted his advice.

They would have been much better off.

How would the hon. member feel now if the Government had accepted his advice and had given him, in payment for his wool, I.O.U.’s from Japan and Italy?

He has changed his mind now and he wants the wool to go to London.

I think that that position is well understood by the farmers of South Africa. A further constructive suggestion I should like to make, and one that Would, I believe, assist the scheme, is that at the earliest possible moment the Government should bring about a reconstituted meat control board. That has been advocated by our agricultural unions consistently for many years. It is quite obvious that when the war comes to an end and the emergency regulations pass away, we shall have to have some body to continue the administration of this scheme, and I think it is necessary to have a board of this kind brought into being at the earliest moment, so that we shall not have to hand over the control to a board at a moment’s notice.

Where is your cold storage?

If the board was constituted now it would be able to gain some experience and have the advantage of the members working together, and it would be able to build up a staff before it is actually entrusted with the administration of the meat scheme.

Where is your cold storage?

I will eome to the matter of cold storage presently. Further, I think that in all these questions it is essential that we should do everything possible to try to build up co-operation between the producers and the consumers. We should do everything we possibly can to encourage the consumers to co-operate with us in order to try to bring about better methods of distribution, and in order to effect improvements in the handling of our food supplies. At a time when it might well be expected that all our energies were being devoted to the prosecution of the war, the Government has managed to find time to plan the reconstruction of agriculture. Of course, they have not got a remedy to apply at a moment’s notice, but they have an excellent report that has been put up by leading officials of their department. That report is being submitted by them to the closest scrutiny by the Planning Council, some of the best brains in the country, and I have no doubt that in due course they will come forward with measures which will prove of the greatest benefit to the farming community. I am sure this great question of soil conservation which is so essential to the country’s welfare, and which effects town and country alike, is being tackled boldly by the Government, and I think it is something that we should prosecute with the utmost vigour as soon as we can; not to interfere with our war effort.

All these points are political propaganda.

I have no doubt, too, that once the Government seriously directs its attention to such problems and the time is almost ripe for their proposals to be presented, the Nationalist Party will put down a motion on the Order Paper and will try to claim credit for having given the idea to the Government. I should like to instance what is happening today to the meat scheme. The information I have is that last week Durban had 1,960 head of cattle railed there. That is roughly 40 per cent. more than their requirements for a week. In the past the arrival of that consignment of cattle would have resulted in a drop in the price on that market of probably 10s. per 100 lbs. I have had that experience on many occasions.

In spite of the shortage of mutton?

Well, in the past if you had a 10 per cent. or even a 5 per cent. surplus on any one day, the market would drop, and if the surplus continued over two or three days the bottom simply dropped out of the market, and the only people who gained any advance were the cold storage people, who were able to buy up the food and store it. In many cases they helped to engineer the surplus and then they scored from it. The big cold storage interests simply bought up the surplus food at their own prices. Meat is a perishable commodity, and stock had to be sold on the day it was slaughtered, and the people with cold storage facilities were in the position that they just stepped in and reaped the harvest. It is to prevent that sort of thing that we have been so keen on advocating this meat scheme.

There is the permit system.

The permit system was not able to prevent that sort of thing happening.

Why not?

I say that the permit system was not able to prevent that sort of thing happening on many occasions.

That is owing to “jobs for pals”.

Today what is the position? The farmer has a guaranteed market, whether he sends in 1,900 or 2,500 head of cattle. No matter how many he sends he is paid the full price, and the farmers are satisfied with those prices. The reason we have not had more abundant supplies, a sufficiency to meet our requirements, is the fact that there has been over-consumption in the last few years. It must be remembered that stabilised prices are very much more attractive to the farmer than a speculative market. At every agricultural congress in South Africa in the last four years, they have answered that question.

The fanners say: We don’t want to gamble with our stock; we don’t mind buying a Rhodesian sweep ticket occasionally or having a little gamble on our own, but we cannot afford to gamble with our main source of livelihood. There fore they support the meat scheme; they want a stabilised price. Another point, and one which I think is of very great importance, is that facilities should be furnished for handling our meat supply. As you know, Sir, the municipalities provide abattoirs. They have a monopoly of the provision of abattoir facilities, and there has been a wide disparity between the facilities provided at one point and those available at another point. My idea is that every decent-sized municipality in South Africa should provide cold-storage accommodation adequate for two or three days, so that the stock could be slaughtered and the meat stored in that cold storage before it is distributed to the trade. The principal object of this is to improve the quality of the meat and to provide a small reserve against breakdowns on the railways, or a hold-up owing to the permit system, or dislocation in respect of any other activity over which we cannot have complete control. Cold storage has been provided by cold storage companies’ wholesalers. The butcher has a small area of cold storage space, but the actual cost of cold storage in a municipal abattoir is very small when it is run as an adjunct to the abattoir. We have that system in operation in Durban, where the facilities are provided; and while I am mentioning this point, I should like to state that my idea is that these abattoirs should be utilised to provide this essential service for the people of this country. They should not be run as a money-making concern by our municipalities. They should be run with the object of providing the best possible service at cost. I have noticed that municipalities throughout South Africa are in many cases willing to accept this principle. They are willing to accept the principle of distributing food to their lower income groups at cost. Further collaboration with municipalities along these lines will, I believe, enable us to put forward a scheme for adequate cold storage facilities which, in turn, will make the distribution of our food a very much easier proposition. Another point that may be very well brought forward is in connection with the recovery of by-products. A great deal more can be achieved in respect of the recovery of byproducts. Here we need expert investigation, and we need a plan that will enable us to take advantage of the advice that is submitted. Another feature that will improve the distribution of our foodstuffs is the investigation of the question of providing abattoir facilities at more strategic points. It is quite an expensive business to rail cattle say to Durban, and then to bring some of that meat to Cape Town to relieve the pressure at Cape Town; but if we could have a considerable proportion of our meat slaughtered at central abattoirs at some inland centres, where you would have three or four days’ cold storage accommodation, and if you could run that meat quickly by refrigerated trucks to other centres, that, I think would help to solve one of our most difficult problems. The hon. member for Cradock has continually referred to the question of cold storage. He says that cold storage will settle everything. Cold storage is a help, but we have to keep the cost in mind. If you examine the figures you will find that for a period of sixteen weeks the cost for cold storage is 9s. per 100 lbs. Well if you are going to pay 9s. per 100 lbs. for storing meat for four months you might as well give the farmer 10s. or 15s. a 100 lbs. and have fresh meat at the end of the period instead of frozen meat. A point which is rather overlooked on the question of cold storage is that if you store meat for four months you must freeze it and frozen meat is not nearly as palatable, and I do not think it is as nutritious, as fresh meat, and where it comes into competition with fresh meat, it always fetches a lower price. So I would strongly recommend that instead of going in for frozen meat on a big scale, especially this season, when it is difficult to get supplies, the Minister should encourage the feeding of stock in the winter. That is sound farming practice. One of the best things to bring about is to encourage farmers to go in for more winter feeding. I make that as an alternative suggestion and I feel sure that hon. members on the opposite side of the House will agree with me.

Pay us more and we will do it.

I think that is the best policy. Pay a certain price in summer but a bigger price in winter. We should carry over more supplies to the scarce season than we have done in the past. I also think that we should realise that the Minister has started a very big undertaking under exceptional difficulties. He built up a Food Control organisation in South Africa from nothing, in a year or two, and that must obviously be a very difficult undertaking. We know that the commercial community are making lots of money today. We know that it is difficult to start controlling food and to get suitable employees, unless they are tempted by high salaries. We know that the average civil servant with 10 or 20 years experience in a Government office has not been in close touch with business, and with business methods, and with the principles which axe essential in order to make a success of an undertaking of this kind. The problem is a very difficult one and I think the Minister has done exceptionally well. I would like to pay tribute to the Food Controllers who have helped him. They have worked long hours in order to perform a very difficult task. One after the other they have broken down under the stress of this work. But all that the Minister has got has been destructive criticism from the official Opposition, from people who in many cases should know better. In many cases the position could have been assisted very considerably if we had had a better propaganda service to explain to the people the reasons for the shortages. Then the public would have understood the position better and would not have grumbled so much. If the Durban people had known—as eventually they did know—that they were going short of meat because a lot of meat was being canned at Morton’s factory to feed the troops up North, they would not have complained in the way they did.

Do not drag in the war again.

I am not going to let the Opposition forget the war issue and I do not think the people of South Africa will allow them to forget it. I can understand them being very touchy about the war issue but they will not be allowed to forget it.

Everything you muddle up is due to the war.

What have you personally done in the war?

Another constructive suggestion I wish to make is that the Minister should try to enlarge the policy of paying a price premium to encourage farmers to rail supplies to deficit centres. I think that is essential. Today we have the alternative of allowing the producer to rail supplies to his nearest centre where he may or may not have cold storage accommodation or slaughter facilities, or else keeping it on his farm until such time as he is almost compelled to send it to market. When we had the permit system we could refuse a permit, but the farmer says that he would rather keep the cattle another two or three weeks. I think we should have a system, of paying a premium at certain centres, to encourage supplies to places where supplies are short That has already been done in one or two places, but I think that principle should be extended and I think the Food Control Organisation should be strengthened so that these matters can be given immediate attention, and we could then avoid some of these difficulties, rather than wait until they become acute and then try to deal with them. I have touched on a number of points in connection with the meat scheme but I do not wish to weary the House. When I do not agree with any particular policy put forward, I give advice or criticise and sometimes that makes me unpopular but I do not mind. I do not think the Government has dealt with the question of dairy products as well as it could have done. Hon. members on the other side have tried to make capital out of it. I do not want to do that.

Then what are you doing?

I have made suggestions to the Government which I feel will assist the position. I think people can assist the Government in this matter by putting forward their arguments in the proper quarters and in such a way as to help the Government, and in that way an improvement might be brought about. I have taken what action I thought best. I have put forward suggestions to the Minister in order to try to improve the position, and I have no doubt that my suggestions will receive consideration, and I am confident that the Minister is well disposed towards the dairy farmers and will alleviate the position. If we are going to build up a reasonable reserve of dairy products for our next scarce season it is absolutely essential that the Minister should come to a decision on this matter at the earliest possible date, and announce it, so that people will be encouraged to produce. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down, did his best to defend the Minister against the charge of having made a mess of the food question.

He tried to create the impression that we on this side are intent on making political propaganda out of the situation. We have said from the beginning that we are wholeheartedly in favour of control, and that we wanted to give the scheme every opportunity. We said we would give the Minister a trial period. He has had that trial period, which has been long enough, and the worst possible mess has been made of the food scheme. The people in the country are perishing of misery, and then hon. members opposite want to create the impression that we are the people who are always trying to create ill-feeling. They have as little hope of making the people outside believe that as they have of touching heaven. The people in the country know what the position is. To mention one example. Last year I told the Minister in this House that the kaffir corn farmers in my constituency were asking that the price of kaffir corn be fixed at £1 per bag. The Minister told me personally that he had instructed the mealie control board to institute a control scheme. The matter was delayed until August, and I then had to go with a deputation to see the Minister. The Minister raised all sorts of objections. He called in the Food Controller, and we heard the Food Controller telling him that he would never agree to the fixation of prices for kaffir corn, that it would not occur while he had some say in the matter. That is the position. The Minister has no control over them. What was the result? The Transvaal co-operative societies and the Free State kaffir com farmers had to go back empty handed. We discussed the matter thoroughly with the Minister and pointed out all the dangers to him. He threw the kaffir corn farmers before the wolves. They were obliged to sell for 16s. and later the price dropped to 12s. The friend of the Minister of Agriculture, namely, the Price Controller, first saw to it that the producer was obliged to sell his kaffir corn at a loss, as has been said, and after the traders had obtained it, the price rose, and these big lords sold it at 25s. per bag. The price has now been fixed at £1. Is it not a disgrace? Is that type of thing not responsible for the fact that the farmers are indignant and up in arms when they are treated in that way? The Minister tried to justify everything after the worst possible mess has been made of this business. It is of no avail. I personally saw what was happening in Johannesburg. The poor housewives have to stand in queues from early morning until 2 o’clock in the afternoon, and often they are sent home with the news that there is no meat. I personally have seen people paying 14s. 6d. for a young duck for which the housewife on the platteland gets 4s. 8d. We pointed out that the gap between the price which was being paid on the platteland and the price which the consumer has to pay is far too great, and we asked the Minister to guard against the consumers having to pay exorbitant prices for food; but today the price is exorbitant, while the farmers receive a poor price. The lowly paid officials and workers in this country cannot afford to buy food. The Government wants to do everything in its power to see the war through. Very well, let them do so, but they should look after the people and ensure that our own people do not succumb to hunger. Nevertheless there are still hon. members on the other side who get up and defend the policy of the Government. The time has come to call this Government to account, and the people in the country realise it. This Government will not remain in power very long, and when the opportunity presents itself the people will deal With this Government. When we take over the reins of government, we shall know what to do. What the hon. member has just said is something which we have advocated for many years. For that reason I heartily support the motion of the Opposition because the position is critical. Many members on the opposite side share our views in regard to this matter. Some of them are trying to drive in a wedge between the producer and the distributor. We need the services of the distributor, but of the right type of distributor. We do not want to eliminate the trade entirely; we need the trade. But the position which exists today cannot be allowed to continue,

The hon. member who has just sat down certainly contributed very little to this debate. If there is one thing which has become clear during the course of this debate, it is the fact that the Opposition has exerted itself to make persistent attacks on the Minister of Agriculure. May I say that it is an attack which often showed very bad taste. But as against that we have the expressions of appreciation towards the Minister of Agriculture by the farmers on this side. Last week the Minister went to Robertson to open an exhibition there. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) then accused the Minister of unmannerliness because he did not listen to the debate.

What about the other days when he was in Cape Town but not in this House?

The Minister went in response to the invitation of the local committee and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) was also there. One would have expected him to explain the position on his return. But hon. members on the other side are so anxious and filled with fear that they resort to any method to convince themselves that as a party they are still alive. The hon. member who has just sat down, said that this Government would not remain in power very long. We heard the same story after September, 1939. I remember how the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) told me at the station in 1941: “You may as well say goodbye to Cape Town; you will never come back again.” But what is the position today? Today hon. members opposite are trying to make capital out of everything, but they lack the courage of their convictions to adhere to the attitude which they adopted in September, 1939. The Opposition will be known in the future, for many years to come as the party which changed its policy as the wind changed its direction, as the party which did not adopt a consistent attitude in connection with any single question.

To how many parties have you belonged during your political career?

The Leader of the Opposition has never adhered to his original policy in any respect. It is not necessary for me to mention the various examples; but they have changed their policy continually in connection with every point. There was a time when the Nationalist Party was opposed to a republican form of Government, when England was called the mother of our freedom; there was a time when the franchise had to be given to the coloured women. And so I could go on quoting examples. As far as the Malays and the Jews are concerned, they have changed their standpoint, and the same applies in all other respects. In this case they did not have the courage of their convictions to move a full-blooded motion of no confidence in the Government. They have done so in the past, and failed utterly, and they would have failed more hopelessly today. We know that in some respects the people have to face hardships today, but they know it is due to certain things over which the Government has no control. A few days ago I spoke to a businessman and asked him what his reactions were. He replied: “We don’t like control, we don’t want it, but we would rather have control than bombs.” South Africa and countries oversea remember with gratitude and will continue to remember with gratitude the rôle which South Africa played in this war. Our celebrated leader will be known as the greatest son South Africa has ever produced. He has always been consistent; he has always followed one ideal, namely to do the best for South Africa. I am sorry the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) is not here. He dragged my name into the debate in connection with the meat question, and accused me of not selling my sheep to the controller. I immediately dispatched a telegram to my brokers in Port Elizabeth asking them what I had sold in Port Elizabeth since the institution of control. The reply is that I supplied 1,208 slaughter sheep; 229 from the farm which I own jointly with my brother in Aberdeen, and 87 sheep to Boere Saamwerk, a total of 1,524 sheep.

How many did you sell by auction?

I am coming to that. If the hon. member had not been so impatient he would not have accused the Minister, and he would have seen that there was a decimal point before the figure 6 to which he refers. Apparently he does not know the difference. I did sell approximately 400 goats and Persian sheep by auction, but no more. The reason is that I felt that the graded price for Persian sheep and goats did not represent value in comparison with the price for other sheep. But that is the whole attitude. I suppose they heard from someone that I had sold a few sheep, and then jumped to the conclusion that I had sold all my stock by auction. I have explained my standpoint in no uncertain terms as far as control is concerned. Unlike hon. members of the Opposition, I did not praise the scheme at the beginning and then proceed to condemn it and bring it into disfavour amongst the people with a view to deriving some political advantage from it.

Set a thief to catch a thief.

I must admit that the hon. member for Swellendam is an expert in that direction. I said it would be difficult to make a success of the scheme immediately, because we did not have central abattoirs to slaughter the stock and to distribute the meat immediately; that we did not have sufficient cold storage facilities, and I also mentioned the difficulty which would arise as a result of a partial application of the scheme, as far as the platteland is concerned. In conclusion I pointed out that there had not been sufficient time for preparation. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons which has given rise to the shortage with which we are faced today is the higher prices which the farmers receive for slaughter cattle. I personally have seen young ewes offered as slaughter sheep at auctions, ewes which the farmer would never have sold in the normal course of events. The higher prices are responsible. The Opposition is now trying to exploit the drought. A distasteful attack was made on the 14,500 members of the Royal Air Force who are in South Africa. Perhaps the number has decreased by now; but it was pointed out that they were consuming some of our meat. This country will be grateful to these men who came to South Africa to qualify themselves here to fight the enemy oversea. We realise that the objection of the Opposition is, in fact, that these people came here to assist in defeating the friends of the Opposition. We heard the charge of the Opposition that we were sending meat out of this country. Is our memory so poor? What was the position after the Boer War? At that time Emily Hobhouse came to help us in South Africa. Did we resent that? We heartily welcomed it. Generals de la Rey, de Wet and Botha went to Europe to collect funds for our farmers. What was the attitude at that time? Do not let us lose our sense of balance. I know that this is a time of great tension for the Opposition. Many of the R.A.F. boys will come back. I hope after the war there will be immigration on a large scale to South Africa of suitable people who will be an asset to us, so that at some future date we shall be able to get rid of this type of racial disunity which we have had for years. I hope that a policy of immigration will be embarked on so that we shall have a big European population in South Africa and be able to solve the native question to a large extent. From a cultural point of view it will also be a very great asset to us, because to a great extent our cultural development today exists or rather is based on racial disunity and race consciousness, and I do not think we can progress along those lines. I just want to say in conclusion that this side of the House, although we may possibly have to pass through difficult times, will carry on in the interests of the country. As far as the meat scheme is concerned, we will eventually attain success with the policy which the Minister is carrying out. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition whether they are prepared to abolish this scheme. I am convinced they do not want that. The farmers have pleaded for it for years, and we are gratified that the Agricultural Associations, in their wisdom, have even offered to send six men into the country to explain the position in connection with the meat scheme, namely Mr. Moolman, President of the Agricultural Union, Mr. Gert Lotz, Mr. Visser and a few others. Most of them were members of the deputation which came to see the Minister some time ago in order, as has been said, to point a revolver at the head of the Government. With tolerance, the Minister is gradually getting the co-operation of a large section of those people who were incited by the Opposition. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) said the other day that the farmers were not getting economic prices for their cattle. I say that the farmers of South Africa have never flourished as they are flourishing today. I say that emphatically. In support of that statement, we need only refer to the prices which are being paid for land. The hon. member for Swellendam stated yesterday that one could not get irrigable land for less than £500 per morgen. Such prices have never been paid, except perhaps at the time when there was intensive ostrich farming in the area of Oudtshoorn. The same applies to money. Land which was normally worth 30s. or at most £2 per morgen, cannot be bought today for less than £3 10s. or £4. Why are these prices being paid? It is not for speculative purposes.

But control was instituted with the very idea of preventing that.

That may be so, but these higher prices are being paid for the very reason that it is realised that it is a sound financial investment, quite apart from speculation. They know that when they sell at a profit for speculative purposes, they have to hand over the greatest proportion of the profit to the Government. The hon. member over there said the other day that this side of the House was “barking up the wrong tree” One can say of the Opposition that they are barking up the wrong tree all the time. South Africa knows that, and South Africa will remember it, and when the opportunity presents itself, the people of South Africa will voice that conviction in no uncertain manner.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward) who has just sat down, said that the hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. P. W. A. Pieterse) made no contribution to the debate. But I wish to say, after having listened to this hon. member, that I am convinced that he passed a damning judgment on his own speech. Time and again it is said here that this side of the House wants to make political capital out of the present position, but I wish to draw the attention of hon. members on the opposite side to the fact that the hon. member for Durban, Berea (Mr. Sullivan) a few days ago directed an appeal to all members of this House to approach this important, this wide motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, with the true and correct perspective. But I think that by this time it has become plain to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) that the tactics of attack used by hon. members on that side of the House is typical of their actions when matters of policy of the very greatest importance are being considered by this side of the House. When it suits them politically they are anxious that the public outside, and this House, should not approach those important matters in a true and correct perspective. In each speech from the other side they tried to use war sentiment to hide the true state of affairs. It is high time that we direct another appeal to hon. members on that side of the House to approach this motion, which is so wide in scope and so important, a motion dealing with great problems like those of production, distribution and consumption, national health, and post-war reconstruction, not only in the right perspective, but in an unprejudiced manner. What has the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who at present is in his seat, done instead of approaching the matter in the right perspective and in an unprejudiced manner? He levelled an accusation of Nazi coquetry at this side of the House. What did the hon. Minister of Demobilisation do? He spoke here about Hitler and the Russian front, matters totally irrelevant to the motion. All those war cries were just made with this object, however, that they want to approach the motion in a politically profitable manner; in other words, they are busy trying to hide the important questions dealt with in this motion. They aim at creating a war atmosphere in the House. They wish to be known as the Soldier’s Government, as the Government which has at heart the interests of the soldiers, but what good is it to them always to beat the war drum; and when the war is over the soldiers whose interests they had to look after return and find a state of chaos on the economic front? What the soldiers demand of this Government is not that it should talk too much about the soldiers, but they demand this, and it is in the interest both of the soldier and of the farmer, that the Government should institute a healthy agricultural economy as a sound basis of trade, and industrial development in this country. A sound agricultural economy is the basis of industrial development in this country. It is strange that that side of the House is always beating the war drum, but at the time when they declared war they also beat the war drum, and what did they promise the farmer? The farmers then heard that they would have prosperity and that there would be wonderfully good times for them, but now that the war has been going on for 5½ years, the farmers have the right to ask that Government what has happened to the wonderful expectations of prosperity which the Government held out to them. Instead of that wonderful prosperity amongst the farming community about which the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) spoke the other day, when he behaved himself like a political fanatic, instead of placing the agricultural industry in this country on a sound basis, we must now realise that certain great factors contain a serious threat to agriculture. Just think of the great factors, like the serious shortage of labour, the serious rise in prices of agricultural implements and requirements, the uncertain market prospects and of the threatening decrease in prices, and when I speak about the threatening decrease in prices, I want to remind the Minister of Agriculture that he contributed artificially to that decrease in prices which is threatening us, by his actions in connection with the meat question.

Slowly.

The hon. member says I must go slowly, but I must say that if I were to go as fast as public opinion outside as far as the actions of the Government are concerned, he will pray for me to go slower. The hon. Minister of Agriculture always posed here as the great protagonist of control boards, and I wish to say that this side of the House is not opposed to control, but then it must be proper control. The Organised farming industry were already protagonists of a policy of controlled economics in the country. But notwithstanding the fact that this Government applied control over the agricultural industry in greater measure than any other Government, the Government did not at the same time see to it that the prices it gave for agricultural products were prices which paid the farmer and were economical. What did the Minister of Agriculture do? He just told us that the farmers are getting higher prices. But we do not want to know whether the farmers are getting higher prices. What is of interest to the farmer is not the fact that he is receiving higher prices, but the question is whether those higher prices are payable and economical, taking into consideration his production costs and other circumstances. Before the war, as one hon. member said here, you could sell maize for 10s. a bag, and now you can get 16s. But that does not mean that the farmer is better off. What were production costs before the war in comparison with costs today? Hon. members on the other side are trying to disguise these facts. [Interjection.] That hon. member is also a broker and it suits him to disguise those facts. It amounts to this, that instead of them viewing the matter in the right perspective, instead of them showing the relative relation between the prices received by the producer, on the one hand, and his production costs on the other hand, they only talk about higher prices. Higher prices are not always payable and economical prices. The hon. Minister must not talk about State control and stabilisation. Notwithstanding the State control which existed and notwithstanding his attempt at stabilisation, he failed to provide that the farmer should receive an economic price for his products, so that he is at least able to make a decent living in this country. The farmer has the right to demand that the Government will give him such prices for his products that he can make a living, that the Government must regard him as a fundamental portion of the population, because where will you get a strong industrial development from unless you found it on a strong agricultural policy? For that reason I say that if the Government expects the farming population to put 100% energy into the farming industry, it must regard the farmers as a fundamental portion of the population and it must see that they get an economic price for their products so that they can make a reasonable living. Then the hon. Minister had—I almost wanted to say the temerity; no, I will say, the temerity—to talk about the prices received by the wheat farmer and the maize farmer. If ever there were two branches of the farming industry the hon. Minister should not mention, it is just the maize industry and the wheat industry. What happened there? The hon. Minister, by his fixing of prices, caricatured the Government as regards the fixing of wheat prices. The Wheat Control Board recommended a price which in its opinion was an economical price. But this Minister fixed the price at £1 16s., a price which he probably just took out of the air. The same thing happened as regards the Maize Control Board. The Maize Control Board recommended a certain economical price, but the Minister just fixed on a price which he thought was proper. It amounts to this, that the wheat farmer and the mazie farmer do not today receive such economical prices. Does the Minister think that he can draw a comparison between the income of the maize farmer and the wheat farmer, on the one hand, and the income of other groups in the country? Instead of this youthful Minister of Agriculture placing the agricultural industry on a sound basis when he had such a beautiful opportunity of doing so by means of controlled economics, what did he do? He shut his eyes and permitted the capitalistic traders, the speculators and the exploiters, to paralyse the farmers in this country. Instead of protecting the farmers and building up a sound, energetic agricultural policy, he was protecting those people all the time. All the misery we have in the country today, these hardships that people have to endure, are due to the fact that the Government is bankrupt of planning and is without a policy. It is planless.

“Kaf.” (Chaff.)

No, chaff is generally given to donkeys. I say that this misery we have today, these hardships which the farmers especially, and the population as a whole, must endure, is directly attributable to the fact that the Government lacks a plan. Time and again this side of the House is reproached for wanting to make political capital out of these things. We do not wish to make capital out of the drought. We do not expect the Government to con quer natural laws; it cannot do so, but the Government can at least make plans. It can at least bring a policy to light, in order to limit that misery; and unless the Government acts energetically in order to limit that misery, it will never be able to give the nation maximum prosperity. Just take the labour policy of the Government. In despair the farmers are today asking the Government what has happened to the gigantic labour supplies in the country. Will the Minister admit that the Government has dealt with the labour supply in an inefficient manner? Just think of the agitation we have in the country from so-called communists in connection with equal rights between black and white, which makes the labour problem still more complicated. For example, think of the war policy.

Don’t talk nonsense.

I think my hon. friend needs another dose of chaff. That hon. member always interrupts me in that unseemly manner, and I feel very much inclined to discuss the division of pig-farming now. I am almost sorry that I used that expression, but that hon. member is always interrupting in an unseemly manner when we backbenchers on this side of the House are speaking. The hon. member makes me think of the Hottentot who was sent by his master to go and see why the dog barked so much. The Hottentot went and when he returned he reported that the dog was sitting on a patch of nettles but was too lazy to get up, and that is precisely what is happening here. The chaotic and critical food position is stinging hon. members on that side of the House like nettles; I do not know just where, but I think it is surely in the neighbourhood of a portion of their anatomy which moves near to the surface of the earth. While there are hon. members on the other side who say that we wish to make political capital out of the drought, I wish to tell those hon. members that although we cannot blame the Government for droughts when they come, the Government must at least have a scientific policy, such a policy that it will at least be able to distribute what is produced, but of that the Government is not capable. The question is not whether there are bad climatic conditions, droughts, damage by hail, plant diseases and insect diseases. But that is not the question; the question is what the policy of the Government is in connection with eliminating bad harvests. The question is how one is going to attain the element of steadiness in the farming industry. The farmers have to cope with a terrible risk today, a risk which exists as the result of crop failures in the country, and I think it is essential, it is imperatively essential, that the Government should at least make a thorough investigation into harvest insurance schemes in the country, and when it has made a thorough study of harvest insurance schemes, it should not only encourage that sort of thing, but must render it capable of general application. In that manner one can to a certain extent eliminate the factor of risk which is coupled with the agricultural industry and which makes it so uncertain. The hon. Minister and the Department of Agriculture even allow cattle to die in these times of drought, in these critical hours, and it allows the reckless waste of fodder in years of plenty. I say the Minister is weak; he is hopelessly weak, because he cannot bring that element of stability into existence. I say that by this time the Government could have accumulated fodder. But what does he do? He just shrugs his shoulders and says that this side of the House wants to make political capital out of the position. If one sees that one cannot get this element of stability in the farming industry ….

What did that side of the House do in order to get normalcy in the farming industry?

The interjection made by that hon. member indicates to me that he still wants agriculture to go through a hardening process in this country. But that is not what we want in the agricultural industry. We want the Minister to give us a sound and energetic policy where he can make the best use of the dynamic powers available, and where he has a dynamic principle. Does the Government not know that we have a complicated economic community and that he at least has to use a sound economy? I see the Minister of Agriculture laughing stealthily when I express these thoughts, and when I speak about the Minister of Agriculture I want to ask him this. Is it not a fact that at the time when he acted as Minister of Agriculture for the first time, he appealed to both sides of the House that we should not approach farming matters from a narrow party point of view? Is that not the ideal he held out before us? We on this side of the House did not take much notice of that because we knew that we never approach farming matters from a narrow political point of view. It is only this side of the House which has a sound economic policy in our agricultural policy; our sound agricultural economy is absolutely identical with our political actions on this side of the House. That lesson the Minister wishes to learn he should have taught his side of the House. Who has now brought politics into the farming industry? It is no-one else but the Minister of Agriculture and his side of the House. He held out as a beautiful ideal that we should keep farming matters outside politics, but can he deny today that appointments were made on the control boards for political reasons; can he deny that he appointed certain persons to the control boards on account of political influence in the country?

Nonsense.

No, it is not nonsense.

You are a schoolmaster.

That hon. member always poses as if he has all the wisdom in the world, but I shall be very glad if he would keep quiet a little, while we refer the Minister of Agriculture to this point. He made the control boards the home of political opportunists and appointed only his own supporters on those boards. Take the Wheat Control Board for example. Will the Minister deny that a certain co-operative recommended a certain person for appointment on that control board? The Wheat Co-operatives recommended that person without one dissentient vote, a person who is the Chairman of one of the greatest wheat co-operatives in the country. The hon. Minister took no notice of that; he appointed one of his own parasites. He made an appeal to us. It was a beautiful ideal he held out to us. I want to ask the Minister why he did not try to put that ideal into practice. Instead of that he is today in an annoying manner using the policy of exclusion and of political victimisation in the agricultural industry.

Are those the stories you told the children?

The hon. member is again interrupting me. Some people are childlike and others act like children, and the hon. member unfortunately belongs to the latter group. The great shortage in the country is due to the fact that the Government has no scientific production policy If you look at the Government’s policy and you think of these rising labour costs, and rising production costs and you think of the irritating labour problem, we must ask the Government: Where is that scientific system of production which is so essential? Then we have the problem of distribution. If I think of the distribution problem I also think of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) The hon. member suggested that the Government should appoint a Minister of Distribution. Later on the Government will have to appoint a Minister of Production. It will have to appoint a Minister of Distribution and I think that later on that side of the House will be exhausted in their attempts to find people to fill these posts. I say that if one has regard today to the terrible gap between the uneconomic price the producer receives on the one hand, and the high price the consumer has to pay on the other hand, one must ask the Government: Where is your scientific system? If we see the scarcity in the midst of plenty and if we see how people in the cities must queue up to obtain food, and if we think of the threatening price reductions, we ask the Minister: Where is your scientific distribution system in this country? But we will not receive it because all the time they are busy antagonising the producer and the consumer, and then again they are busy antagonising the producer and the retail trader. I regard the retail traders as being essential in distribution, but then the Minister must fix a minimum price for the producer and a maximum price for the consumer, and then to some extent one will have such a limit that there will not be unconscientious exploitation of the consumer such as reigns in South. Africa today. You will have a limit where the middlemen who perform an essential function, will at least be able to compete amongst each other in a, reasonable way. The retail trade has a right to existence, not when it acts as the exploiter of the consumer and the producer, but when it acts in the service of the population, in the service of the producer and of the consumer. I say that the Government has not planned. It has not a scientific production system in the country and still less has it a scientfic distributing system in the country, and for that reason we today have the unfortunate condition of affairs which exists in the country. The question now arises whether the Government will ever be able to evolve a sound constructive agricultural policy. I say no. The Government is not able to do that because the Honourable the Prime Minister, lost in his philosophical visions, alleges that he regards social security and reconstruction as essential matters. But when it comes to the application, when you want to turn theory into practice, it has quite a different aspect. To the Prime Minister social security is the correct thing, but when it comes to the hon. Minister of Finance, he says that people cannot pay the taxes. I think it is now necessary to remind those hon. members on the other side about the war. Why is that Government in a panic about levying taxes on the nation at a later stage in order thereby to get social security and reconstruction in the country? I will tell you. The Government is in a panic because during this war it has made use of a blood-sucking taxation system, and the money which is sucked from the farming community it spent in a reckless and foolish way in this meaningless war. The nation will never object against onerous taxes provided it is assured that the money will be spent in true national interests. The nation will only come in conflict with this strong Government—and I say this Government is strong only in numbers and not in brain—because this Government was not able to spend some of the money it received during the war years in the right way in the interest of the nation. In connection with this post-war reconstruction I want to say that we have heard speeches about gigantic irrigation schemes in the country where, so it is said, they will be able to accommodate tens of thousands and twenties of thousands of soldiers. But those gigantic irrigation works are today purely a product of the imagination of the Minister of Lands. Instead of commencing with those schemes they make regulations which lead to the cancellation of the contracts of all tenant farmers in South Africa. In other words the method by which the Government wishes to solve the problem of unemployment is by creating unemployment. The Government first creates unemployment and then wishes to put other people in the places of those who have been kicked out, and then it will say that is has now solved unemployment to a certain extent. The road to social security and the road to reconstruction, as far as the hon. Minister of Agriculture is concerned, and also as regards the Minister of Lands, will always be paved with good intentions and nothing else. That is the social security and reconstruction of the Government. It stops at the paper stage. It first appears in a Blue Book and later in a White Paper. It goes from Blue Book to White Paper but there is a great rift between the theory and the practice, between the Blue Book and the White Paper, and between the legislation which is piloted through this House and what is eventually aplied in practice. I want to take this opportunity to say that this Government is not able to execute what it has been entrusted with, namely that essential reconstruction and social security. They have had their chance. This is a war Government but that as soon as the war is over they wil have to make room for this party. [Interjection.] I am glad that you rejoice but I hope you will rejoice later when this side of the House comes into power. With these few words I wish to conclude and to say that I hope the time will dawn when this side of the House will have an opportunity of forming a Government, because this side will have a sound agricultural economy, which can be the only basis for a sound industrial and trade development.

The question of the meat scheme has been debated in this House for the last four days. Whilst this debate is now in progress I think it would be as well for the Minister to take notice of some of the criticism which is levelled at this particular scheme, and when he is embarking on other schemes which the Government has in mind the Minister will probably be able to gather from the criticisms of the meat scheme, suggestions and help which will prevent any further schemes embarked upon by the Government from resulting in the terrible chaos in which the meat industry in the country has been landed through the Minister’s scheme. Mr. Speaker, I think I can claim to say that at the end of the last Session of Parliament, when the Government finally made up its mind to embark upon this scheme, I told the Minister exactly what would happen if they persisted with it. I said it would result in chaos. I told him the farmers would not be satisfied. I informed him that the consumers would not be pleased with the scheme, and I showed the Minister very plainly indeed that this scheme would bring no relief and no assistance; it would not be a pennyworth of use to the community of South Africa if it was embarked upon at the time and he was so insistent upon bringing the scheme into operation. I think the Minister will be prepared to agree that all I said on that occasion has been proved, by results, to have been absolutely correct. I was a good prophet and I am perfectly certain that had the Minister been correctly advised this scheme would not have been in existence today—if you can call it a scheme; it is being changed from day to day and you never know where you are in connection with the scheme. It may be stated that there was a certain demand for a meat scheme in South Africa. It is true that there may have been demands, but all these demands, as far as I know came from a small section of the community who have been able to bring pressure to bear upon the Minister to launch this scheme on the public of South Africa, a scheme which has proved to be absolutely fatal to the country. All sections, the distributors and the consumers, have gained no benefit from the scheme, and the public certainly has not benefited. The consumers, whom so many members are so earnestly endeavouring to protect, were all very concerned with the scheme. But the consumers did not like the scheme. The consumers have had to put up with conditions in South Africa which have never been known in the history of South Africa. Never in the history of South Africa have we had meatless weeks. The Minister instituted a meatless day. Then we had two meatless days in the week, and people in the Cape have been without meat for a month. Such chaotic conditions have never been known before in the history of South Africa If we are going to have the country held up to ransome by this outrageous scheme of the Government, which they initiated through pressure from a handful of people, no wonder that we have the distrust and dissatisfaction that there is in the present Government today. If any Government ever asked for trouble, this Government has. Every attempt they made to meet the food question failed miserably. Why have they failed? Because they will not take advice from the people who can give them advice. They have had schemes launched chiefly by officials of the Department of Agriculture who know nothing about commerce and industry and know nothing about the practical side of the matter whatever. No-one in the Agricultural Department has had experience of marketing and producing. How do you expect to get a good scheme from people like that? It has been said that the Opposition sabotaged the scheme. If the Minister was of opinion that the Opposition could sabotage any scheme at all, he had no right to bring it into being. If it was possible for any section of the community to sabotage anything in South Africa in these days of scarcity of labour and shortages of all things which make it almost impossible to embark upon a large scheme, the Government had no right whatever to embark on a scheme if they were not certain that it could be carried out. Now they say the Opposition sabotaged it. If that is so and the Government could not expect assistance from the Opposition in the ordinary way, why give them an opportunity to sabotage the scheme, if it was so unnecessary? In war time I maintain, the Government should not embark on any major revolutionary schemes of this kind. I say that the Government were very badly advised indeed. Now that we are stranded in a meatless country, now that we have been compelled to live on bully beef imported from the Argentine, I say that the Government should not embark upon any other scheme. The long-suffering public have had sufficient punishment under the present scheme, but still we are told that there may be some attempt to rush through another scheme which may bring even greater disaster to South Africa. We are all agreed in the House, I think, that it is necessary to bring about stabilisation in the meat industry, but I do say that an industry should not be revolutionised in such a manner. You have not got the staff; you have not got the stock, you have nothing in the country to help you to bring such a scheme into fruition. We have been told that there is no shortage of stock in the country and no shortages whatever. It is only quite recently that the Government admitted that there is some shortage. Then we were told that there was a shortage, but only a small one; we have only made a slight inroad on our sheep capital. If that is so I ask what has happened to the stock?

What has happened to the whales?

What has happened to the stock if there is no shortage, where has it gone to? We were able to supply right at the height of the demand, when we had convoys calling at our ports. They were always overcrowded with troops. When the hon. member spoke about whales, the Minister could not furnish even that, in sufficient quantities but gave us only a little whale meat. Whale was called fish one one occasion and meat on another occasion. I think they were afraid that the meat industry would be harmed and so they stopped giving us whale meat. But I hope the Minister enjoyed his bit of whale meat as also our friends here. I would like to deal with one or two of the matters brought up by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett).

He is a good fellow.

Yes, he is a good fellow and means well but like many another person he is not experienced in schemes of this kind. He mentioned to the House that last week Durban had all the beef they wanted; they never had such a lot of beef before, and had it not been for the scheme operating at present all that beef would have been given away and the poor farmer would have got nothing for his meat. He said it was only due to this scheme that the farmer was guaranteed a price for the meat, but he did not tell you that although there was a little more beef on the Durban market they had not seen any mutton for days and days, and because there was a little extra beef it did not alleviate the short supply of mutton. It did not make up entirely for the short supply. What happened? The shops in Durban are still only able to open their doors two or three times a week, but they were never able to supply the demand even with this so-called glut, to use the word of the hon. member for East Griqualand. There was still a shortage of mutton, although there was a little extra beef. I quite agree with the hon. member that there is something wrong with the industry. Everyone is dissatisfied. The farmers are not getting sufficient for their cattle, but if any member of this House ever hopes to satisfy the farmers he has got some hope. I have seen 40 to 50 million pounds expended on the farming community in subsidies but they are still all poor. Even the member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is wasting away, as you will observe if you look at him. The poor starving farmer will always be in trouble. But as I say, when you consider the policy of the Dominion Party you will see that we aim at having a complete survey of the agricultural industry in South Africa to see what we can provide and to see what we can produce at reasonable prices, prices which will be able to satisfy the people of South Africa. When that survey takes place—and we have been pressing the Government for it for some years now—we will be able to know who is to blame for the poor starving farmers.

There are also poor starving butchers.

The consumers are all being starved in a food-producing country like South Africa. If we get this survey we will know who is to blame and the sooner the Government embark on this scheme the better it will be for everybody. It is quite true that some scheme or other for food production and distribution should be embarked upon. I do say, and I think the Minister is prepared to admit it now, that a colossal blunder has been made in launching this scheme in June and July, which are short supply months, winter months, when there is always a shortage. To endeavour to embark upon a scheme like this at that time of the year was simply asking for trouble, and when I asked the Minister to withhold the scheme for a few months, until supplies would be more abundant, he had instructions, I suppose, from the hon. member for East Griqualand, that the scheme had to be rushed through. I saw the office opened in Durban, with a couple of boxes, a typewriter, without even a typist there or a chair to sit down upon, and this was the launching of the scheme in Durban. A more chaotic business has never been embarked upon in any community; and if there was any necessity for it I could understand it. If there was any possibility of doing any good to any section of the people, they could be forgiven. But they have made just one blunder after the other. I want to ask the Minister how many people are likely to be forced into insolvency over this business. How many people will lose the whole of their savings over this scheme?

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When I was interruptetd by the lunch hour interval, I was endeavouring to persuade the Minister that he will be well advised to consult the people who would be able to help him, if he contemplates embarking on major measures. The Government always says that it welcomes criticism. Any criticism which I level against the Government I always endeavour to make in a helpful spirit. I am hoping that any advice that I give will save the Minister and the Department a certain amount of anxiety and in my small way I try to prevent them from falling into pitfalls into which they have so often fallen. That being so, it is only right that I should point to the Government the dissatisfaction which is raging throughout the country. If the Government thinks for one moment that everything in the garden is lovely, that there is no criticism of their policy, I say that they are living in a fools paradise, and they should be made aware of the discontent which exists throughout the country in regard to a number of major measures on which they have embarked. When I criticise the meat scheme, as I have done, and as I did during the last Session before it was brought into being, I am merely trying to give the Minister some sound advice. I say they have been wrongly advised by a few individuals, and I make bold to say that there is no undertaking on which this Government has embarked, which has aroused as much opposition in the country as the meat scheme, and it could all have been avoided.

If they had asked your advice.

But the Government would not listen to any advice. They said: “We are going to introduce this scheme whether you like it or not; we are going to introduce it whether we can control it or not; we are not concerned with that”. Despite the shortage of staff; despite the shortage of stock, despite the fact that everything is against them they insisted on embarking on this scheme, knowing the dire result only too well. And what of the future? Is any serious attempt being made to build up supplies, to build up stocks. They have and are importing tons of canned meat from the Argentine and elsewhere and apparently that is to be the solution to speeding up production. I know of no measures or schemes which the Government has undertaken that will prevent us from suffering the same fate this year that overtook South Africa last year—and probably a worse fate. It cannot be said that there is a shortage of labour. Wherever you go you find unemployed natives and coloureds in the streets. The unemployed postion is very severe in this country today.

Where?

I am not speaking of European employment, but Non-European employment.

Where?

You can go anywhere in the Peninsula and you will see scores of unemployed coloureds and natives sleeping outside. The utter misery and degredation which one sees within a quarter of a mile of this House is no credit to any Government.

[Inaudible]

I do not need to join the Labour Party. There are certain depths to which one cannot sink, and so far as we on these benches are concerned, joining the Labour Party would be the lowest depth. Having said that about the meat scheme I would like to make a few suggestions to the Minister of Agriculture but I notice he is not here at the moment. I realise the Minister of Agriculture has a big job. A job that is so big that it will probably kill him eventually. It is a position which no man should be called upon to hold in South Africa by himself. That job requires two or three men. No one man can stand upon to it. I think that the time has come when that department should be chopped up and put in the hands of three Ministers and then the Minister of Agriculture would be able to take charge of one section of his department and not leave it as he has always had to, to the Secretary for Agriculture. As a matter of fact, we have no Minister of Agriculture. The Secretary for Agriculture is the Minister, and unfortunately that department is too big for one man to cope with. The same applies to most of the Ministerial posts. We have all this criticism in South Africa because the majority of the Ministers are over-worked probably with the exception of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. All the others are grossly overworked. I am not looking for a job as undersecretary or anything like that, but I think they should receive more assistance than they do. You cannot expect one man to do half a dozen people’s work. Take the Minister of Economic Development. It is absolutely impossible in these days in a country like South Africa for any of our Ministers to do their job satisfactorily, under the present conditions. I would like to say to the Minister of Agriculture that he has now embarked on another fruit scheme. We have had a great deal of criticism of the Deciduous Fruit Board in this House. One would have thought that there has been sufficient trouble in connection with the Deciduous Fruit Board. In spite of that evidently the Minister has been persuaded by the Deciduous Fruit Board to bring about a revolution in the fruit industry and now we are told that fruit is to be sold by weight and not by count, as it has been done in the past.

You have just sent a deputation from Durban to see the Minister.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) says we have sent a deputation from Durban. My point is this, that these deputations should never have been necessary.

Is Durban (Point) excluded?

There is some point in that.

A good point too.

I say, the Ministers are compelled to spend most of their time receiving deputations. A deputation came from Durban in connection with the fruit scheme quite unnecessarily. The whole of the country has been upset and the Government is now embarking upon another scheme which will finish up in the same way as the meat scheme, in other words, a complete failure. The country is not ready for these changes. It is absolutely impossible to bring a scheme into being at the present moment to sell fruit by weight and not by count. I defy the Minister or anyone else to say it is possible to carry out, for one simple little reason. You have not sufficient scales in the country to supply to the traders.

That applies to meat too.

No, it does not. You always had scales for meat. But to try to embark on this scheme without enough scales when you have no facilities to carry out this scheme, it is ridiculous. Surely the Minister has enough difficulties of his own without looking for more? And if it is possible to bring in this scheme, for whose benefit is it? Are you again telling the consumer that the Government is looking after his interests? As a result of this scheme fruit has disappeared from the market. You have at least 5,000 or 6,000 hawkers who sell fruit in South Africa, but the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) the other day came into the House with crocodile tears in his eyes, saying that he knew a fruit trader who had made 900 per cent. profit on fruit.

He did not say 900 per cent.

Oh yes, he said 900 per cent. He did not tell us that it may have been a little vegetable sammy who bought a small quantity of fruit which he hawked around Durban, up and down 10 storey flats and found at the end of the day that he had made 15/- for his twelve or fourteen hours work. He doubled his money arid made 100 per cent. on this consignment and showed 7/6d. profit. These statistics are not complete when they tell us about distributors making 300 per cent. to 900 per cent. profit. Let the hon. member for Woodstock come to this House and show us the balance sheets of traders and distributors, or of any kind of business he likes which shows 300 per cent. or even 100 per cent. nett profit on their business. It just does not happen. I think he endeavoured to mislead the House there, and had he mentioned right at the inception that he was a member of the Deciduous Fruit Board we would have known what propaganda he was endeavouring to put over on the House. When this House realises that the middlemen in South Africa are a section of the community who are indispensable it will be much better for us. The farming community sell their products to the middlemen and you cannot replace the latter by a stroke of the pen on some theoretical nonsense worked out in the heads of a few officials in Pretoria. You cannot eliminate a whole class of people. They have highly developed skill and it has taken donkey’s years and generations to train them. You cannot replace them. That is where the fruit scheme will go wrong, that is where the Government will always go wrong during the war. I heard complaints made here by the Opposition. I am perfectly certain that we would not have these complaints we hear throughout the country if the Government had only taken commerce and industry more into their confidence. When the Minister wanted to launch his meat scheme, why did he not get hold of the people concerned, the people who know the trade, instead of listening to officials and to a few members of Parliament like the hon. members for Drakensberg and East Griqualand (Mr. Abrahamson and Mr. Fawcett)? Why did not the Minister consult people who have spent a lifetime in the business and say to them: “Look here, the Government and the country are interested in a meat scheme,” and outline what is wanted and tell them : “That is what I want. Give it to me. If you do not I shall embark upon it myself and ignore you.” That is what he ought to have done, and in that way he would have brought some benefit to the country. But no, he consults someone who has had a few months or years experience with the I.C.S. and for the rest knows nothing about a complicated industry like this. Do you wonder at the result? Meat has disappeared from South Africa because of the people appointed to handle the scheme and who know nothing about it. I want to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture that these are not the days for embarking upon these revolutionary schemes in South Africa. You have not the staff to cope with it, you have not got the facilities, and you have not got the products, and if you have not got these you have no right to embark upon something which is going to be detrimental to the interests of the country. I appeal to the Minister that in regard to his fruit scheme, if he intends to force this scheme upon the people of South Africa, he is putting these traders into a position where they have to break the law and where he will make criminals of 90 per cent. of them of 90 per cent. of the fruit traders in South Africa. That is what you are doing and you have no right whatever to expect 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of the trading community to comply with the law, when 90 per cent. will not be able to. And if you say that everyone must comply with the law or they will be prosecuted, I say you are immediately going to force at least 10,000 out of business and prevent them from making a small living and so make poor whites out of them. The Government has told the Opposition and the Labour Party that they are really concerned with the poor working man. We try to believe that and we hope they are sincere, but I say it is not too late, even now, for the Government to put this scheme in abeyance and let conditions, as they have been prevailing in South Africa for many years, continue until more suitable conditions prevail and until you can say to everyone: “Sell your fruit by weight; there is your scale.” If you cannot do that you have no right to inflict upon them a position in which they are converted into criminals if they do not comply with the Act. That is only one little thing. I could continue to explain it for another hour. I make an appeal to the Government to save the smaller people all this unnecessary trouble. There is no reason why they should not be able to, if anyone is making too much profit, go to the price control department and have it stopped. But these revolutionary schemes make trouble, because the moment the Government enforces these schemes products just disappear from the market. The Government should rather subsidise food to enable everyone to get what they need. No-one minds these days whether they pay 1s. a lb. for plums or 1s. a lb. for peaches that are only worth 3d., but under the conditions laid down by ’these schemes it is impossible to help the farmer. I maintain that it is far better to subsidise the farmer for internal consumption than to subsidise him for external consumption as we have been doing. I can remember the time when we were exporting mealies at 3s. 6d. a bag to Europe. I can remember the time when we spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in endeavouring to get a market for our meat in London. If we can do that in ordinary peace time then we can subsidise the farmer, although he may be making a little extra money out of his farm, in war time, even though they say they are starving. If it means that the farmers will become rich, if it means that they should be paid more for their stock or their produce it is far better for the Government to subsidise it and to let the people in South Africa have it than that we should have nothing at all. And that is the position today. A country that prides itself on having one of the finest agricultural departments in the world and that can spend millions a year on the farming industry, in attempting to accelerate production, a country which can afford to do that, can also afford to have an internal subsidy in order to allow people to get food. We do not mind what it costs as long as the people can get food. I would like to ask these hon. members what is happening to the poor people in South Africa. In the ordinary course of events the people who have money can get meat about once a week and I know people in Cape Town who have not seen meat at table for three weeks. So what is happening to the poof people? It is striking that even with the wages these people earn today one wonders how they live today. These schemes did no good to any section of the community. The Government ought to be able to see that the people in the country will be supplied with the food they require. I am convinced that the country can produce the food if things are properly organised. [Time limit.]

In view of the series of motions which we have had during the past five war years at the beginning of each Session of Parliament from the side of the Opposition, this motion is nothing else but a great farce. I say, in comparison with the previous motions, we have had from the side of the Opposition in the past years, it is nothing but a great farce. The first year we had the motion of neutrality and we were asked what concern it was of ours when there were differences between Germany and France, between Poland and Germany and between Germany and England. In the year after, while Hitler was busy overrunning the whole of Europe with his hordes, which went over the plains of Europe like a steamroller, we were told that that was the day of rejoicing and that if we wanted to come out of the struggle with a certain degree of honour we should go to Hitler and try to achieve it by means of making a separate peace. The following year it was proposed to us by means of a motion for a republic to be formed in South Africa, that Hitler would give us that republic on a tray if we asked for it. But during the last year that proposition was controverted so that we came nearer home and the Opposition introduced a motion dealing with our ordinary economic development; and this year they came still nearer home and are using the opportunity created by the shortage of food in the country in order to try to make political capital out of the situation. If that is not the height of political opportunism, I should like to know what it really is. To my mind it is nothing else but the climax of despair on the part of my friends opposite. They are trying hurriedly to escape from the nets which year after year they have set for us and in which they themselves were then ensnared. Let me remind my friends in passing about the row we had in this House in past years about the wool question. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is not in his seat. It was mentioned here this morning that we should sell our wool on the open market and that we should not be bound to the British Imperial Wool Scheme.

Where is wool mentioned in the motion?

I am discussing your policy which is being submitted to the House by means of that motion. Where are those wild stories about which we heard so much in this House? They are as dead as all the former policies followed by the members on the opposite side and to which we had to listen in this House year after year. No, the political career of the Opposition during the war period was one of destruction. The road on which they are going is strewn with the wrecks of broken-down policies which they enunciated year after year, and which year after year they had to watch crumbling apart on the road of the fatal policy which they tried to follow during the troublesome and most dangerous war years. It really seems as if disappointment is dodging the footsteps of our friends on the opposite side, as if fate never allows them rest, and finally in their desperation they want to make use of the opportunity presented by the shortage of food, in order to try to divert attention from the wrong standpoints they took up in the past and the pernicious policies which they followed. But let me remind my friends of the Opposition that if they are trying to divert attention and if they are of opinion that south Africa will forget their war record, the history of South Africa will record’ it, and the generations to come will be able to read it. Posterity most certainly will not be prepared to honour the members of the Opposition for it. I doubt whether their children will be proud of the record created by them in these war years. I want to ask my friends of the Opposition what else they did during the dangerous and dark war years South Africa experienced in this most critical time, except to sabotage the policy of the Government and often, nolens volens playing into the hands of the enemy, whereby the precious lives of our sons and men were exposed to danger on the battlefield. But I do not wish to spend time on these matters. I want to exchange a few ideas with my friend the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). As an exMinister of Agriculture he made a long speech containing a bitter attack on the present Minister of Agriculture. And the best argument which he could use was to make use of a demonstration of 25 women who marched to the Houses of Parliament about the food shortage, under the leadership of Betty Sacks. He referred to them as the mothers of our nation who are so hungry that they came to ask for food. But he went further and said that the Minister of Agriculture had fled from that demonstration by the women—that he had fled and was hiding under a bed. Let me tell the hon. member for Wolmararsstad that he is the last man who should speak about running away. He knows that to open an agricultural show is not something which is put to a Minister in the morning and to which he then gives a reply. It is an appointment made weeks and months before the time. The hon. member himself often went to open agricultural shows, and he took exception to it if the Opposition blamed him for going. It was his duty, just as it is the duty of the present Minister of Agriculture to open shows.

Where is he now?

Whenever a Minister on this side is absent from the House because he is busy with Departmental interests and with the work of his Department, we have to listen here to all the accusations which are made against that Minister. Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, that while this debate was in progress on a previous occasion there were no more than five members of the Opposition present and not even the proposer of this motion was present? What did they do? Are they busy with departmental work? No, let us at least be chivalrous towards each other, event though we differ from one another. I should have liked to ask the Minister to open the show in my district next Thursday and Friday, but in these circumstances I shall not be able to do so. But let me tell the hon. member for Wolmaransstad this, that he is the last person to speak on running away. Does he remember the year 1932, when we were strangled by the gold standard, when the prices of products were so low that the farmers could not make an existence, and when a large deputation of farmers came to see him he went hunting?

What?

Wasn’t that running away? There are two things in South Africa which we will never forget. Members on the other side may try to manoeuvre themselves out of it if they like but we shall never forget it. The one is the gold standard which brought us to such a low standard that insolvency stared us in the face. We will not easily forget that. We not only had a shortage of food but we also had, together with it, a hopeless shortage of money in the country as the result of the policy adopted by the party which now forms the Opposition.

You know that that is untrue.

It will take generations to live down the record of my friends of the Opposition. We may forgive them all their other sins but we will not forgive them their record in connection with the gold standard and their war record. Their policy in regard to the gold standard and the war did untold harm to the country. It is very easy to jeer at the difficulties in this critical time, and with the difficult task the Minister of Agriculture has today and with which he has to cope. May I remind my friends on the opposite side that in all our history we have never yet had a popular Minister of Agriculture. I can mention them briefly. There were Sir Thomas Smart, Mr. Harry van Heerden, Colonel Deneys Reitz, Colonel Collins, and the worst of them all was the hon. member for Wolmaransstad himself. It is a self-evident fact that we can never have a popular Minister of Agriculture due to the nature of our agricultural problem in South Africa. But then we should at least give the Minister credit when he does his best and not always try to oppose him when he does his best to look after the interests of the country. Our country, with its lack of fertility and with its unreliable climatic conditions causes problems which the Minister of Agriculture has to solve, problems such as other agricultural countries have not got. I personally could never believe that the surpluses and over-production which I knew in past prewar years, surpluses which often created a very difficult problem for the Minister of Agriculture concerned, could almost overnight be changed into a serious shortage like that which faces us today. Almost I cannot believe it. Let us take the position of wheat in pre-war years. We were landed with millions of bags we had to export and did not know what to do with. The price was low.

When was that?

How on earth is it possible that somebody who represents a rural constituency can ask me when there was a surplus of wheat in the country? We could obtain no price for it. We had to come to the Government and ask for a subsidy to keep the farmers on the land, but notwithstanding that thousands of them disappeared from the land, and today we miss their services on the platteland for higher production.

When was that?

It is impossible for me in the short time at my disposal to answer all these trivial interruptions from the other side. We had the same position in connection with maize, dairy products, sugar meat and vegetables. I shall never forget how in my district, where two-thirds of the Union’s late winter onions are produced, the farmers in that district sat with their hands in their hair because they could hardly make an existence and would have been driven off the land. It will stand to the eternal credit of the late Minister Grobler that through his intervention with the Government, on my suggestion to him, met these people with loans of £50 to £100 in order to enable them to stay on the land. Many of them are now prosperous again and dozens of them own their own ground. That is the condition we had during those years. Well, I hope that the food shortage that we are experiencing at the moment in the country, will be a lesson that the country will remember in the future in the normal years of surpluses; that we shall remember that we have had years of surpluses and that big shortages followed those years of surpluses. In a war we need three things: manpower, the necessary armaments and then food. There has never been a war when there has not been a food shortage in one respect or another. We must restore the fertility of our land. We must make our agricultural economy independent, so that we may be prepared and equipped when this sort of difficulty of shortages overtakes the land in the lean years. Wars there will always be, and a country that today is not economically independent and able to feed itself from its own agriculture, well, we have seen what the position of such a land can be when a war breaks out. The food shortage in our country is attributable to various factors, but it is principally to be ascribed to two main factors, in my opinion. One of these factors is the shortage of fertiliser. On account of the shortage of fertilisers, the productive capacity of the land he decreased enormously in recent years, and not only that, but our soil is from day to day being exhausted as a result of that shortage. The following factor in that category is the variability of our climatic conditions. That is something over which we have absolutely no control. We have had an overwhelming flood and washing away of the soil owing to which many products were destroyed. There followed on that a terrific drought which aggravated the position. I understand that the prospects for mealies this year are comparatively poor. We know that the wheat harvest is extremely poor, and I would like the Minister to devote the necessary attention to the two main food products. Otherwise there may be a tremendous shortage in connection with these two leading staple products. Where a mistake has been made, in my opinion, and what has contributed to the food shortage, is that too high prices were paid for products before the Government realised it. It does not serve any purpose to make excuses. Let us look the facts in the face and be honest with ourselves and with the people of the country. This is our bounden duty and we owe it to the people. The price of products soared tremendously, before the Government stepped in, and to such an extent that thousands of breeding stock were sold in the open market for slaughter purposes.

There is always a certain number of breeding animals being sold.

Thousands of breeding animals were sold before the Government took action. I admit it was very difficult for the Government to intervene because it was not known how long the war would last. We had no idea of what the climatic conditions would be; no-one can say that in advance. Moreover any Government would hesitate to impose restrictions on the producers without sound reasons. We have seen that the Government took action in connection with white bread, and that the Government also exercised control over the winter grain, and how there was violent opposition to that. It was consequently difficult for the Government under such circumstances to act in a satifactory manner in connection with the matter. Certain efforts were made to increase our production, serious efforts. As a result of the increased production, though there has been a shortage of fertilisers, our land is becoming more and more exhausted, and this is a factor that we may not lightly overlook. The necessary replenishment for the restoration of the fertility of the land must be introduced in one way or another; the deficiency of humus and of some of the other soil-enriching ingredients constitutes a position that causes me anxiety, and I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to give that matter the attention it deserves, and I will even go further and emphasise that further research work must be undertaken with a view to giving the farmers information regarding which lines are the most practical to follow, with a view to restoring the fertility of the soil and even to bring the fertility of the soil on to a higher level than it has been in the past. The present situation causes me grave concern. We have a shortage of manure, of soil-food, of leguminous crops that should be ploughed in to restore the fertility of the soil, in these very years of pressure when we are engaged in endeavouring to get extra production out of the ground. Another factor relates to the cattle which are causing the farms to be ruined, especially in certain parts of the country. Repeatedly we see that where previously a man has worked with oxen and mules and horses, lorries and tractors and other machinery are now used, and we lose all the fruitfulness that animals bring to our land, and we are busy impoverishing our land. The process of exhaustion will yet in the future have detrimental results for the Union of South Africa. Serious measures must be taken to restore the fertility of our soil. A commencement has been made in the Western Province with the cultivation of dry land lucerne, and as one who has been busy with this for the last six or seven years, I cannot recommend it strongly enough. It is amazing to see the grazing that is provided on land that has been under lucerne, and if, after the land has been under lucerne for four or five years, wheat is sown, it is simply amazing to see the beautiful wheat crops on the lands. It is incredible. In connection with the Government subsidy scheme, I have seen another transformation appearing in the Western Province in respect of the grain districts. But enough use has not been made yet of the scheme. And there again it is necessary for experts from the Departments of Agriculture to give the necessary information to the farmers to induce them to go in for it on a big scale. Before the war our farmers were driven off the land in large numbers owing to uneconomic prices. Owing to that our yield fell tremendously. It not only declined owing to the fact many of our farmers were driven from the land on account of unpayable prices for produce, through which a considerable number of farms lay idle which have not yet been brought into full production again, but let me tell the House today as a practical farmer that our wheat production in the Western Province has fallen by 40 per cent. per acre in the course of the last fifteen to twenty years. Those are facts that create anxiety and alarm and we cannot talk them away; they are facts which we must try to eliminate. More attention must be given to these facts in normal years. Then we would have a sufficient food supply in time of war and in other years. We as farmers are alarmed over the food shortage. We are for the greater part satisfied with the prices that we get, whatever hon. members on the Opposition benches may say. I do not know how many of them are practical farmers, but I am speaking as a practical farmer, and I say that the majority of u.s are satisfied with the prices that we get for our products. We have looked forward for years to the time when we could get these prices, and it occasions concern that when we are now getting these adequate prices we cannot satisfy requirements, and that there is a shortage of foodstuffs. We are worried because we cannot avail ourselves of the opportunity to provide the necessary produce at worth-while prices. Patriotic farmers, and I am not referring to all but to those who are patriotic enough to support the Government in its efforts to do everything in its power to surmount the present situation, farmers who now for years have yearned for payable prices, are disappointed that we now are unable to fulfil the demands. We realise that war conditions over which no one has control have hindered us. There is, for instance, the shortage of fertiliser that I have already referred to There is a scarcity of seed and a lack of machinery, and vehicles and implements, of means of transport, of labour etc. Consequently we cannot produce as we would like to at the prices that are now offered. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not present.

He is never here.

If he had as little to do as the members of the Opposition, then I would take it amiss that he is not here. But we know that the portfolio of Agriculture is an extremely difficult portfolio. I only want to give the Minister the assurance that we realise that he was called upon at one of the most critical periods in the history of South Africa to shoulder his difficult task as Minister of Agriculture. I doubt whether there has ever been a more difficult time for such a task to be taken over. I do not believe that it is possible. When the late Col. Collins passed away the present Minister had to asume the task as an inexperienced man. He was confronted with big schemes demanded by the abnormal times, and he had not sufficient staff with the necessary experience, while he himself had also to gain experience. Even a practical farmer would have had to acquire the experience in such circumstances. We have those large extensive areas that have to be served by the Department of Agriculture, and in addition there was all the uncertainty in connection with the new experiments under these fresh schemes. Furthermore, we had the local opposition, and selfish interests which tried in every possible manner to oppose the Minister and to thwart him and to wreck his schemes. I may differ from the Minister of Agriculture in regard to some things that he has done, and think that personally he should have followed different lines, but I want to say this that it stands to his credit that he has had the courage and the enterprise to remain firm under all the difficult circumstances, and to fight his way through without hesitating for a moment. I admire him for his courage. Anyone with less courage as Minister of Agriculture would no doubt have already collapsed under the pressure. But the Minister of Agriculture revealed the enterprise to see his plans through, and in my honest opinion he is going to become one of the most successful Ministers of Agriculture that we have ever had in the country. The only thing I want to ask is that the Minister should devote the necessary attention to improve the distribution. I know it is a very difficult task; I am aware that he is devoting attention to this matter, but in view of the extensive areas involved and the shortage of staff, it is all very difficult. Still, I want to ask him to focus his attention on that. If he succeeds in making a success of the distribution he will have gone far to remove the food shortage.

I do not rise to reply to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet), but I must nevertheless refer to one or two observations that he has made, and which are somewhat dangerous. He has referred to the price of certain products, particularly onions. If the hon. member for Caledon will take the trouble to analyse the prices over the last 40 years, he will come to a different conclusion to that he has arrived at. In regard to wheat, he brought the House under the impression that wheat was an export product. As a wheat farmer he ought to know better.

An export product?

That is the impression that he created. If that was not his intention, it is unfortunate. South Africa, in the course of the last twenty or thirty years has only in one year had an appreciable surplus over the needs of the country.

If I created the impression that in South Africa wheat is an export product, I am very sorry. I definitely did not intend to. As a wheat farmer, I know very well that we have to import wheat every year, and that we have only had surpluses in two years.

I want to accept that. Then the hon. member stated that the farmers have for years looked forward to the prices they are receiving today. I want to tell the hon. member that if he is satisfied with prevailing prices and that he considers the prices payable, then his outlook is based on wrong grounds. In any case, I want to tell the hon. member that he created the impression that he takes lightly the deep emotions felt in the people’s hearts and minds, that is to say ….

You should not put an interpretation on my words that I did not intend.

I only want to say that he created the impression that there had been insincerity amongst members on this side of the House—I am referring now to the past two or three years—in connection with the motions that have been proposed by us.

In comparison with previous motions ….

If that is the conclusion the hon. member has arrived at in reference to the motion before the House, the hon. member is misinterpreting the feelings of this side of the House, and he is also misinterpreting the sentiments of the general public. I do not want to go further into his remarks, but I only want to offer these few thoughts, so that hon. members on the other side should endeavour to correct the impression that all that they require to say in defence of the conduct of the Government and the conditions in the country, is that a war is being waged.

You want to forget the war.

Hon. members on the other side should not imagine that all the charges against the Government and all the dissatisfaction that exists can be answered with the old and well-known refrain which I realise is inherent in them, “there is a war on”. I want to dwell particularly on the third part of the motion that is before the House, namely the charge that the Government is unprepared in respect of the anticipated post-war conditions, as well as in regard to its lack of any efficient programme of social security, and its neglect to create the necessary means for that. In this connection I should like the House to remember that we are now in the sixth year of the war. Prophets who are in sympathy with hon. members on the other side have already, for a considerable time, predicted that the war would be finished by the end of the previous year. Consequently it is a fair conclusion that the Government must have completed by that time their programme that would have to be carried into effect to contend with post-war conditions. I will endeavour to support my charge that the Government is unprepared in regard to the expectations for the future that they held before the people. The Government is unprepared, unready, to establish those conditions that they have promised to the people. I want to emphasise this by comparing the state of unpreparedness of our Government with the plans that have been erfected in other countries overseas. I refer to the information that we have regarding what has been done in the United States, and the plans that have been projected and prepared, as well as the plans that have been projected and prepared in the United Kingdom itself. Those countries drew up plans and considered plans, the plans are ready—“blue prints” as they are frequently called—for reconstruction after the war, for the export of products that the country will produce. In comparison with that preparedness and those plans, the position in South Africa is disquieting. I believe that for this reason alone the motion is fully justified. The Government is not prepared to create in South Africa those conditions which they have held out for the future.

In what respect?

I shall go into that later. I am now referring to what is known regarding the steps that have been taken in the United States and the United Kingdom. If the Government will carry out the promises that have been made, and meet the demands that may reasonably be put, it must at least make certain that there will be adequate provision for consumers under the prospective conditions it has outlined in the new world that has been painted by the Prime Minister. In that new world there ought, in the first place, to be financial and social help to those who are unfit to work, and those who fall under a social security plan. In the third place, there should be an improvement in the people’s health; that ought to be an integral part of the post-war plans. Further, there should be a plan for full employment for all. There should also be an opportunity for full employment. It does not help matters to awaken the ambition and rouse expectations that everyone will have work, unless plans are prepared and schemes elaborted whereunder everyone who wants work will be able to find work. Finally, we ought to have a sound financial policy. I do not think that I shall have the time today to deal with the financial policy, but I think that everyone feels that the times are still very uncertain; we do not know what measures the Government has in mind, but if plans are not made in advance we are going to have in South Africa a state of uncertainty that will be disquieting. I am speaking now in reference to the motion. I assert here with emphasis that the Government is unprepared for post-war conditions. If there is a pronouncement that ought to give an impression to this House, also to members of the Government, what the Government has done or intends to do, I think it is the White Paper that the Government recently published. We might expect to find there what the Government’s plans are. I have the White Paper before me “Sketch of post-war reconstruction.” The review is a summary of the Government’s plan as late as the end of November of the previous year, that is to say up to two months ago. It contains the plans that the Government had two months ago. If anything has come into existence since then I think the House has a right to expect that it should be known. If not, then the country may accept that this represents the Government’s plans. It emanatets from the Prime Minister’s office. I have studied attentively the contents of this White Paper, and it was with disappointment that I reached the end. That disappointment, I think, is understandable. In the first two articles general plans are presented, the objectives of reconstruction. It proposes a fine deal of reconstruction, and it also contains some statements which the future alone will show whether they can be realised or not. But it does not mention any developed plan of action for the future. Paragraphs 4 to 10 deal with demobilisation. We have learned the plans of the Minister of Demobilisation. That is part of the duty of the State under the circumstances. But it is not an aspect of reconstruction. I shall turn in a moment to the problem of employment, but demobilisation is not an aspect of that reconstruction the country requires. I think the Minister of Demobilisation will admit that his most difficult task is not the making of payments to men and women when they are demobilised, but his difficulty will be to find spheres of employment, especially those that are suited to their needs and their circumstances.

Does not that fall under reconstructions?

The provision of employment and restoring people to productive activities is, certainly reconctruction, but not demobilisation as such. Demobilisation as such can only be productive if the men and women who are demobilised are absorbed in the productive activities of the country. Then, and not till then does it become reconstruction. Paragraphs 9 to 19 deal with the institution of a national health service. Well, we spoke about that yesterday and I do not want to deal with that further now. The following couple of paragraphs relate to social security, nutrition, education and general matters. Then we come to Paragraphs 37 to 40, which deal with reconstruction and agriculture. It was not my intention to talk about agriculture today, but seeing that it constitutes a feature of the reconstruction programme. I want just to voice one or two opinions in connection with it. In view of the needs of South Africa and the fact that a large proportion of our population belong to the farming community, it is an amazing fact that until today there has been no completed plan for the development of agriculture. Some valuable thoughts have been expressed. We have had valuable ideas expressed already in connection with the combating of soil erosion, and the improvement of the soil, but nowhere does there exist a completed plan as a basis for the development of agriculture by the Government. A primary requirement of every agricultural programme will be that the agricultural community, the primary producers, will as far as possible, fulfil the requirements of the people in regard to food. Until today there has been no completed plan whereunder the provision of the food requirements of the nation are assured. Related to planned food production care must be taken that the country produces the raw materials that are necessary for the development of industries. In connection with the two first requirements, the two primary principles in connection with the agricultural industry, I have not seen any plan. I have been struck by the fact that after years and years of knowledge in regard to the requirements and difficulties of South Africa, we should have sent a delegation to Hot Springs in America to gain inspiration for an agricultural policy. As a citizen of South Africa, I am ashamed that we can only devote ourselves to the elaborating of an agricultural policy after the return of our delegates from Hot Springs. Without being frivolous, I want to ask whether we have no hot springs in our own country. The Minister may perhaps be able to tell me whether the hot springs in America have special gases which have the effect of giving people inspiration. I think that those two requirements that I mentioned are cardinal. Then in Paragraph 40, we come finally to the climax in regard to the unpreparedness of the Government. I must read it out to the House. It is a summary of the ideas of one or two committees and commissions. I want to repeat that this White Paper was published on the 19th November, 1944. Paragraph 40 of that White Paper reads—

The Government is still awaiting enlightenment from the Planning Council in order to take steps for an economically planned agricultural industry in South Africa. If anyone needs further proof of the unpreparedness of the Government, such a person can never be convinced. Paragraphs 41 to 45 deal with housing and paragraph 48 with employment. I have not the time, otherwise I would also read out paragraph 48 to the House, to show how the Government expects that openings for employment will arise from its other plans in regard to public health and demobilisation and a few other activities. I do not want to go into the question whether adequate capital will be invested in it, but there is general planlessness, and in reference to paragraph 48, I want to state that the Government does not realise the seriousness of the position, the dimensions of the problem, and the needs that exist; or else I must come to the conclusion that the Government is absolutely indifferent. I want to pass on some information which is available to all, to indicate what the real requirements are in connection with the provision of employment in the country. This is an indispensable requirement. We cannot have a millenium if a large proportion of the people are without employment. The provision of employment is one of the essential factors in any plan for the future. From the short summary by the Prime Minister in this publication of the year before last, I borrow the following, that at least 300,000 people will have to be discharged from the army when demobilisation occurs. This morning I read that 100,000 persons have already been demobilised. I do not know whether there are still more than 200,000. But let us take it at 200,000. According to the announcement of the Director of Supplies, there are engaged in war enterprises producing war requirements, some 60,000 people for whom provision will also have to be made. Furthermore, it is no secret that some of our internal industries produce as much as from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of their products for the army or export. Those industries will not be in a position either immediately or for years after the war to retain the services of all the workers. On that basis alone it is expected that there will be approximately 400,000 people for whom work will have to be found. That is not the estimate of the Planning Council. It takes a much more serious view of the matter, and according to paragraph 31 of its second report in 1955 work will have to be found for 690,000 people. I am not going into the details. I think that we are entitled to assume that this does not include the military. However that may be, work will have to be found for approximately 700,000 people. Nor does this figure include the 500,000 natives for whom provision will have to be made in the reserves. It does not make provision either for the influx to the Union from adjacent territories, nor for the repercussions which may possibly occur in an industry such as the gold mining industry. The gold mining industry is mentioned, but since the date of publication of the report an indication has been given that we do not need to expect that employees will be discharged from the gold mining industry to flood the market. But in these circumstances it is imperative that the state should make provision, either directly or indirectly, for providing employment for approximately 700,000 people in 1955. This will demand systematic preparation. In this connection consideration must also be accorded the fact that the estimates are based on our present standard of living. We know that the prevailing standard of living is condemned from all sides. A small percentage are perhaps living extravagantly, but a large proportion of the population are living at present, I will not say below the bread line, but in poverty. The report of the Health Services Commission refers to that, and it is also referred to in the report of the Commission on Agricultural and Industrial requirements. Consequently we must make provision not only for providing employment for some 700,000 people, but also for an improvement and an enhancement of our standard of living, and unless we can achieve this improved standard of living, chaos or something worse will follow. But I say that the necessity for providing employment for those people will be accompanied by tremendous expenditure. In paragraph 19 of its second report, the Planning Council estimates it at about £160,000,000 a year. I do not need to go into the details of that. Those are the round figures. This money should not necessarily all come from the State, but it will, of course, have all to be found from the national income. That money cannot be obtained unless the national income is increased. It must all be found in the national income, and on the basis of the present level of production that is absolutely impossible. This House is aware that the committee on Social Security has informed us that even if the national income improves by 2 per cent., this expenditure will still absorb 25 per cent. of the national income. If the national income is not augmented, then it will be between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. If then we want to go to this expense to ensure employment, and at the same time to ensure a proper standard of living for the people, it follows that in the course of the next ten years the national income must be increased by some £250,000,000 a year. Professor Frankel of the Rand University has estimated the national income for the year 1942-’43, at £547½ millions. But if that inpome must be used for the services that have been laid down under the estimates of the Planning Council, the income that year must be not £547½ millions, but £800 millions, and that only if we preserve the standard of living that we are at present enjoying. If the standard of living is increased it would have to be much more. If currency depreciates it will also have to be more. That estimate of £800 millions in 1955 is calculated on the present price level of commodities. When I consider these facts in the light of the planlessness that exists, if I may put it that way, when I realise how unprepared we are, I am discouraged. If no way out is found, we are standing on the edge of a morass from which we will only be able to extricate ourselves with great difficulty. In my opinion there are three methods. We can follow the policy of laissez faire; the Minister of Finance can resort to the expedient of borrowing money and allowing the people to live in a fool’s paradise; or we can take effective steps to increase the national income. This is the only course that it is the Government’s duty to follow, not only because the people of South Africa demand it, but because it is practical. Time and again it has been emphasised on the best investigation available that this is possible. For this it is necessary that there should be industrial development in the country. The Government must prepare beforehand for the development of industries, and for schemes in various spheres. The planning Council came to the conclusion that such a thing is not only possible but that it is necessary. I would like to read a few sentences from paragraph 29—

This is an appeal to the worker. I have no doubt that the worker will do his share if a purposeful call is made on him. But how should the worker do so if he is confronted with a planless world? The development of industry is necessary. I have noted down one or two avenues of develpment which, owing to the needs of South Africa, open up enormous possibilities, the imports in these spheres now amounting to millions of pounds. These are also spheres in which we have an excess of raw materials? I take, in the first place, the textile industry, and I shall have something to say in a moment about the Prime Minister’s wool scheme. It offers a tremendous opportunity for employment. The glass industry also offers big possibilities. Then there are branches of the engineering industry, such as the manufacture of agricultural implements, and other branches. Then there is paper, in respect of which we have large quantities of raw materials in the young trees which, in the past, have rotted when the woods have been thinned out. There is the exploitation of base metals and steel products. I am glad that the Government intends to establish a great steel industry at Vereeniging. But the Minister of Economic Development must himself acknowledge that the industries of the Rand are not calculated to provide the coastal towns with these articles, and that the greater part will still have to be imported in view of their requirements, unless the internal transport can be arranged, Industrial development is indispensable for South Africa. Industrial development has been the policy of the Nationalist Party for years. It is the recommendation of Report No. 3 of the Industries Commission of 1943. It is also the recommendation of the Planning Council in paragraph 39 of its report. It is there stated—

They say further—

There is unfortunately a very big difference between promises and the carrying out of promises. Promises have often been made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Economic Development, and I want to say at once that I accept the sincerity of their intentions, but the outlook that the Prime Minister cherishes over the position of South Africa in the British Commonwealth does not in itself encourage me to think that he can carry out what South Africa requires and what we expect in regard to industrial development in our own country. I also accept the bona fides of the Minister of Economic Development, but he is sitting on the side of the House which has more than once left him in the lurch when he has come here with good plans. The result was that he had to retire in all humility. I want to ask the Minister of Economic Development to shed some of his imperial feathers and to come across here. An industrial development programme must be carried into effect in South Africa, but I wish to say again that I cannot do otherwise than come to the conclusion that the Government has not yet in its possession such a programme for industrial development. I say that particularly in reference to paragraph 51 of the Report of the Board of Trade and Industries—

And then we have this little tailpiece from the side of the Prime Minister’s office—

There is consequently nothing of this as yet. It is only after receipt of the report that consideration will be accorded to it and the Minister has stated here that he has not yet received that report. Today there is no plan in existence. There is another tailpiece to this announcement, and according to it we must observe—

I should like to make a few observations on this matter on an appropriate occasion. We welcome this initial step to draw up an industrial programme for the country, but the Government must realise that it is only a preliminary step. The same applies to the Bill regarding standards, which is to be dealt with during the present Session. It is a nice gesture, but in itself it does not invest any capital in industry. I should like to say a few words about the wool textile industry. This is a matter that has enjoyed attention in South Africa for at least fifteen years, and for the last three or four years it has received the attention of a Government department. I myself have had to do with the scheme, together with other experts, and after so many years of preparation I have read with pleasure the announcement that the Prime Minister recently made, that a scheme will be established with a capital of £650,000. Now I want to say at once that that capital is hopelessly inadequate. It will not be enough for us to manufacture onetenth of our products. It cannot bring our industry any further than the spinning stage.

If you want to go further we shall require a much greater amount of capital, unless the Government means that it is not to be only one process, but that individual industries must be developed for the various branches. But with the present attitude towards the wool industry, I am feeling a little worried. We find, for instance, according to the “Statist” of the 3rd March of last year, that it is estimated that there are between 3,500 and 4,000 million bales of wool lying stacked up, and we know that that wool has actually been bandied by one seller. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) also touched on this matter today.

Would you be in favour of prolonging the wool scheme?

I say that it is a dangerous position to pass over all the stores to one broker. This is a matter that ought to enjoy the serious attention of the Government to ensure at least that our wool producers will have a certain measure of stability, because it affects our staple product, and also because there is so much competition of other things with wool. And now I ask : Can the Government promote an industrial programme, and will it? I very much doubt whether the Government, as such, will exert itself to encourage and develop a suitable programme. I do not want to throw any doubt on the programme as announced, but certain factors make me uneasy. I am saying that not only on account of the past, but also with an eye to what appears in the comparatively wide instruction to the Board of Trade and Industries in connection with its investigation. That instruction has been given under eight sub-heads, and they are available to some people who know what there is behind that, information. The inference is there that the data and information that have been announced will serve as a basis for discussion at the peace conference and other conferences. [Time limit].

Mr. Speaker, it is today evident that the Opposition are using then vote of censure with one eye on the possibility of becoming the Government when the next election looms on the horizon. We are given to understand as a Party, the Labour Party, which stands for certain ideals, if that were to happen, the Nationalist Party would take over the job and bring to South Africa the things that the Labour Party have so ineffectually fought for for so many years. Of course, we may believe that but I do not think so. I have been thinking very much of the possibility of the Nationalist Party becoming the Government of this country, and I have been wondering just what would have to happen in order that that may come about. First of all your army of men who have fought in this war would have to decide that the war has been fought in vain, and that having fought it they have to admit afterwards that they had gained a Pyrrhic victory. And the people who have supported the war effort and have spoken in emphatic terms about what must be done to win the war, would have to come to the conclusion that all that they have said and done was in vain, and this assails my intelligence too much. I cannot imagine that these two things can take place. I know it is more difficult in the kind of debate we have been having, to give comfort to our friends than it is to give comfort to our enemies. The Nationalist Party will seize on every opportunity possible to obtain comfort from criticism, whether it be destructive or constructive criticism. I want to deny that I intend, in anything I say, to convey any comfort to them. It has become very apparent, Mr. Speaker, that whatever may be the intention of the Cabinet, having set up their various Commissions and having received the reports of these commissions, reports which I think have indicated the line of progress for South Africa, that it will be worth the while of the Government to take advantage and place on record in the statute books of this country. Weakness lies not in their good intentions in the making of their plans but the fact that they have not had behind them the support of members of this House. That applies to the Government benches as well as to the Opposition benches. But that is the fatal weakness that assails the position at the moment. In spite of the tribute that may be paid by some people and in spite of the condemnation which is passed by others, it is apparent that there is not behind the Cabinet that solid phalanx of people, of members of this House, who are determined that this progress shall be put on record; and that, I say, is the essential weakness of the position; not any attempt on the part of the Opposition to move a vote of censure to make capital out of what they call the Government’s failure to face up to the situation. We have always tried to do that Mr. Speaker, as a group in this House. We are proud to be able to say that in the conduct of this country’s business in two periods of emergency the Labour Party has been able to contribute a very distinct quota to what I will call real progress. We do not have to enumerate what has been done. That has been done often enough already. It has been agreed that the Labour Party, although small in numbers—the Party has never been a large one—in two periods of emergency in this country contributed quite a considerable amount towards the real progressive position in South Africa; and we regret that because there is not that determination in the hearts of enough people in this House, having gone one mile, to go the second, we are now in the position of people who constitute a voice crying in the wilderness and lacking hearers to listen to what we have to put forward. Because our message, Mr. Speaker, is still the same. If what was said by one member on the Government benches is true; that the Government has been compelled to bring into being what he termed pseudosocialist expedients, it is nevertheless a fact that the word pseudo can only be applied to the expedient, because the carrying out of the so-called Socialist measure has always been entrusted to people who had no intention of really living up to the spirit of socialism. If in the history of these conflicts in which we find ourselves, there had been a clear indication that when some radical step was taken or some radical idea tried out, that a person was put in charge of that idea who wanted to make it work, we should have seen what could have been done in a way of implementing this much discussed and much maligned system of control. We believe that the Government is entirely right in its intention to control this country in all matters that relate to the living of the people and the facing up to the emergency in which we live. I had the privilege recently of paying a visit to Great Britain. You have not got a Socialist Government there, but you have a Government determined as our Government was—in fact before our Government was—to put into operation that control which was necessary in order that Britain’s war effort should be the best possible, and strangely enough when you contrast the position in England with the position in this country, you find that it is quite the opposite. As has been said, and quite correctly, in the matter of foodstuffs, you find the position that in all essentials, in all things relating to sustenance and clothing and shelter, the Government has succeeded in imposing the very necessary control. No difficulty should stand in the way of bringing about that control; whatever difficulties there are can be overcome. The prime difficulty which faced Great Britain was this, that she had to bring over submarine-infested seas and mined waters most of the food she wanted in order to keep her people up to constant pitch for that war effort. We in this country have not experienced that difficulty. We have benefited in many ways because Great Britain faced that difficulty and overcame it. We too, have benefited from the ships that have sailed the seas and brought to us other things that we needed. And there they not only had to bring the munitions, the steel and the various things which contribute to the actual military effort, but they had to bring to those people the food without which nobody can either work or fight. Food is at the root of all our efforts, and they overcame difficulties that we have never been called upon even to face. We as a group still beg to be excused when we say we do not think that any difficulty in South Africa is too great to overcome in order that our people should have access to food, whether they be poor or rich, because although our war effort has not entailed our being a beleaguered country as England was and still is, the fact is that in spite of our particular difficulty of grouping in this country, the necessity first of all to feed our people and to clothe them and to give them such housing as we possibly can, is just as incumbent upon us as it was upon Great Britain; and I say that we should not have considered any difficulty great enough to have prevented us from doing that. It is a sad commentary on the position, that this has not been done. Experiments have been set on foot; they have given rise to all kinds of criticism from the very inception. I believe it is true that some people have deliberately sabotaged control and we have fully succeeded in. South Africa in building up a money sonsciousness as against a real united effort to bring about the result that we know is so vital to us. As I have said in other places, I was almost tempted to wish and to hope, if I may say so, that in some measure this country might feel the impact of actual war in order that we as Europeans at least would have seen our common heritage and would have been prepared as Europeans to come together and fight this war on a common platform. It is no use at this late hour for our Nationalist friends to go back in their later comments on the war on the former statements that have been made without apology, merely considering the future in which they see themselves in government; they cannot go back in terms of such a motion as this. They could go back if they were really sincere in wanting to retract from the impossible position in which they have put themselves; they could have retracted if they had regretted the disunity which resulted in South Africa from the various contrary opinions that have been held, and even at this late hour, if they had said that they were entirely prepared to give the Government all the assistance they could to meet the critical position, it would not have been too late. The position is critical; the Opposition need not tell me that; we know it is critical. But they cannot go back in terms of the motion they wish to pass, and we as a Labour Party are not going to fall into any such trap as they hope to set. We are not going to condemn this Government although we are always prepared to criticise it, and although we have expressed regret that they would not take the second step, having taken the first one. We are not following a policy of defeatism and despair. We are travelling hopefully, ready to face all difficulties. We believe there is resident in South Africa in the European population, if only the European population would let that tendency have its way, just as much staying power, just as much courage to meet danger and difficulties as there is resident in any country in this world. We believe that; we know it is true and it is sheer cussedness that prevents us from coming together and demonstrating that fact. Sometimes I am inclined to look upon my hon. friends in the Opposition as a lot of naughty boys. They have not grown up. They have the semblance of being adults but in their minds they are still children. It would do them good, as it did me good, to leave this island of South Africa and go out into the wide world and see how other people live. I left the island called England and came to South Africa and it was one of the finest things I ever did because it brought me into contact with the open spaces, where men had come from their home country—We are inclined to forget that sometimes; you would think from what is said that the ancestors of my friends were born in this country throughout the ages. If those people would only go out and see what the world is made of, they would lose their insularity too, and come back better able to take their part in the affairs of this country. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has referred to the so-called dangers which assail the nation. We are not a nation yet. It is idle for anyone in this House and say that there is a nation in South Africa. It may be a wish that may be fulfilled one day, but it is pretty evident that it can only be fulfilled as unity exists amongst the people who wish to form a nation. And if there is one danger that assails this nation at this moment, it is the fact that there are those 7½ million people who are not Europeans and who have been bearing the main brunt. I want to tell the Opposition that if one danger assails this nation, it is that one day these people will find leadership themselves, and having found that leadership will themselves have their own ideas of Government, and if the Opposition thinks that by barring the door to people from Europe who can bring to us the same kind of spirit as we inherited from those people who came here in the first place, then I say there is a real danger that the Leader of the Opposition overlooked. I do not know in what terms he was thinking when he spoke of danger. My mind immediately went to this greatest danger of all, and I want to say that we as a group are firm in our determination, hoewever unkindly we may be thought to be however untoward the situation is for the moment, to lend what weight we can to the furtherance not only for the winning of the war, which I think our Nationalist friends will agree has taken quite the opposite turn to what they prophesied but in the winning of the peace which will mean so much to South Africa.

The cold logic of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and the quiet sincerity of the speech by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) have done much to calm the atmosphere in this House. I, Sir, would be reluctant by hot words, recrimination or bitterness to increase the temperature again. I would like, however, to refer to the essential features of the motion of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition as they strike me. In the first place it is obvious that the frontal attack against the United Party and particularly against the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, has failed in the past. The members of the Opposition themselves, instead of introducing a motion full of hell fire and brimstone on the war issue, have changed over to a flank attack. That would indicate that even the Opposition today appreciates that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, when he led this country on the 4th September, 1939, came to the right decision and although at various times, since that date, they have not agreed with him, today with the present position in Europe it is obvious that they realise that in that respect they made a fundamental error. But even though this motion is worded in gentle language—in fact, it appears on the face of it to be a gentle reprimand rather than a vote of no confidence—in reality it means that if it is supported by this House and by the people outside, it will be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. Well, Sir, although I wish to bring in some criticism in regard to the food position, I can emphatically say that there is no intention on the part of the people in this country to lose their confidence in the Prime Minister. It would be political impudence on my part ….

Why don’t you support his candidate in Port Elizabeth?

I shall answer that when the proper time arrives. This country has been blessed with a leader unique in the annals of history. Whatever the members of the Opposition may think or whatever they may say, I do not think that in their heart of hearts they know that this, man, great scholar, great administrator, attorney-general to Paul Kruger, a soldier in the Boer War, fighting for his Republic, the man who accepted the responsibility of governing the Union of South Africa, the man who has proved himself a leader of men and has at the same time retained a simplicity of living ….

Why this eulogy?

A philosopher and scientist, a man who still allows junior members of the House like myself, the right to criticise his Government and his Party freely, is a man of whom we can be proud, and the country is proud of him whatever hon. members opposite may interject.

We think your eulogy is somewhat premature.

Is this the funeral speech?

At the time South Africa was faced with dangers it was the Prime Minister of this country who was a shining light and inspiration to his people.

Lead on shining light.

It was the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) who after Dunkirk sneered at the Allies.

You can still go to the Siegfried Line if you want to.

If the hon. member would only be on the other side, I would go. It is that spirit that invokes in me a feeling that never at any time could I accept the principles of bitterness which still emanate from the Opposition. I want to return, however, to one feature of the food position which I think merits a great deal of consideration, and that is this meat scheme which has been in operation for the last 8 months. I am prepared to accept any scheme which improves conditions prior to the inauguration of the final scheme, and I want to deal, first of all, with the old system which has been condemned and maligned and to put before you certain data and facts for your consideration. Most of us know that the basis of the old system was what was known as “skommelende” (fluctuating) prices. It was a system which was condemned by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) and in its place was put this fixed price. This system of fluctuating prices was a system which was managed by auction, not only for the great consuming centres, but also for the urban areas, and there was also a balance between the country auctions and the town auctions. I want to give the House some figures to show hon. members just how these prices fluctuate, because it appears from the propaganda that we hear that one moment the farmer gets £20 for an ox and the next moment he gets nothing. On page 15, in Table 9 of the Meat Commission’s Report the prices from October, 1942, to October, 1943, are set out, and the price for good medium beef on the auction market was 65s. 6d. in October, 69s. in November, 64s. 3d. in December, 57s. 2d. in January, 55s. 8d. in February and so on until it was 77s. 10d. in October. There were admittedly fluctuations in price. That was the method in which a balance was kept between supply and demand. After all, the fundamental principles which guide the engineer when he builds a bridge are such that he does not radically change the system of building. In economics we have the same thing, if you want to maintain a regular supply for a centre like Johannesburg, you have to vary your prices in order to obtain those supplies. If the supplies do not come in you have to raise your prices in order to draw in supplies from other centres if necessary. The hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) referred to the position at Durban. He told us that he railed cattle to Durban and that the prices sometimes dropped. But that was an indication to him that he ought to rail his cattle somewhere else. Once you fix your prices your supply is going to jump around, and you have no control over the supply itself. It is a matter to be decided whether you consider that supply is essential or whether price fluctuations are essential and the lessor of the two evils as have been proved by about 2,000 years of economics, is to maintain your supplies. I want to give an idea how this operated over a period of years. These figures are in respect of the slaughterings for Johannesburg, the Reef and Pretoria. These figures go back to 1939. I shall not bore the House with a mass of figures, but in January, 1939 the number of cattle supplied was 5,400, in January, 1940, 5,900 and in 1941, it was 7,000. There was always some means of ensuring that you could feed the people of Johannesburg. I want to give the House a brief summary of the history leading up to the introduction of this scheme. Prices rose appreciably at the beginning of 1942, and although efforts were made to keep down the prices, you cannot counteract the laws of supply and demand. The result was that the thing broke down. They then tried to indicate prices on the markets, and there too they failed completely. Even the Government buyer who himself was responsible for increase in the prices on the market was paying very much more than the indicated price. Then a Technical Committee was set up and this Technical Committee consisting of departmental officials, went round the country to collect evidence. But before they completed their task, the Meat Commission was sent out and we have their report, from which I have just been reading. I entirely disagree with many members of the Opposition who have levelled criticism against this board; because I cannot accept that you can consider a fixed price policy with regard to meat when there are so many changing circumstances which have to be offset. I think that it has proved Itself to be a failure in the last 8 months, and my greatest fear is that the Government is now contemplating a long-term scheme on similar lines. This scheme is not new to the world. It was tried in Germany. It is a totalitarian system. The economic reasoning behind the scheme is totalitarian in outlook. It was tried in Germany at the beginning of March 1934, also on a fixed price basis, with the same setup as we have. They also experienced the troubles with which we are faced and eventually the thing broke down and they decided that instead of having one head comittee, they would have small committees in forty eight different areas, and that these committees would fix the price in an attempt to draw supplies to their areas. The whole idea of the fixed prices failed, so these small committees competed with one another instead of private enterprise, competing with one another, by changing their prices, and still the scheme broke down and in the end they gave it up. It was tried in Russia. One has not got a great deal of information about the scheme in Russia hut it was tried there as a last resort in their plan of Socialism and there it failed very badly with millions op people starving to death in that bad period which Russia experienced. So I cannot accept that as a good scheme for a country with a fluid economic system such as we have in South Africa. I cannot accept that we do not have the machinery of inducement to bring in the farmers’ supplies. If we do away with that, we have to replace it with something else, and we can only do it by commandeering the farmers’ stocks and I will not support a system of commandeering. I do not regard that as progress in our political and economic life.

They are doing it now.

It has been done on a small scale, but the number of cattle commandeered is quite insignificant. Take the commandeering principle. Very little was commandeered, but when an inducement was given in the form of an extra 7s. 6d. the supplies came in quickly enough. There you had the very machinery which you discarded previously. You had to make use of that machinery to bring in the supplies during a very difficult period when supplies were very short. Again I want to refer to the principles of the scheme. There are 9 controlled centres in the Union and the rest of the Union is uncontrolled. There has been no elimination of any section of the trade. You cannot replace them by a Government body. But over and above your economic system you have superimposed a body like this meat control system, not the Meat Control Board itself, but this body that handles the meat, and a most expensive body it is. You will only know the cost of it when you see the final estimates. You are superimposing that on our economic system. In fact, instead of bringing your producer and consumer price closer you are lengthening the distance even further than it should ever be. I would like to refer to the original speech of the Minister when he brought in the scheme. The Minister indicated the reasons for it. He said (1) Gradually developing shortages; (2) high prices ruling on the markets; (3) uneven distribution of available supplies; and (4) ineffectiveness of price fixation and black markets. Now this scheme which was going to cure all these evils that existed in the previous scheme has not cured three of them. The only one it has affected is that it has been able to keep a fixed price on the market. “Gradually developing shortage”—it has had no ability to counteract that, if there was a gradually developing shortage. And definitely in the history of the meat business, there has never been such bad and uneven distribution. As to price fixation, from a retail point of view that has been a farce. I do not say that because I want to blame the retail butcher. He is being ruined, for the simple reason that a man cannot carry on his business when he has a 20 per cent. turnover; and he has no means of increasing his turnover. Previously he could have gone into the country himself, but now his hands are tied, and there is absolute chaos in the whole industry. That is the position we have built for ourselves. Hon. members of the Opposition have said that they believe in the principles on which the meat scheme is based, but these principles are leading to this. How can you believe in the principles? How can you change the operation of the scheme? It is not a matter of changing the administration.

There is no system today, that is why.

I would like, first of all, to refer to figures that I have taken out in connection with the available supply. I want to give you percentages compared with 1943, and I will give you the month and a percentage for this year compared with 1943. In January, 1944, that is prior to the introduction of the meat scheme we had 96 per cent. of beef in the Union compared with January, 1943; in other words we were 4 per cent. down. The figures for the following months are; February 95 per cent., March 109 per cent., April 81 per cent. and May 77 per cent. That is compared with May, 1943. The month the scheme came in your percentage dropped. The further figures are: June 94, July 86, August 93, September 96. But these percentages were only kept up by getting terrific supplies from Bechuanaland and South-West Africa, and if you discount these you get different figures, which will indicate that the South African farmer is not supporting the meat scheme.

Are those the figures for Johannesburg only?

No, those are the figures for the Union. I may also point out that though you may have a percentage decrease for the whole of the Union of 10 per cent. it might for a place like Johannesburg be 40 per cent. Now the position will be much worse.

Those figures cannot be right; how can we have a 40 per cent. decrease in one area?

I will give you the facts of the position in regard to the Rand and Pretoria. Whereas in June you had 94 per cent. in respect of the whole of the Union, the figure for slaughtering in Johannesburg was not 94 per cent. but 80 per cent. and in July 50 per cent. compared with 96 per cent. In July for the Rand and Pretoria it was 50 per cent., in Augusut 27 per cent.—with 93 per cent. for the whole Union—so there is something radically wrong with your distribution. Your distribution of livestock has been completely maladjusted, and you have no machinery to correct it, because the machinery of railing from one centre to another frozen or chilled meat is the most expensive means of transport. Those are the cattle figures; I want to give you the sheep figures. For June 1944, the month after the meat scheme was introduced 106 per cent. slaughtering was done by the whole Union, in Johannesburg the figure was 37 per cent. Let us proceed further. In September for the Union it was 100 per cent., whereas in Johannesburg it was 43 per cent. In the previous month, in August, it was 87 per cent. of the previous year; that figure represented slaughtering done in the Union, but the Johannesburg figure was 15 per cent. In places like Maritzburg the figures are even more striking. In June 1944, compared with the previous year they got 8 per cent., July 3 per cent., August 4 per cent., September 8 per cent., although in that period the total slaughtering in the whole Union was 106 per cent., 85 per cent., 87 per cent., 100 per cent. compared with 1943. So you have an absolute lack of balance with regard to the distribution of your livestock. Under your old system you had the machinery with which you could preserve a balance. It may not have been perfect, but it did not represent this hopeless state of affairs. That is where you are misleading yourself when you think that the supplies are not there and that the country has eaten into its capital stock. The fall in the supply is at any rate not to the extent of the shortage we have had in certain centres. Not only that, it has to be remembered that supplies in the country have been free. I have been to Rustenburg and Parys, where there has been any amount of meat. It is only the controlled centres which have suffered to any great extent as a result of the scheme. So this scheme which was drawn up in the first instance to safeguard the Consumer’s interests in the controlled centres, has failed miserably. You cannot therefore take the principle of the scheme and say that it is sound. We believe in a fluid economy; that is all that capitalism is. How can hon. members say they still believe in the principles of this fixed rigid system? I would like to show you how essential it is to have elasticity in the form of fluctuating prices in your economy. I wish now to bring to your notice another factor. Hon. members will recollect that the increase in the price of beef was 1s. a month in respect of five months, or 5s. for the whole year. I took steps to ascertain what was the seasonal increase under the previous scheme when prices fluctuated, and I found that for the previous year it was 22s. 6d.; in the year before that it was 16s. and in the year before that again it was 12s. Those represented the seasonal fluctuations. Now out of the blue we have fixed the increase at 5s. Obviously if the previous year the seasonal fluctuation was 22s. 6d., we must wonder whose brain worked it out at 5s. for this year. That is where all this bad economy of ours is absolutely hopeless, because it is too rigid. We must have something more fluid. After all, we live in a land where we have seasons, where we have droughts and where anything may happen. So we cannot just have a rigid system and expect it to work. There is one point I can make in this House, and it is a point which I am rather reluctant to bring up; because I realise that when one criticises Government departments they have no recourse to this House to defend themselves. But I most emphatically say that the Minister has been given some most misleading information. He has come out with statements which have been farcical from an economic point of view.

Who gave them to him?

I do not want to press this point, but you will recall that when the scheme was new and the farmer had not got used to the prices, and the feature of short supply started, it was ascribed to political sabotage, and it was stated there was a real surplus of stock; but the figures compared with the previous year showed there was not a great difference. There were bloodsuckers and speculators responsible for sabotaging the scheme. That is what we were told, and it is absolute camouflage. I have always found when it comes to difficulties in the operation of these rigid schemes which the department has introduced, a search is immediately made for some smokescreen for them to hide behind. In this instance it has been a case of bloodsuckers, parasites and speculators. It must also be obvious to hon. members that if you have a fixed price policy then all the stuff must come in at the seasonal time when it pays the farmer best. You are going to have either a flood or a famine, because the stuff comes in with a rush. Previously the farmer would rather hang on, but now he argues: What is the good of hanging on; I will not get any more. Naturally the farmer would not sell his sheep before the shearing has been done, and the consequence is now that you get all the sheep immediately after the shearing period.

There has been talk about reserves. There were no reserves when we went into the scheme. No private enterprise would have dared to embark on such a scheme as this with no reserves. How can we experiment with the food of the people in this way, to launch a food scheme without adequate reserves? That is where I condemn—not the Minister of Agriculture, he has really nothing to do with the scheme—the department who forced this scheme on us at a hopeless stage.

Who is responsible?

The hon. members on the opposite side of the House are just as responsible as we are; they themselves said that they wanted the scheme. The only hon. member who got up and criticised the scheme was the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire). He said that it would not work. All that hon. members opposite grumbled at was that the prices were insufficient

We thought there would be a decent board.

It is not a question of the board, but of the principle of fixed price.

You dp not know what you are talking about.

I do not want to go very much further than this, but I want these facts known to the House before they support any further schemes of this sort, because all these schemes have one thing in common—as soon as they fail those administering them want more power, whereas we in this country reject a system of totalitarian politics we seem to accept it for our economic life without a quiver. We seem to take up this position. Here is a wonderful scheme and it will work without our giving it a thought, and the suffering that it brings to our own people when it is put into operation is a disgrace to the legislation we pass in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I think we must congratulate the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) on at least having discussed the motion before the House. That, at any rate, is a pleasant change from what we have heard today. I believe that on the other days, too, when this motion was before this House its terms were carefully avoided by every speaker on the Government side. The hon. member who spoke before the hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) never came within striking distance of the motion before the House. He made some very interesting observations, things that might call for comment and which would have called for comment if they were related to the subject before the House. But at any rate in the latter part of his speech—and for that I think we must offer our congratulations to the hon. member for Orange Grove—the hon. member for Orange Grove did confine himself to one of the points in the motion before the House. But, Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether one’s congratulations can go very much further than that, because he enunciated a very important constitutional proposition here in regard to Governmental responsibility when he said that the responsibility for this scheme, which was launched by the Minister of Agriculture, is not the Minister’s but the responsibility of his officials. Mr. Speaker, if that is the opinion that the hon. member has about the constitutional relationship between the Minister and his department, all I can say is, God save South Africa. We have a system of responsible government, and the Minister if he has any guts, has to accept the responsibility of the working of his department and he cannot go and shelter behind any official.

He is not sheltering behind anyone.

I am saying that the hon. member stated that the Minister is apparently entitled to shelve that responsibility on to an official, and I am dealing with that attitude at the moment. I am glad that the Minster has not done so; I agree with that. But it is a startling doctrine, and it is to nail that doctrine before it takes any apparent growth on the other side of the House that I am rising at once to rebut it. But now we have a most extraordinary thing. The first hon. member on the opposite benches that really discusses the motion before the House is bound to attack the policy of the Government. The whole argument on this motion by the hon. member for Orange Grove has been an attack on the principle which has been accepted by the Minister of Agriculture.

And by you.

In other words, as soon as Government supporters come to grips with the real motion before the House, they are forced into agreement with the motion of censure which has been proposed from this side of the House. We have had some interesting mental gymnastics here today. We had the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) saying that the principle of fixed prices is O.K., the very best thing in the world; it requires a few adjustments, but as a system it is wonderful. Then the hon. member for Orange Grove says that the principle is all wrong, and can never be right. Now, Mr. Speaker there must surely be some Government policy on this point. Is that the Government policy or is it not? Who enunciates that policy, the member for Orange Grove or the member for East Griqualand? It is all very well for the supporters of the Government to say: We encourage criticism; but not criticism when it involves a question of principle like this; surely then the Government side must speak with one voice, or they will not be fit to govern another day. There is another statement which I cannot allow to go by default. There is apparently the impression in the mind of the hon. member for Orange Grove, that because there has been no particular motion dealing with the war, that therefore that is a tacit admission on the part of this side of the House that the Prime Minister was right in 1939. If that is his impression, I would like to disabuse his mind of that at once. In the past, Mr. Speaker, we have proposed these motions, they have been dealt with, and they have been discussed over the floor of the House. We had the right to bring up those motions not only on their intrinsic merits but because the Government until 1943, had never given the country an opportunity of expressing its view on the attitude they took up in 1939. The Government’s position has changed in this sense, that in 1943 it did go to the country, and that is one of the reasons why we have not reiterated motions of that kind. But that does not mean for one moment that our action is an admission that those motions when they were moved, were not correct motions at the time.

If you were returned to power would you have carried on with the war?

I do not know whether the House really knows the terms of the motion before it. I should like to read it out again, in order to focus the attention of hon. members on what the question before the House is today—

That is the first point; the motion continues—

That is the second point that is made; then it goes on—

Now this is nothing less and nothing more than an indictment of incompetence and of criminal negligence as far as the interests of the country are concerned. We have this indictment, this charge that has been made, and for days we have witnessed this pathetic attempt to avoid the charge that has been framed with all the necessary particularity, all the particulars of the charge are there. We have this pathetic attempt by members and by the Ministers concerned to avoid the charge. Mr. Speaker, the Government stands convicted not only by reason of the merits of the case in respect of these charges, but also by reason of their attitude at their trial. The way in which they even now refuse to face the position, the way in which they have refused to come out and say definitely to defend their policy on these matters, and to meet the charges that have been levelled against them. That, I say, apart from any question of the merits of the case, convicts them of the charges that have been brought against them. Their attitude generally has been an attitude that reminds one of the old plea of confession and avoidance, with this distinction that the confession has at times been very very faint and the avoidance has at all times been very very feeble. Time and again when hon. members have come anywhere near this motion, they have said: Everything is all right, we have plenty of food, everything in the garden is lovely, but of course there are just a few little points. In other words, it is not quite a success; it might be this or it might be that reason. But they are forced, grudgingly it is true, they are forced in the end to admit that it is not a success. I say that except for the last speaker and one or two other speakers, the confession to this charge is very faint, but it is there. The confession is there all the same, and when I come to the avoidance I say it is very very feeble. The avoidance of that charge has taken one of three forms. It has always been: Well, the Opposition is trying to make political capital out of this matter. That is the one stock argument. The second stock argument—I do not understand where the logic comes in, but still that is a stock argu ment—is Hitler, Nazis; and that is a final and conclusive reply to all these charges. How dare you charge a Government with incompetence when there is a man like Hitler somewhere in the world? The third and one of the most absurd of the lot has been enunciated this afternoon, and that is: because this side of the House declared itself in favour of neutrality, therefore it is now debarred from criticising the Government. The people outside may be starving, you may have a position of the most complete incompetence on the part of the Government, but because we have taken a stand on a certain point we are now debarred for all time, and we are silenced from criticising the Government. Well, we profess to be fighting for the principles of democracy and Parliamentary government; and here these gentlemen are busy at the same time by arguments of that kind trying to knock the foundations out of democracy. Where is the logic in all that? We are all entitled to draw attention to incompetence of this kind, and I will say this: I considered it my duty whenever I see any signs of incompetence on the part of the Government, whatever my views may be on any other question, it is my bounden duty to point out and expose that incompetence to the country, so that the public may be in a position to judge. Now I want to come to this charge. I say that with this charge before it and with this weak attempt to avoid that charge, the Government has been taking up the time of this House. I will not go so far as to say that they are “fiddling while Rome is burning” but I think we are entitled to say “they are diddling while thousands are suffering.” If there has ever been an unreal atmosphere in this House, it has been during the course of this debate. Even after four or five days of this debate there seems to be no realisation on the part of the Government of the gravity of the situation Much is expressed in this motion, or of the enormity of its offence. Even now there is no realisation of the rising tide of discontent and indignation outside and when one comes here to listen to this debate what does one hear from the Government benches? Every time you have suave assurances of all that has been done and glib promises of what will still be done. Then we walk outside, and we see these endless queues of women trying to get their pittance of meat, and large numbers of children suffering because they have not sufficient meat or milk or fish. You see the reality outside, while here hon. members opposite live in a fool’s paradise and think they can satisfy the gnawing hunger those people are experiencing with glib promises and suave assurances. I say this whole question has been debated in an unreal atmosphere as far as the Government side is concerned, an atmosphere which shows that it is out of touch with realities, and which shows that it is out of touch with the common man outside. It is those lower income groups who are bearing the brunt of this, and the Government is out of touch with those lower income groups. They themselves may be in a position to find their meat whenever they want it, but I ask them whether they have ever tried to visualise to themselves how a man with a family of four and a salary of £30 a month—and that is a high salary—how he is able to get sufficient nourishing food for his family and children. Have they ever tried to visualise that position to themselves? Then they come here and talk about Hitler and other things. It is food that the people want, and it has been withheld from them by the rank incompetence of the Government. I say this, if I may parody the expression: Seldom have so many suffered so much through the incompetence of so few. We have these gentlemen on the Treasury benches there, and it is due to their incompetence that you have this suffering today in this country. As far as the food question is concerned—I am for the moment confining myself to the food—I say this, if the hon. the Minister of Agriculture leaves his post in gloriously at the end of the present regime, unsung, unhonoured and unwept, then the epitah on his political grave as a Minister will not be—

Rather will it be—

Or, if I may translate it—

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the last part of this motion and that is in connection with the social security scheme, and what is more important, the means necessary for having a proper and effective scheme of social security. Mr. Speaker, there was a Social Security Committee appointed by the Government. They went into the scheme very fully and they reported and recommended a scheme which would cost the country £98,000,000 by 1955. They recommended that 40 per cent. of that amount should come out of contributions and 60 per cent. would be met by general taxation. This matter was referred to the Social and Planning Council. They went into the matter and found that this was beyond the means of South Africa, as a country, unless the per capita income of the working population were increased by at least 50 per cent. by 1955. In other words, the total national income would have to be increased by 70 per cent. before 1955 if this scheme were to be carried out at all. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from their report, and I think common-sense supports it also, that no scheme of social security can be carried out unless you have the proper means for it. I think it is also quite clear that no scheme of social security can be carried out in South Africa, no proper and efficacious scheme, unless a bold step is taken to increase our national income. I think these are today accepted facts. But now, Mr. Speaker, we do not know yet, at this stage, what scheme the Government is going to accept. We have been promised another White Paper and some legislation. We do know however that any scheme which is proposed and which does not have regard to the means required for carrying it into effect, is so much deception It is misleading the country to envisage any scheme if no steps are take to provide the means for carrying out that scheme; and the bigger and grander the scheme, the greater will be the deception and the disillusionment if the people find that it cannot be carried out What is the position now? We do not know what the scheme will be. It may be that it will be no more than the ridicula mus of the Select Committee which curtailed that scheme to bring it within the limits of present-day conditions, to £19½ million. That extra £9½ million which is over and above what the country is spending today on that same type of security, is not to be met out of taxation but out of contributions. That is the position today. I say that if that is brought before the country, if that is the White Paper, then it is a totally ineffective scheme of Social Security. It simply touches the fringe of social security. Of course, the Select Committee were faced with this position ….

Order. I do not think I can allow the hon. member to go too far into this matter. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) has a motion on the Order Paper.

I will not go into it very deeply. It may be that that point will be made, but I just want to say that as far as the Select Committee is concerned, a resolution was adopted very early that they were to confine themselves to this one point and were not to go into the major issue as to how the means would be provided for meeting the bill. That was accepted at one of the first meetings. The Opposition were in the minority and we were debarred from going into the question, and therefore there was only one way open. If we could go into that, we had to cut down the proposed scheme, and that is what was done. That is where I lay my charge against the Government. We know now, and it is accepted on all sides, that the growth of the national income is an indispensable factor in any such scheme. Now, what has the Government done, or what is it doing, to increase that national income? I say that not only are they doing nothing to increase it, but their policy, during the last couple of years, has been a policy not of encouraging growth but of retarding growth. I have not much time at my disposal, and therefore will deal only with three aspects of the matter. The first is the taxation policy. Let us see how the taxation policy of this Government has affected the growth of the national income. There is quite a change in the conception about the function of taxation. Taxation is no longer merely a method of painlessly extracting an amount of money from the taxpayer. Today it is rightly regarded as a very important way of encouraging the economic growth and development of a country, or otherwise; and I am afraid that the way in which the taxation policy was applied in this country in the last couple of years, brings it under the category of “or otherwise”. It was not calculated or designed to increase the productivity of this country, or its national income. On the contrary, I will give a few examples with your leave, Mr. Speaker. There is for instance the excess profit duty. I can conceive of no other measure more designed to throttle the development of industry than that measure as it is applied in this country according to the law passed by this House. It simply discourages, in every way, the building up of reserves for a particular industry to meet the post-war depression that is bound to come. If there is no provision, no encouragement for the building up or reserves, it stands to reason that there is no encouragement for investment, and it is today recognised that if you want to have any programme of full employment you must have provision which will encourage more and more investment. Your nett investment in the country must go higher and higher if you want to attain in any way to the position of having full employment. The whole intricate and illogical taxation structure of this country is another thing which is not calculated to invite investment and to encourage the building up of our industries in this country. The multiplicity of taxes which the industrialist is forced to meet today is no encouragement, and it is no encouragement to investment when you have these two factors coming in and making it almost impossible to have real progress and an increase in the national income. And the results of this policy are already apparent. You have this extraordinary phenomenon that there has been a remarkable decline in the nett investment; apart from the war—which is not productive investment—the nett investment figures have declined. In the last two years for which figures are available there has been a decline from £56,000,000 to £31,000,000. The argument of the Minister of Finance: “Look how many new companies have been registered and what their capital is” is no argument. The question is still what will happen to these companies after the war. Then will come the true test of whether the Government’s taxation policy has increased and encouraged productivity. But the nett investment figures are a much more useful barometer to look at than the number of companies registered and their capital. But not only that. A very disconcerting result has been this, that although our national income in terms of present-day money has increased, the real national in come has declined. The real national income based on the 1938 figures, is not increasing in spite of all this war-time prosperity. Yes, the total amount has gone up but your money value has declined, and if you apply the 1938 index you will see that for the year it is available—I have not seen the figures for the latest year—there is actually a decline in the national income of this country. And what is the cause?

What do you mean by the nett investments of this country?

If you will allow me to explain it to you afterwards I shall be happy to do so, but in the meantime I can perhaps refer you to the the article in the South African Journal of Economics, the Analysis of the Growth of National Income in the Period of Prosperity before the War, by Professor Frankel.

Dou you regard him as an authority?

Not necessarily, but it does not mean that everything he says is wrong. I do not expect him to be correct in everything he says and I do nöt accept that he is always correct, but at any rate he will be able to explain the definition of a nett investment. Let us look at another point, and that is the discouragement of rationalisation in our industries. We see that in the report of the Industrial Development Corportation a year ago, Dr. Van der Bijl drew attention to a specific case. There were two industrial concerns. They had to be amalgamated and they realised that in order to have greater productivity at less cost it would be a good thing to amalgamate, but he says that they were forced by the existing taxation system to let that opportunity of amalgamation go past, because in terms of the E.P.D., although each of these companies had its pre-war standard, the moment they joined forces and amalgamated they had no pre-war standard. These are things on which we from this side of the House have been hammering for the last couple of years. It is nothing new. But we have always been met by the Gadarene obstincy of the Minister of Finance. He has persistently refused to accept any amendment which will be some form of relief and encouragement to our industries for the future. But we find another example in the last Session. At this moment we have to encourage agricultural productivity. We are faced, if we believe most of what has been said, by a shortage of foodstuffs. We have to encourage the production of foodstuffs. At this particular stage in our history, when that is one of the prime needs of the country, what do we find the Minister of Finance doing? We find that he comes along and says: Capital improvements, which will make for greater productivity in agriculture, are now only to be deducted from taxation to the extent of 30 per cent. of the gross income of the farmer. In other word, at this very stage when we want to increase production, here is another one of those things which must retard agricultural production in this country. And not only that. We realise that if we were to launch any successful scheme for the conservation of our soil it means that a large proportion of soil normally available for production will be withheld from production for from 1 to 5 years. In other words, less soil will now have to produce the same amount as the present soil is producing. In other words you now want to encourage people to make the greatest use of the available soil by means of capital improvements, dams, boreholes, etc. Give these people every encouragement to improve their farms by capital improvements which will result in increased productivity. That is something which, in the national interest, the Government is bound to give; but at this critical stage the Minister comes and says that any capital improvements over 30 per cent.—and his original idea was 20 per cent.; we had to get that extra per cent. from him—is taxable.

What about the doctors?

We are prepared to meet you.

If that were the only object of the legislation I would not have cavilled at it, but because we made that proposal and it was rejected we say that he may have meant to attack the gentleman farmer—and I am here thinking in terms of the Minister of Native Affairs ….

Do not be so certain about that either.

…. but he certainly hit every bona fide farmer in this country and he hit the productivity of this country very severely. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has quoted today from the report of the Planning Council to the effect that over one and a half million jobs will have to be found by 1955. What are the Government doing? Their own Planning Council has most clearly exposed the Government’s hypocrisy or its misleading statements to the effect that everything is beautiful in the garden, by showing in their first report that as a result of the war there will be 230,000 people without jobs. Jobs will have to be found for them, but as the result of all the efforts of the Government, jobs are up to now available for only 15,000 people.

We will find jobs for them.

Yes, on “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly”.

One of the most important things is to increase the amounts available for investment. We have suggested 15 per cent. surtax on income as a compulsory saving to be used as a nest-egg for industrial development after the war. Get the capital now. You would be killing two birds with one stone. You would be stopping inflation because there is still too much money floating about in the country, and you would be stoping it, not by this trumpery forced savings tax, where you can get your money back in one year, but you will keep it in a fund which will operate for the benefit of the country and you will be withdrawing the money from the public and stopping them from misspending it. You will be saving it for the future. My time is short and I want to go on to my second point, namely our labour policy. The object of every labour policy in this country ought to be directed to the same purpose, namely the extension of the national income in this country and the obtaining of greater productivity. Your national income depends on the natural resources, in the first place, and in the second place it depends on the quality and the efficiency of your labour force. In the third place it depends on the best utilisation of these first two things. Now it you want to have full employment and maximum efficiency in this country then you will have to see that the labour policy is not what it is now. Let me just have regard, for the moment, to the wage policy of the Government. There is no reason or logical basis for wages. Wages are not related to production. There is no direct incentive.

Are wages too high?

I wish that they were ten times higher, if they can be correlated to production, in other words, is there is payment according to production. If the worker works and as the result there is an increase in production, then I have no objection to soaring wages because they will be related to production. They will then rise in conformity with your national income and will not have a disturbing effect on the national economy. Let me say this. Industry is not unwilling to shoulder the burden of higher wages, but then it must be wages correlated to production. We heard here about six months ago the chairman of the Federated Chamber of Industries making this statement that they are prepared, if there is a relationship between the amount paid and the production that is brought about as the result of that payment, to paying higher wages. It is an intricate matter to workout in detail, but at the moment I say that that should be the principle, and it should be the object of the Government to see that the ways and means are devised for correlating your wage policy to the increased production which should be brought about. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is another thing, namely the question of the employment policy. We have heard quite a lot about wasted education. Look at our trade schools. You put children in trade schools and keep them there for two years or more and then find that they cannot be taken on as apprentices. They do not get full recognition for their period of service in these trade schools.

They do.

If I may be allowed to go on? I am afraid it is probably not very intelligible to the hon. member who has just interrupted, but as I say there is this point that you have all this wasted energy there. You have an age qualification which immediately excludes many potential artisans. Because of the age qualification many possible labourers are excluded, particularly those who come from the platteland. The test is not the effectiveness of labour but it is this arbirtray principle of age and training, and I say that wastage of this kind in any machine is harmful and not conducive to giving the best results. I am in favour of reduced hours if that means increased production. If it means increased production by combating fatigue or producing good health, I am in favour of it. But if you think that by reducing hours without this justification you are going to increase employment you are bound to be disillusioned. You need maximum production today; you want full employment, and every potential labourer must be employed to the full extent of his capacity and not working for a reduced number of hours in order to give another man a job also for a reduced number of hours. What you want to have is full employment in this sense that the hours must only be governed by considerations of health and productivity. If you want to increase your national income you have to try to improve the efficacy of your labour, the standard and quality of your labour. You must do it by supplying them—I do not wish to go into details here—with the necessary equipment they need in the form of better houses, nutrition, and better mental and technical training for the jobs they have to perform. [Time limit].

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), even if, as so often happens, I cannot agree with him. He puts his case logically and cogently. I am sorry he was met with so much interruption which I am sure he did not deserve. The hon. member began by saying that he was going to be one of the few men to deal with the motion itself—he said that as far as we were concerned there were none who dealt with the motion before the House. I do not think that is quite fair. A number of members on the other side brought all sorts of sticks with which to beat the Government into the discussion, but there has been very close attention, to the motion on our side. But at the end of his speech he committed the very sin with which he charged us on this side of the House, because when he got into his stride he referred to a number of matters which are not matters specifically concerned with the motion at all. He went into the question of taxation policy and labour policy, which took a good deal of time, even if it was quite interesting, but there was not a word in the motion specifically covering these points at all. I am not going to deal with these remarks fully because they did not specifically come into the motion and are not specifically covered by the motion. They are thus irrelevant to the motion.

I must interrupt the hon. member. I think it is for the Chair to decide what is irrelevant or not.

With submission, Sir, I did not say that it could not be brought in. It is a motion of censure. But I meant that he criticised some of us for speaking outside the terms of the motion, that is outside the specific terms of the motion. There are matters one can bring into the debate, although they are not specificially covered by the motion. I do say that he has specifically charged members on this side with ignoring the specific words of the motion, but so has he. Let him agree that all this which is brought in by way of discussion on questions like national income, labour legislation and taxation policy and the development of industry, all these are impliedly covered by the words in the motion which say that the Government are being attacked because they were lax and incompetent and did not plan sufficiently. It seems to me that the speech of the hon. member was the speech of a disappointed Opposition. They put down this motion, which they thought was going to have very catastrophic results.

We know you too well. We know the “yes” men.

The hon. member then tried to solve the puzzle which has been puzzling many of us on this side, namely why they did not bring a vote of no confidence. Now the hon. member says that they consider the results of the last general election, and brought forward certain motions in specific form and thought that now, with the election only a few years behind us, it would not be right to put the motion in that specific form. It has been puzzling me from the start why they did not take and make use of the machinery laid down by Parliament for a specific vote of no confidence.

It is one.

No, Sir, it is not.

I am sorry we did not come to you for advice.

I am not going into that again, but I am merely pointing out, as I did once before, that if they had framed the motion in that form the rules of the House would have given them the right. The hon. member cannot say that this is a motion of no confidence, in specific terms. It is quite as easy to say “no confidence” as it is to imply “censure.” The hon. members know very well that if they had said “no confidence” the rules of the House would have made it imperative that it should receive primary consideration. If the motion was meant to be a motion of no confidence, why on earth did they not say so?

Then you would have got away from this specific subject.

We are not running away.

You would have run away.

We would have met this attack, but I think the hon. members opposite are very disappointed.

You are very disappointed about the motion.

Hon. members opposite are very disappointed because their motion has become a damp squib, and wearisome to the flesh. It has been almost as dead as mutton since it was introduced. All I can say is this, that these additional things that have been brought in by the hon. member can easily be answered. It is not the position that wage legislation has been a great factor. The hon. member’s own party brought in wage legislation through their Labour Minister, a member of their Cabinet. When a Wage Act was brought in for the first time it was brought in by the Cabinet of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member. They brought in the wage legislation, and the Coalition Government was responsible for it. Then the hon. member enunciated very interesting theories as to how to increase labour by making it more efficient. He said that we should pay a higher wage. Does that include the Non-Europeans and the natives? One would like to know that. But the hon. member skated over that rather thin ice. He did not mention it at all, though it is a tremendously important point. We have a tremendous reservoir of labour apart from the European labour force. Does the hon. member include the Non-Europeans and the natives? After all, if you are going to increase the national income of the country you must increase the spending power of the masses. You cannot have a balanced economy unless you do so. But the hon. member was very careful not to say anything on that point.

What about the food question?

I am coming to the food question. As far as I can see the hon. member tried to give a legalistic atmosphere to the debate. He regarded himself as one handling a charge of criminal incompetence, as a man presenting an indictment. In that sense he was bound to be the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and even to be the public executioner. He conducted his tirade as if he were able not only to present an indictment, but to find the accused guilty and give him fitting punishment. It was altogether a rather one-sided affair.

Like Conroy’s Kakamas Commission.

The Kakamas Commission will no doubt be considered at the proper time, and I have no doubt that the Minister concerned will be able then to deal effectively with the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What I was going to say in regard to the position taken up by the hon. member is that as far as the gravamen of the charges are concerned—laxity and incompetence—that has been ably and effectively answered by the Minister of Agriculture. The question of the recommendations of the National Health Services Commission has also been effectively answered; and I shall only deal shortly with that, because there will be another debate on that particular matter. I do wish to say this, however, that the allegation in this motion regarding the fundamental rejection of the Commission’s recommendations “even before the publication of the Commission’s report”, is not correct; it is not correct that the Government fundamentally rejected the Health Commission’s report before it was printed, or that the Government even now fundamentally rejects the report.

We heard about it yesterday.

The hon. member surely understood the point. The position is that the constitutional issue is the only one on which the Government was not prepared to take action on the lines of the Commission’s report.

That is a most fundamental point.

It is a fundamental point, but there has been no fundamental rejection of the report. There are several fundamental points in that report, and the recommendation on the constitutional position provides the only exception to the rule; the remainder of the report was accepted. While I concede the importance of that constitutional issue, I wish to add there are two hospitals in this country which are completely outside the purview, and those are the two great teaching medical universities at Johannesburg and Cape Town. They have come into existence as medical teaching universities since Union. The Groote Schuur and the Johannesburg hospitals, as teaching hospitals, are practically part of those respective universities. Higher education rests with the Government and not with the Provincial Councils, so I think those two hospitals fall outside the controversy regarding the constitutional issue. They should certainly be taken over by the Government. It appears that the local ratepayers of Johannesburg and Cape Town have to bear the main burden of finding much of the tremendous amount of money that is required for the maintenance of those two big hospitals.

The hon. member is now straying away from the motion.

I was passing away from it just when you spoke, Sir. I shall not refer to that any more.

Not passing away, surely!

Well, I was just passing from that subject. I am sorry if I am disappointing some hon. members who may have taken me too literally. I only mentioned this matter purely incidentally to show that there is one point on which the Government could take action without resorting to any special constitutional measures against any section. This motion, framed in this peculiar way, reminds me of the old story “willing to wound and yet afraid to strike”. If they had put this up as a question of no confidence in the Government it might have been regarded in a different light. They were afraid to strike and yet willing to wound, so they contented themselves with a motion of censure. There is one thing I would like to say, that in criticising the Government in regard to food we lose sight of the fact of what is happening in other countries. I venture to say, from my reading—I have not been there recently myself—that conditions are worse in England, Australia, New Zealand and also in Canada than they are in South Africa; and there is greater suffering and greater difficulty in getting food, but one thing that has satisfied public opinion there is this, that they have been wise enough to go in for a rationing system. Though everybody is suffering as a result of the war, as is only natural when a superhuman effort is required, production has gone up in some of those countries, and also here though of course consumption has also gone up. There is the question of the soldiers, there is the question of our Allies, and so on. What has contented public opinion there is that there has been a rationing system and everyone has been treated alike, rich and poor. Undoubtedly in that respect something remains to be done in South Africa which has not yet been done. From the speech made by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg)—I may say I listened to it with great pleasure, I agreed with practically the whole of that speech and the suggestions the hon. member made—it is quite evident we shall soon have a better system of distribution, and that unfortunate feature of the situation, the absence of equality of suffering in this country, will be done away with. I listened recently to an address by a man who is representing this country in Australia. He came here recently on leave. He was representing the Director-General of Supplies there but now he is representing us in trade. He painted a picture of things in Australia that was very surprising. He gave us the prices of things. He took Melbourne as an example, and he showed that prices are much higher in Melbourne than in Cape Town. He referred inter alia to food and clothing. He said that we are infinitely better off here than they are in Australia, but that throughout the country there is no grumbling, although they have to put up with a lot of suffering. He puts that down to the equality of suffering, rich and poor alike. They have not got the tremendous supplies at restaurants and hotels that one finds here. They are all limited alike to a meal of three dishes only, and the price of that meal is fixed. The richest man cannot get more.

They have a better government.

Well, it is not a capitalist government, it is a Labour government, and my hon. friend will agree with me we can be sure that the interests of the poor, at any rate are not being neglected. Though there is a Labour government in power, conditions there owing to the war are infinitely more severe than here. That is a thing we should ponder over. To come down here with a stick to beat the Government with, and to say they are lax and incompetent—well, compare it with another country. I do not know whether the hon. member will say that those conditions in Australia are the result of that Government being lax, and it being a Labour Government. He once had Labour colleagues in the same Cabinet, and I think they got on very well together. I believe they have a very competent Labour Government in Australia. Yet the conditions in Australia are not to be compared with ours. We are much better off in South Africa than the people of Australia are, and that is a thing which we should bear in mind when we come here with a stick to beat the Government. There is another point that the hon. member for South Peninsula has made, and here too I am inclined to agree with him, that the food control should be entirely separated from the Department of Agriculture. I know that it is, to some extent, but still the Minister is the final responsible authority. I think if you have not a food ministry—although I am inclined to think a food ministry would be a very good thing—you should have a completely separate food department. The conduct of the Opposition in relation to the war has been referred to, particularly by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), not out of malice, but out of an attempt to put facts before us in a debate of this kind. After all, the Opposition have been trying to frustrate the Government’s war effort at every turn, and a great deal of trouble in regard to food is that we are engaged in this tremendous war. It is only right, then, that when those hon: members who tried to keep South Africa out of the war bring forward proposals of this kind, that they should be critically looked into, not with any malice but so that the facts …

We are not afraid of your criticism on that point.

The hon. member has insisted that this is a motion of no confidence, but the point is if that is the case, why has the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition not stated it in his motion? We have been at war since 1939. Has the question of food ever been brought up by the Opposition before?

No.

This question did not become acute only in 1945.

It is getting worse.

I do not think so. I think there have been years in the past since 1939 when there has been a shortage.

When did you have queues in the past?

I will admit to the hon. member that the maldistribution has got worse, but the food position has been much the same during these years.

You had no meat shortage until the meat scheme started.

Well, when convoys used to come here, years ago, households had the greatest difficulty in getting vegetables because they were required, rightly, for those convoys who were fighting our fight as well as their own. The only thing I have heard hon. members on the opposite side of the House bring up, is that the farmers should get a higher price for their produce. The question of the consumer was hardly touched upon, and certainly no motion was ever brought forward to express concern about the food question. It appeared to me that the Opposition felt that here was a grand opportunity of cashing in on the measure of discontent there is in the country, and the queues, and so on. Well, if they think that because there is discontent in the country and because people are in some cases genuinely distressed at the maldistribution of food, that that means they are prepared to support the Opposition, they have a sad day of awakening coming. The by-election at Germiston, though it was only a Provincial Council by-election, was interesting because this point about the meat scheme was brought before the people.

What about Wakkerstroom?

It was brought up as a tremendous thing with which to defeat the Government party candidate. His opponent was ignominiously defeated.

Why don’t you mention about Wakkerstroom?

That was before the meat scheme. It is the only by-election that has occurred since the meat scheme to show what public opinion is on this matter.

Wakkerstroom.

The meat scheme was not in force then. My hon. friend misses my point. I am referring to the by-election, where the food position and the way in which the Government was maintaining the food position, including the meat question, came up for discussion. There was only the one by-election, and that went decisively in favour of the Government. Hon. members opposite do not appear to have chosen a winning wicket here. They brought up this food question, and the Minister of Agriculture gave an explanation.

Why should an explanation be necessary?

Naturally, an explanation is always required. It would be a very poor audience that refused to give a man a chance of making an explanation, especially when, as hon. members have put it, the Minister is in the dock. Surely the accused is entitled to give his defence and his explanation? As a matter of fact, I may say this, I think the hon. member is incorrect there, because it was only when he returned that the Minister announced his scheme. He announced it down here, though I admit it was before the election. It was announced on the Tuesday and the election was next day.

You are wrong in your dates.

No. That is correct. I do not want to let out a confidence. We were all sorry the statement could not have been made two days later. That is why I remember the date so well. This is a political motion intended to cause embarrassment to the Government and to take advantage of a certain amount of discontent, but the language employed by hon. members opposite is not justified. Such mistakes as have been made do not justify the language of this particular motion; they do not justify a motion of censure. There is just one little matter that I hope the House will give me the indulgence to mention. I say it is just a little matter, but it is an important matter, otherwise I would not mention it. The hon. members for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) and Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), unfortunately, and I think unncessarily dragged in the Jewish question in regard to the meat supply ….

You do not understand.

I understood all right. I am quite bilingual. I heard the hon. member for Kuruman’s reference when he said that the kosher meat system gave preference to the rich man over the poor.

That is not dragging it in.

It is dragging it in, and it happens to be entirely incorrect. And the hon. member for Swellendam, not to be outdone on the question, said that while he was in Johannesburg he had noticed a number of queques outside butcher shops, but that he had never seen a Jew amongst them. If the hon. members knew the facts the remarks would never have been made. As to the first observation, it was absolutely incorrect. There is no question as far as the kosher meat is concerned, of any favouritism to anyone. Everybody is treated alike, rich and poor.

Who decides what quantity of meat will be reserved for kosher purposes?

I will tell my hon. friend. It is done on an absolutely fair basis. It is under the abattoir system of the local town council. A little difficulty occurs in this way. The Jewish people only eat the fore-part of the animal, not the hindquarters, and as you cannot slaughter half an animal you have to slaughter the whole animal. So although they arrange the kosher killing of a certain number of cattle and sheep for kosher purposes, after the slaughter has taken place only half of each carcase goes to the Jewish people, because, as I say, they do not take the hindquarters. I have the figures. I have not had the time at my disposal to get them for the whole of South Africa, but I will quote the figures for the Peninsula, because they will make it clear to hon. members that the Jewish people have no greater share of the meat in the country in times of scarcity than Non-Jews; and that they have to go without meat in times of scarcity exactly the same as the others. First of all, in regard to the queue business. The hon. member said that he has not seen any Jews in queues, but why is that? The Jews deal with kosher butcher shops. The hon. member does not go there because he does not get his meat from those butcheries. There are very few of these shops, only a handful; even in the big cities there are only a few Jewish butchers who cater for the Jewish trade. That is why the hon. member has not seen Jews in the queues at the butcher shops he has visited.

The whole week I was in Johannesburg I did not see a Jew in any of these queues, and they were not only at the butcher shops.

Now thé hon. member wants to shift his ground. I am dealing with the question of the queues. [Interruption]. If the hon. member wants to hear the explanation of the queues ….

I did not see a Jew or a Jewess in these queues during the whole week I was there. You do not have kosher potatoes.

In December, 1944, there passed through the Maitland abattoirs 1,750 oxen and 66,000 sheep; of these 250 oxen or 14½ per cent. of the total and 5,300 sheep or 8 per cent. were allocated for kosher killing. [Interruption]. I hope hon. members will let me show what is happening; I am trying to tell them the facts. I am stating exactly what has happened. Those were allocated, as I say, for the Jewish people, but they are not allowed to eat the meat from the hindquarters; so when the cattle had been killed half of that 14½ per cent. and half of that 8 per cent. was allocated for general consumption. That is to say, the Jewish public had 7¼ per cent. of the beef and 4 per cent. of the mutton. Now, Sir, this is not the end of it, because in addition to the meat people get from the abattoirs there is a lot of tinned meat and chilled meat, bacon and pork which is not consumed by the Jewish public and that is provided for the Non-Jewish population. The Jewish people do not take that meat, and the result is that if you take that into account the Jewish people get exactly the same quota as the Non-Jews.

You know that a very large percentage of the Jewish people eat the meat that is ordinarily slaughtered for the Gentile. They get their kosher per centage, and also a good percentage of the meat intended for Gentiles.

Not every kosher butcher sells kosher meat only, they in some cases sell the other also. I am explaining to the hon. member for Swellendam that because he did not see Jews in these queues he must not imagine that we have a privileged position. Nothing of the sort. The Government Meat Controller has made this statement that there is no discrimination or favouritism in the distribution of slaughtering quotas and the Jewish community is getting only a fair share of the meat that is available. Let me tell the House something about the shops in Cape Town. I have information about the two principal kosher butchers in Cape Town. In December they had to close nearly half the month. They had not any meat and they opened only one day in the week namely Friday and on other days only a hour or two. But if you add all the hours together these two butcher shops were closed for half the month.

Even when the shop is closed they still send out the orders.

No. I don’t think so. Perhaps we could find out; they raided some of the shops the other day, and there may be information. I have no information on that point, but I am speaking of the fact that they were absolutely closed for half the month, and in January the position was much worse; they had to close for three weeks, they could only open for one week, and the reason was entirely that there was no meat available. I hope that these facts make it clear, Sir, that whatever the merits of this particular motion, we will not allow any racial bias to creep into the debate, because we must debate the issue on its merits. I say that having regard to the conduct of the war and having regard to the development of industry, the Government has acted in the interests of the people, of South Africa, and so far from this motion being carried in this House we should rather see a motion of full confidence passed in the Government.

It is tragic to see how afraid the Government party is of this motion. Almost without exception every member who stood up on the other side stumbled over this motion. The hon. member who has just sat down told the House that the Jewish community got no more than its legitimate share, namely 7¼ per cent. of the beef and 4 per cent. of the mutton. But he did not take into account the fact that if that is their legitimate share, they still have the right, and they avail themselves of that right in practice, to obtain meat in other ways too. That shows that they are getting a greater share than their legitimate quota. That side of the House tried on every occasion to defend the Government in connection with the meat scheme, but we have this tragic position that to begin with they tried to defend the Minister, but before very long they proceeded to attack the Government. That shows that this motion is well-founded and that it was highly necessary. The Government’s supporters are attacking the Government in connection with the meat position, notwithstanding the fact that the Government made it as easy as possible for them. The Government knew that there was dissatisfaction in the country. The Government knew that such a motion was necessary, and it was for that reason that the Government postponed this motion of censure in order to give the dissatisfied supporters of the Government an opportunity of blowing off steam on other measures. First of all the Government introduced its additional estimates, containing 45 votes, on which their supporters could first blow off a little steam. The Labour Party was then given an opportunity to introduce a motion in order to blow off steam, and the Government was afraid that if it gave preference to this motion, the criticism levelled against the Government would be so effective that the people in the country would say: “We want nothing further to do with this Government.” In order to neutralise the effect of this motion, the Government played that political game; but that will not help the Government. They will not escape the consequences of their sins. They have sinned as far as the meat position and the general food position in our country are concerned, and they will have to pay for it. They will have to bear the punishment for it. Notwithstanding the fact that hon. members on the other side are trying to justify this scheme, and although we are told that there is no meat shortage, the housewives in Cape Town and throughout the whole country know better. Although those members have tried to make us believe that there is no dissatisfaction, we saw the demonstration which was held at the gates of the Houses of Parliament. These people walked about with banners bearing the words “Give us meat”; “Gee vir ons Vleis”. In the face of that can anyone deny that there is dissatisfaction? But that is not the only sign of the dissatisfaction which exists in the country. We notice that a by-election is being fought in Port Elizabeth, and what is the postion there? Who is opposing the Government? It is not the Nationalist Party. It is an independent member. And what is his main plank? His main plank is social security, and he is contesting this seat for the very reason that the English-speaking people in Port Elizabeth are dissatisfied with the Government’s treatment of the inhabitants of South Africa, as far as the food position is concerned and as far as social security is concerned. Can it be argued by any right thinking person that there is no dissatisfaction and that there was no justification for the introduction of this motion? I fully associate myself with that portion of the motion which refers to the absolute incompetence of the Government in connection with the food question. But I want to confine myself more specifically to agriculture and especially the mealie industry and the Government’s attitude in that connection. What is the correct position in connection with production? Under the abnormal conditions prevailing in this country, we cannot assess the production. What is the position of agriculture, generally speaking? It was worked out by the Department of Economics and Markets that in the years 1936 to 1939, in normal circumstances, the contribution of agriculture to the total national income was only 13 per cent., and that no less than 70 per cent. of the inhabitants of South Africa were dependent for their livelihood on 13 per cent. of the national income. They worked it out that 70 per cent. of the people made their living out of agriculture, of which 35 per cent. were Europeans and 77 per cent. Non-Europeans. But the fact remains that only 13 per cent. of the total national income was derived from agriculture in normal years. We must prepare ourselves now for the post-war period, when things will be normal again. How is the Government approaching this problem and what preparations have been made for the post-war period? We maintain that the Government has no systematic, planned or scientific constructive agricultural policy. We need only note the fact that 70 per cent. of the people of South Africa have to make a living out of agriculture while there are only two Ministers in the Cabinet whose background permits of their exercising a good influence in the interests of agriculture. One of them is the Minister of Native Affairs. He is too occupied with native problems. The other is the Minister of Lands. The Prime Minister himself felt that he would not last long as Minister of Lands, and for that reason he did not appoint him. The Prime Minister then had to make a second choice, and unfortunately for South Africa, and incidentally also for the United Party, he entrusted probably the weakest man in the Cabinet with the portfolio of Lands, a man who up to the present has not satisfied anyone, neither the consumer nor the producer. I want to predict that if the Government does not get rid of the Minister of Lands, the country will get rid of the Government.

In these critical times we should have liked to see a Government with creative power. But this Government is solely a destructive power. Admittedly they have their feet on terra firma, but they have their heads in the clouds. The Prime Minister is busy advising Europe as to what they should do. He is telling England to form a Western Block as a means of protection against Communism. While he is advising other countries, his own people are perishing and as far as the food position is concerned, we have a state of disorder. It reminds me of the type of farmer who always knows what advice to give his neighbour in regard to his farming operations but who never knows what to do himself. This Government is not exercising the necessary supervision over the food and its distribution. It allows food to be wasted on a large scale, while the people are starving. It has been brought to my notice that somewhere in the Free State there are 50 natives who work on the railway line. Every evening the surplus food of the natives is buried. The foreman of the natives then approached the farmer and asked him whether he did not want the surplus food to feed his pigs. The farmer was pleased to get it and he converted it into food for the pigs. The surplus food of the natives was so much that is was equivalent to 2 muid-bags per day. The position is that if the surplus food of 50 natives fills 2 bushel bags per day, what is going to become of us? There is a shortage of mealies, and on the other hand food is being wasted. I do not want to talk about the position at military camps and flying schools. It is a well known fact that wherever a flying school is established, pig farming is embarked on because there is so much surplus food. A great amount of first class food—uncut loaves of bread etc.—is thrown away at military camps and flying schools, while there is a shortage of food in the country. Now I want to come to a more serious matter. During the past year in my constituency alone a few hundred-thousand bags of mealies lay and rotted at the stations. I can assure the Minister that if we have copious rains between now and the winter, a few hundred thousand bags will again rot in my constituency alone. Why? Because the farmers and co-operations cannot obtain the necessary galvanised iron to protect the mealies against the rain. It is war time and the Government is facing a shortage of food. Mealies are simply rotting. There is no system. Are we not justified in moving this motion? Must we not criticise the Government for the manner in which it is handling the food position? No, this Government is not a constructive power, but a destructive power. At one time a bull subsidy was paid by the Government. Former Governments were determined to improve the quality of the stock in the country, and for this purpose the country was divided into regions, and farmers in any area which had been proclaimed as a cattle improvement area, received a maximum subsidy of £25 per bull from the Government in order to purchase good bulls. The farmers made use of this to a great extent and the quality of the stock improved. I asked the Government how much money had been spent on this scheme in the past few years. The figure is £679,972 up to 30th November, 1944, excluding administration costs, in view of the fact that the officials concerned were not charged exclusively with the administration of the Act. A large sum of State money was used. What is the Government doing in that connection today? The Minister said in reply to my question: “No, that is no longer applicable.” But the most serious aspect is that the Government is allowing scrub bulls to be used in those districts which were cattle improvement districts, and it is allowing kaffir cattle to be put amongst the herds. If the Government does anything of that kind, can it be said that it is following a sound agricultural policy? Or is it allowing agriculture to retrogress? It has taken ten years to build up, to improve the stock, and with one stroke of the pen the Minister is breaking down and destroying everything which has been built up. Any country in the world which has such a Minister of Agriculture and where such methods are applied, will say that that Minister does not deserve to be in power for another day, especially in a country where 70 per cent. of the citizens are making their living out of agriculture. I also want to point out to the Government again that mealies constitute a staple food in South Africa. Practically all industries are dependent on mealies. The diary industry is dependent on mealies. When there are no mealies for feeding purposes, the production of milk goes down, because mealies constitute one of the main articles of food for animals. When there are no mealies you cannot have eggs, because the poultry industry is dependent on mealies. But the most serious of all is the fact that 8,000,000 natives in South Africa live primarily on mealies. For that reason mealies constitute the staple food of South Africa. What could the Government do in the event of a shortage? If the Government had to give bread to the natives, where would it get the wheat? If it had to give them meat, where would it get the meat? What could be given to the natives other than mealies? It is their staple food. But the Government is refusing to give the farmers and the co-operative societies the necessary galvanised iron, and the result is that hundreds of thousands of bags have to lie and rot. The Government is making all sorts of excuses as far as food is concerned. I asked the Minister of Agriculture what quantity of canned meat had been imported in 1944 and what quantity of meat had been exported. The reply was that 4,170 short tons were exported for defence purposes and shipping stores. But remarkably enough, during the same year 3,786 short tons were imported. What are we doing with a Minister of Agriculture who is importing as much meat as he is exporting? Is that good policy? Is it the Government’s object to serve the people of South Africa, or is it too busy giving other countries advice while it cannot help itself. I accuse the Government of unpreparedness for the post-war period. It is not a creative power, but a destructive power. There are many things which the Government must undertake after the war in order to provide employment and create sources of revenue after the war. In the Free State big gold mines have been discovered and companies have already bored and shafts have been pegged, but the Government is doing nothing to get everything in readiness to make production possible after the war. It is said that there will be a scarcity of money after the war. This is the opportune time for the Government to take steps to create sources of revenue. It takes years from the commencing stage to the production stage, and if a beginning is not made today with the sinking of shafts, we shall not be ready after the war to produce. It will taka years. Here the Government has an opportunity of making preparations so that the country will be able to resist the depression years which lie ahead. But the Government has not the vision to do it. It is only living from hand to mouth. There is another point in this connection. Mines require a great quantity of water, and in the area where the gold has been discovered, water is extremely scarce. But it is not situated far from the Sand River, where the Government proposes to construct a dam, an irrigation scheme. I understand there will be sufficient water to allow of a certain quantity being given to the mines. Instead of the Government proceeding to construct the dam, so that the work at the mines will not be held up, the Government is doing nothing. It may be possible to build a dam within a year, but one never knows whether the dam will be full within a year or two. If they start building the dam after the war, it may take a year before it is completed, and if there are one or two dry years and the dam does not become full, the development will be retarded because there will not be the necessary water for the mines. The Government should take imaginative steps, but it looks as though it has been paralysed as though it is powerless. What paralysed the Government, we do not know. Perhaps it is the capitalists who rule this Government. We as farmers realise that there are two things which we must necessarily have to ensure security in the future. The first is a reasonable price for our products and the conservation of our soil. What is the Government doing in this connection? Let me mention an example. Before the war we were often saddled with a mealie surplus and we did not know what to do with it. It may again happen that the mealie farmers find themselves in a critical situation owing to a surplus and that they will not know what to do with their mealies. I put a question to the Minister in connection with the available amount which was collected by the Mealie Board in the form of a levy, and the reply was £335,842 up to the 20th April, 1944. That is the amount which they had available. I further asked whether the Government was prepared to make investigations and to develop processes to manufacture by-products from the mealies, having regard to possible post-war circumstances. The reply was that the Government was not undertaking experiments with regard to the processing of mealies into by-products with a view to post-war surpluses. The Government adopts the attitude that there will not be another surplus. What responsible Government, in view of the repeated experiences which we have had in South Africa of surpluses of mealies, can afford to sit back without making experiments of this nature? Then the Government still has the impudence to say openly in Parliament that they are not making any experiments. Are we not entitled to demand that this country should have another Minister of Agriculture, a Minister with vision who looks into the future and who does not follow a policy of living from hand to mouth? What is the Minister doing in connection with the conservation of soil? Practically nothing. The position today is that the mealie farmers are not only selling their products. It is said with justification that the mealie farmers are practically selling their land today, their arable land, because they have not got the necessary artificial manure to put into the soil and so retain its fertility. The result is that the fertility of the soil becomes exhausted and the land is practically being sold, not only the product. But the Minister of Lands does not appreciate these dangers. He cannot understand that South Africa is selling not only the product, but also the land. One hears a great deal about the high prices which the farmers obtain, but no mention is made of the increased costs of production. The Minister cannot realise that where the farmer formerly reaped 15 bags per morgen, and now only 10 bags, his production costs are higher because his crop is smaller. We want another Minister with an agricultural background, one who appreciates the conditions in South Africa and who appreciates that there is a danger of our soil becoming exhausted and lost. I associate myself wholeheartedly with this motion because I feel that the present Minister of Lands must make room for another Minister. Failing that; not only the producers in South Africa but also the consumer will go under. The Minister must go, and we must get another Government.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition, in his motion of censure, in which he condemns the Government and disapproves of the method in which the Government provides for the distribution of food to the people, really means that he is against control. Now, control is not intended either to rob the producer or the consumer, and although it occasionally pleases neither the producer nor the consumer, it is still better than having no control. That has been proved even in the meat scheme. In Britain the experience of the last war, when control was withdrawn through an outcry of the people, has influenced her in this war to make it more effective and to see that more of the consumers’ goods are put under control. We in South Africa have really not suffered from a lack of food. I speak chiefly from the point of view of Johannesburg and the Reef. We have not always had perhaps as much of a particular item of diet as we would like but we have always had a good supply of healthy, nutritious food. I would just like to say this that the one thing which I think control has contributed to, is the black market in Johannesburg, which has grown enormously, and not only has it led to increased prices but it has become a real receiver’s den for thieves who steal from the stores. That I know, and I think it can be proved. The hon. member, in condemning the Government, speaks of the exhaustion of the country’s resources and depreciation, but I would rather hear the hon. member speak of the increased resources of the coun try. We in Johannesburg and on the Reef have during this last year built more than one hundred factories, and I think it would be better to see that these factories are kept working, which will add to the resources of the country. There will be many new industries starting in the country and I do not think that in the post-war period we need worry about the exhaustion of resources of this country. The wage earner today on the Reef has more money in his hands than he has ever had before, and there is one good point about it, namely that he seems to have more sense too, and he is trying to save and not just wantonly wasting it as was so often done in the past. An indication of this saving by the wage earner can be got if one looks at the accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank. In 1939 the Post Office Savings Bank Account was £21,000,000; in 1944 it was £40,000,000; in 1939 the loan certificate figure stood at 600,000; today it is over 8,000,000. And the demand for houses to purchase at the increased prices denotes that not only is money plentiful but there is a better idea as to how it should be spent. Another sign of the times is seen in a statement issued by the Director of Social Welfare, that the amount last year for the issue of rations is £54,000. Four years ago that figure was £178,000. That shows what the Government is doing on behalf of the very poor; they are providing them with a better means of subsistence than by just issuing rations. The railway worker has had his standard of living raised far beyond his wildest dreams of years gone by. Today the standard of the railway workers has been raised by at least 50 per cent. if not more.

That is due to the cost of living.

He gets the cost of living with it. That has cost the Railway Administration many millions. I am mentioning these facts because they go a long way to show that the Government has been really and truly trying to improve the standard of living of the working man. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said in his speech a few days ago that the mines of the Witwatersrand were a capitalist monopoly. I think anyone giving any consideration to that matter must realise that it must be a capitalist monopoly to work the mines. I say that today the mining industry is as much part and parcel of the country’s development as farming is, and that it is playing its part in the future development of the country by deeper and deeper mining, which we all hope will prove increasingly successful. After all, the mines provide a fifth of our national income. Today many thousands of South Africans who never held a share before in their lives are holding mining scrip. That is another factor that is making the industry more national. I should also like to refer to the part the gold mining industry is playing in South Africa’s exports for which it has accounted for two-thirds. For the year 1944 the gold mines paid £8,000,000 as a special war contribution. I think hon. members will agree with me that these figures regarding the mining industry indicate that a capitalistic monoply is doing a very fine job of work for South Africa. Despite the deprecating criticisms that have been directed at the efforts of the Government on the ground that it has not prepared for post-war development, I maintain that the Government by what it has done in the past and by what it has planned to do in the future, has clearly proved that it has the ability and determination to prepare for post-war development. We have no qualms about the future progress of South Africa under the direction of our honoured leader.

I want to say at the outset that I propose to proceed along more or less the lines that were followed by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) when he defined the difference between a vote of censure and a vote of no confidence. I must say that I am glad that after all racialism has not, and will not I hope, be dragged into this debate; but I have been asked and I in turn am going to ask the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, what is the reason for the motion? What was the cause of the alteration? Was the motion brought in because of the food position, and conditions in connection with the war, or was is because the Hon. Leader of the Opposition discovered that for many years he and his party have been barking up the wrong tree and backing the wrong horse. My reply was “I do not think so.” I was hoping the form of the motion indicated a change of heart on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. members sitting behind him. One of the reasons I have for that is this, that I noticed some time ago that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party are going to publish a paper in English. I was glad to learn that the editor of that paper was to be a man who, I believe, everyone in this House has the greatest respect for I want to say this, that if he follows the same methods in connection with the publication of that paper as he did when he was Speaker of this House, we shall in the near future be very grateful to him. I now wish to deal with a matter which has not yet been touched upon, and it is in reference to the inhuman and unhygienic slaughtering of cattle in the uncontrolled areas. No so long ago I saw a report to the effect that there were no fewer than 17 uncontrolled slaughter poles in Johannesburg, where slaughtering may have been carried under the most inhuman and unhygienic conditions. When we realise that the meat from these slaughter poles goes to replenish the black market, it is clear that it is a very important matter. I have noticed that some drastic action was taken by the Food Controller to stop this smuggling of meat into the controlled areas of Cape Town, and that in a short period some 700 lbs. of meat was seized. I mention these facts because I have another newspaper cutting which states that 740 cases of infantile paralysis have occurred in the Union during the last six months. As a matter of fact, there were 32 cases last week, and the point I want to make is this, that I suspect many of these cases of infantile paralysis may be traced to the eating of unsound meat. That is difficult to prove, but what I can say is that since the black market has been operating, and since the black market has been providing unsound meat, the incidence of this disease has been increasing by many hundreds of cases. I suggest that the Government should advise people against buying meat which is slaughtered under these conditions, and under very bad sanitary conditions.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 8th February.