I move—

The Government takes the view that sufficient time has been given for this debate, today inclusive, and that this debate on the censure motion should be brought to an end today.

I second.

Agreed to.

I want to add a little to the question I was mentioning when the House adjourned yesterday evening in regard to the inhumane slaughtering that is being carried on. I want to appeal to the Government to inflict more severe penalties. If that were done it would, in my opinion go a long way towards stopping the blackmarketing of meat which is taking place today. I hope that the Government will do something in this matter, because I am sure if they do that it will not be only a matter of stopping the black market, but the Government will be protecting people from consuming meat which in many cases is not fit for human consumption. I want to say this to the Leader of the Opposition. I made the point to him yesterday in connection with the votes of censure he had been introducing for many years and which have always proved a failure. I put it to him that after all, the Government of this country has, during the last four or five years proved its capabilities up to the hilt. May I just mention one or two things in particular, because I am sorry I have not the time to deal with them all. When we realise the great efforts the Government has made to carry on the war, when we realise how many industries have been established, when we realise the growth of the prosperity of the country and the peak it has reached at present, surely we accept the position that no vote of censure is deserved by the Government. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite that if any vote of censure was called for it is a vote of censure on the way the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters have tried to prevent the Government’s proposals being carried into effect.

We are to blame for you making a mess of it!

When we listened to the explanation of this very valuable report which has been placed before the House in regard to public health, surely hon. members opposite must have felt that no vote of censure was needed after the Government’s efforts which have led to the production of this document which will contribute in no small measure to the welfare and interests of the people of the country. A vote of censure would be entirely out of place, and I appeal to the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I ask him what does he think he is going to accomplish by this vote of censure? Does he think that when the vote is taken a single member on this side of the House is going to vote with him?

Of course not; you are all yes men.

I hope he realises that on this occasion, as on previous occasions, the members on this side of the House will stand solidly with the Government, and what is more, they will endeavour to support the Prime Minister and the Government to carry out the schemes that are projected. I am going to appeal again to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and to tell him this, that in my opinion instead of indulging in this talk lie would be doing a greater service to the country if he threw in his lot with us and helped us in our efforts to increase the prosperity of the country and to build up a great South African nation.

I hope after that appeal to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition his heart will be softened. I am taking part in the debate immediately because I think it may be convenient for hon. members who still want to speak if I take part in the debate as early as possible. The motion of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a motion of censure, as it is called; it is practically a motion of no confidence in the Government. It is moved as such and it is regarded as such by us. It will therefore be necessary for me during the course of the debate to move an amendment. But before doing so, I should like to deal with and reply to the most important grounds on which the Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government, and I also want to refer to certain points which were made by other members in the course of the debate. The debate covered a wide field and it will be impossible for me to reply to all the hon. members who spoke. But there are certain important points of principle and of interest to which I should like to reply, and I propose to do so now. I shall be as brief and concise as possible so as not to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. Then too, as a motion of no confidence which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition, it has complications to which I shall refer briefly. I now come back to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition and the grounds on which he attacks the Government’s policy, and I want to deal immediately with the point which seems to me to be the most important point in the attack which is made in this motion of the hon. member, and also in the speeches which were made here namely the health policy of the Government. The accusation which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition makes is that in my statement of October last which was given wide publicity, the proposals of the National Health Services Commission were fundamentally rejected, and that that was done even before the publication of the report of the Commission. That is an altogether wrong picture of the position. I think the best way of throwing light on the subject is to set out the facts in pursuance of which that statement was made in October last. The position is that at the commencement of the last Session of Parliament, at the beginning of last year, the usual annual meeting of the consultative committee, between the Union Government and the provincial administrations, was in progress. Hon. members know that it takes place annually at the beginning of the Session. This meeting was held in Cape Town at the beginning of 1944, and on that occasion the four provinces insisted on a special conference with the Prime Minister in order to discuss their position with him, i.e. the position of the provinces and the relationship between the Union Government and the provinces. That relationship was unanimously adopted and conveyed to me, and I immediately agreed to convene such a conference. The conference could not be held during the Parliamentary Session. Thereafter I was away for a long time and it could not be held until my return. The conference was then held in September last. There was more than one conference and more than one interview with the provinces. The first was with the Administrators, and thereafter with all the executive committees together with the Administrators. The point which was raised there by the Provincial Administration was that the Union Parliament and the Union Government had for years been making an inroad on the jurisdiction of the Provinces that laws were enacted and administrative steps taken which were making an inroad on the powers and privileges of the provinces as they were delimitated in the South Africa Act, and they wanted a clear statement of policy from me and the Government as to the position and they wanted to know whether we would adhere to the constitution as contained in the South Africa Act, or whether we were proposing something else. They wanted to have clarity in regard to the position as far as those relationships were concerned, and the question was then fully discussed. A whole series of accusations were levelled against the Government; a long printed document was submitted to us, and there was a discussion as to what the relationship ought to be and would be between the Union Government and the Union Parliament on the one hand and the provincial administrations on the other hand. Those were the points on which the conference deliberated. At the same time or at about that time the Government received the report of the National Health Services Commission. The report of this Commission was, of course, of the greatest importance in connection with the discussion of the whole matter. The report had not yet been published. We were engaged on the translation and the printing of it, so that it had not yet been printed. But the contents of the report were conveyed to the provincial administrations in the course of the discussions because it was of the utmost importance in connection with the whole matter which they raised and in regard to which they wanted a decision from us. I say that these two conferences took place and after full discussion of the whole question with the administrations, the Government came to certain decisions, and the statement which was published was a statement of policy, not so much in regard to the health policy of the Government but in connection with the whole question of our relations with the provincial administrations, with which not only the health question, which was raised by the report of the Health Services Commission, was concerned, but also other matters such as the question of roads, of housing, the question of education in general and native education, and a whole series of other matters. On all these points we arrived at a clear understanding, and a statement was then made to the provincial administrations. They requested that that statement should be made publicly so that the provinces could know where they stood and in what light the position was regarded by the Union Government. That was done. It is therefore pure coincidence, and unavoidable, that the statement which we made relating to the whole question of our relationship, was published before the report of the Health Services Commission was published. There was not the slightest intention of rejecting the report of the Health Services Commission in anticipation, but we were faced with this difficulty that we had to come to a decision on other bigger, more important and more farreaching questions, and the provinces insisted on publication. So it came about that my statement was published at that time before the publication of the Health Report took place. I now come back to thé discussions which took place. After full discussion with the provinces, the Government made that statement to the provinces, and it was embodied in my statement as published, namely that the Government did not have the slightest intention of departing from the constitution laid down in the South Africa Act. We are going to maintain it both with regard to the legislation of this country and the administration of this country. We adhere to the constitution of South Africa as laid down in the South Africa Act; but we pointed out that there were a large number of subjects where the activities of both the provinces and of Parliament and the Union Government were so closely interlinked that unless there was continual and whole-hearted co-operation it would be impossible to avoid clashes. It had to be assumed that while we were maintaining the constitution and not depriving the provinces of their rights and functions, we not only expected that there would be concessions and co-operation on our part, but we also expected concessions and co-operation on their part. We went further. I explained to the conference of the provinces that a change had come about in the whole situation during the past 30 years. In the Act of Union we delegated certain functions to the provinces, but the position in connection with the subjects had undergone a change. I mentioned the question of roads, for example. Under the constitution roads fall under the provinces, but in the course of time we found that it was no longer a provincial matter only. We found that this matter had its Union aspect, and for that reason we deemed it necessary in the course of time to call into being a system of national roads. Legislation was passed in this House and the necessary administrative machinery was called into being to carry out the Union interest. We did that without depriving the provinces of the administration of roads. We left everything with the provinces which normally fell under the provincial administrations, but we deemed it necessary to call into being a system of co-ordination, a system which also took into consideration the interests of the Union as a whole as far as roads were concerned. So we came to a decision, without changing the constitution and without making an inroad on the rights of the provinces. As hon. members know we spent a good deal of money as far as roads were concerned, and we co-ordinated the general policy in connection with roads. We started to adopt a similar policy as far as housing is concerned. I explained to the provinces that the precedent had been laid down in connection with national roads and housing—which is also a national matter—and that this precedent should also be followed in connection with national health. While we continued to respect the rights of the provinces and local authorities, we also appointed a Union body under the central Government which will protect the interests of the Union as a whole. I have already pointed out that the system with regard to national roads worked well and as the position altered, as matters which years ago seemed to be only provincial matters more and more assumed a Union aspect, we adapted ourselves to the altered circumstances. I proposed to the conference that we should follow the same principles as far as hospitals were concerned. The provinces would under no circumstances give up the administration of hospitals, a task which was entrusted to them under the constitution. My reply to that was: “Very well, if you insist on the letter of the law, we shall respect it, but we propose also to bear in mind the Union aspect of public health, and to see that an extension takes place as far as public health is concerned, and we shall have to protect the interests of the Union as a whole. You retain your hospital administration as formerly, but we shall make further provision and create a body which will co-ordinate the whole administration of hospitals with the general health interests of the Union. We followed the same procedure in connection with other matters such as housing and native education. I am digressing a little to explain the contents and the effect of the statement which was made by me at that time. I pointed out that as far as native education was concerned the provinces insisted that it was to remain with them as laid down in the constitution, but that we should also have a Union body which would see to it that the money which was voted by Parliament was divided on an equitable basis among the Provinces, and that a policy be followed which takes into account the Union interests. The statement which I made at that time dealt with this point, the fulfilment of these functions as far as the Provincial Administrations and the Union Government were concerned. As far as the Health Report is concerned we felt that while the Provinces insisted on the retention of hospitals, we regarded proper coordination as an ideal to be striven for, having regard to the general health interests of the Union. We want to carry out the recommendations contained in the report having due regard to the attitude of the Provinces, as long as they continue to maintain their standpoint. But it is quite possible that they will come to the conclusion in due course, without any quarrel and fighting between us, without any difficulty between the Union and the Provinces, that it may be in their interests to bring even the administrative control of hospitals under Union control. We only want to co-ordinate and regulate the health system as a whole, without depriving the Provinces of their functions with regard to hospitals. The matter was then decided on that basis, and I think the House will agree that it was by far the best solution that we agreed, without quarrelling with the Provinces, to leave the control of hospitals, of their provincial hospitals, in their charge, but that a general policy of health be followed; and I also think that as far as hospitals are concerned they will be co-ordinated more and more under the Government in the long run and conducted on Union lines. That is the difference. We did not reject the report, except that we could not overcome the difficulty with the Provinces, with which we were faced, and I think we can surmount this difficulty without making an inroad on the powers and specific rights of the Provinces as far as hospitals are concerned. I think we can act in this case as we did in the case of roads. As far as roads are concerned we left the administration to the Provinces but we built national roads. We shall then be able to carry out a Union policy more and more as far as hospitals are concerned, without necessarily bringing about a quarrel with the Provinces, Let me just add something to this. I listened to what was said here with regard to the struggle between these two standpoints, the health standpoint and the position of the Provinces. Let me say that I think we can avoid this struggle, and I think we are going to avoid the struggle along the lines of co-operation which the Government adopted. We think that on the lines of the policy which we suggested, the national aspect will come to the fore more and more. Let me say this. I look upon the provincial position much more seriously than many members who have taken part in the debate. I am of opinion that the best piece of work which has ever been done in South Africa was the work of the National Convention. That was the most important, statesmanlike piece of work which we have ever accomplished. The whole of South Africa was built up on that constitution, and the Provincial Councils constituted an integral part of the constitution; and we must be very careful not to do anything hasty which will prejudice and destroy the excellent work which was done at that time.

You departed from that in the Act of 1934.

Yes, that is a different matter. When I refer to the constitution, I do not regard the Act of 1934 as an integral part of the constitution, and quite possibly we went too far in passing that Act. But I say that we found a solution to govern a counrty which is as big and vast as South Africa, and we found a solution which is better than that found by any other country. The solution which we found for the constitutional matters in South Africa, aroused the admiration of the world, of all authorities who deal with constitutional matters. Let us adhere to that; let us cooperate and consult. We shall not be able to do better in our lifetime than we did 36 years ago, and I, at any rate, have not the slightest intention of departing from the constitution. I also told the conference that as far as I was concerned, I adhered to the constitution. I think that was the best piece of work which we have ever done in South Africa, and if any change has to come about, let it come about through co-operation, if the pressure of circumstances and a change in the public opinion make it necessary, but do not let us try to accomplish it by force. That is the course which we adopted in connection with the health question.

I hope you will adopt the same attitude when it comes to education.

That is of course another question again.

No, it is not another question. That is a matter which we also discussed, and it then appeared that great confusion and chaos would arise in South Africa if we departed from the constitution from the division of powers as laid down in the Act of Union, and if we started to make and break at will.

But you intervened in connection with bilingualism. There you did not follow this principle.

The same rule applies with regard to the question of public health and education and all the other fundamental things. We must adhere to it. We must continue to exert all our energies to improve conditions without meddling with the constitutional position; we must do so tty means of co-operation and consultation. It has been proposed that the Act of 1934 should now be repealed. What would be the result? During this Session we would have discussed public health, but at the same time we would have had fighting between the Union and the provinces in my opinion unnecessarily. There is a better way, the course of co-operation, and we want to adopt that course. I think the Hon. Leader of the Opposition went too far in thinking that we rejected the report of the Health Commission and that my rejection of it was published before the report came out. It was not rejected, but the publication took place under the circumstances I have explained, circumstances relating to an all-embracing and important matter.

You spoke of an ideal.

There must be co-ordination. Unity of control under the Union must remain the ideal, and it will remain an ideal until such time as the provinces agree to alter their policy and to hand over the matter to the Union. Even if it takes years, I think we can still take practical steps as we did in connection with national roads, by dealing with the Union aspect by means of co-operation and setting up machinery for co-operation, and to ensure the practical application of it without eliminating the provinces. In my opinion it worked smoothly in the case of roads.

These are hot parallel cases at all.

They are sufficiently parallel and we shall have similar situations more and more where expression will have to be given to the Union aspect, and we want to give expression to the Union aspect not by quarrelling amongst ourselves and by fighting or by tearing up the constitution, but by co-operation. We adopted that course. That is the first point. The second point is that of social security. There the accusation is that we made promises but that we do not carry them out.

That is what the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), your own member, says.

What is the reply to that?

You should reply to him.

Do not shift your responsibility on his shoulders. The other side of the House levelled this accusation against us, an accusation which is devoid of all substance. I feel sensitive on this point, because I think no Government can render a country a greater disservice and cause more harm to the public interest, than to make promises. [Laughter.] Yes, that is why I am sensitive about that accusation. What is the reply to it?

You should deal with that in the caucus.

The reply to it is 1919-1924.

The question of social security was brought before Parliament by the Government during the previous Session, and this Government will again bring it before Parliament in the form of Bills which are now being submitted. Within 12 months, where promises have been made the Government will carry out those promises and submit a policy to the country. These promises have been kept. I should like to know in what other country it was done in connection with this thorny and difficult question of social security. I remember that I was in England two or three years ago when the Beveridge Report was published, which was, of course of the utmost importance, there was a great deal of public interest. This matter has been discussed in England from all sides during the past two years. As far as I know the Beveridge Report has not yet been carried out; effect has not been given to it by legislation on the part of the British Parliament. It is still under discussion. I mention that as an example to show that our action in connection with this matter compares favourably, compares brilliantly with the action taken in other countries.

The Minister said he would build 30,000 houses, that he would build 30,000 houses within a year.

I am discussing social security.

But surely housing is a part of it.

Let us take each point in turn. The House knows what happened. After the last election during which this matter was an important plank between the parties, the Government immediately appointed a Social Security Committee to investigate the matter. That Committee did very good and thorough work and submitted a report, and that report was sent by the Government to the Planning Council, where it should have been sent. That is part of the work of the Planning Council. The Planning Council then reported on it and specifically pointed out the financial aspect of the scheme. Parliament then met in Session, and last year we sent both reports, the original report of the Social Security Committee and the report on it by the Planning Council, to a Select Committee of this House. The Select Committee of this House took evidence and considered the reports which were before them, and towards the end of the Session they had not yet completed their deliberations, and they reported and recommended that the Government should examine this matter further and put it in order during the recess so that plans could be submitted to Parliament during the present Session in regard to social security. After the previous Session of Parliament the Government carried out that recommendation We appointed an inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development. That Committee reported to the Government. The Government then considered all the reports and formulated a policy, and that policy will be laid before the House in the very near future. The Bills giving effect to this policy will be laid before the House during the present Session, and I hope they will still go through the House during this sitting. I should like to know in what way promises were broken, as we are being accused of? Where is the delay? We acted expeditiously—perhaps over-expeditiously in the opinion of some people.

How expeditiously?

Within the space of a year.

You talked and did nothing.

We did everything we could. All that now remains is for this House, for Parliament, to do its duty. I think our hands are clean, and instead of blame we deserve praise for the speed with which we tackled this matter, so that it is now ripe to be dealt with by the House in the present Session. I have spoken of social security in the sense in which the committees which reported understood it, and as dealt with by the Select Committee. But of course it is social security in the narrower sense. There is a broader conception of social security which was not dealt with by the committees, which is something which still lies ahead. It is quite clear to me, and I think it will be clear to all hon. members, that we will never have proper social security in this country, or in any other country unless we draw up a programme of employment for the people on a fairly full basis. The reports of these committees deal with the assistance which will be given by the Government to certain classes of persons—old-age pensions to elderly people, allowance to children and widows, allowances to unemployed people. We are granting concessions, personal concessions to certain classes of persons. But that, although it is necessary, is not sufficient. We shall have to go very much further and if we really want to ensure social security in this country, we shall have to carry out a policy which provides for maximum employment at proper wages to a large section of the people, to those who want to work. That is our greatest task. We hope to dispose of the smaller task during this Session. Then the bigger task will still lie ahead. In order to accomplish that greater task, it will be necessary not only to exert all the energy of the Government and of Parliament, but it will require the energy of the people as a whole. I now proceed to deal with the third point. With regard to our action in connection with social security, there is as little ground for the charge which was made here, as there is for the charge in regard to our action in connection with the report of the Health Commission. I now come to a difficult point and that is the food policy of the Government. There is no doubt that here we are on difficult ground. There is no doubt that here we enter difficult terrain, a sphere which is altogether new in South Africa. The people, the Government, the Legislature, is faced with a new set of problems with which we have not been faced before, and it is difficult to find a solution. There are difficulties, and they are fairly big; and there is dissatisfaction in the country. That is undoubtedly so. In this debate, in the speeches which were made here, accusations were levelled against the Government. I want to deal with two of those accusations. One accusation is that we exported too much meat during the war, that we kept our eyes fixed on the war oversea, on the battle-fronts, and that we neglected the internal interests. It is said that we allowed too much food to be exported, and that that is one of the reasons why we are faced with the present food difficulty. [Time extended]. This matter has already been dealt with partially by the Minister of Agriculture, but I think it is right that I as Prime Minister, on whom a great responsibility rests, should also voice my views in the matter. The first accusation is that we exported too much, and the second accusation is tantamount to an attack on our meat control. I want to deal with both points briefly. As far as the export is con cerned, the accusation that we exported too much, my reply is clearly this: During the first year of the war we followed the policy which was adopted by this country before the war. We are a country of primary production and our whole policy was based on export and on the promotion of agricultural interests in our country, and it was our aim to promote the interests of the farming community by finding overseas markets. That was our policy. Everyone knows what the position was. Everyone knows of the measures which we had to take to export mealies, to export meat. That was the policy of the Government before the war, and that policy was carried out during the first year or two of the war. We carried on on the old basis. I do not think any blame rests on the Government in that respect. On the contrary, I want to know what would have happened if the Government had said to our farmers after the outbreak of the war: “The export is now being stopped; we do not know what is going to happen after the war; we do not know what the future is going to bring forth and we are going to discontinue exports.” In those days there was a great demand for our products overseas, an astounding demand. The prices were good. Everything was plentiful in this country and we could export and still meet our own requirements. It stands to reason that in those circumstances no Government in its right senses would have followed a policy of discontinuing exports. That policy was carried out by us. We protected the interests of our farmers, and I think they had every reason to be grateful that we did not take the foolish step of saying that we were going to close the doors because there was uncertainty as to the future position.

What about the third and fourth years when the scarcity of goods had started?

I am coming to that if the hon. member will only follow me. I shall set out the whole position. There was a big demand overseas: There were not only markets overseas, but we were in a very weak position, a position which was very vulnerable because we were dependent on foreign governments, on our allies, for everything we required in this country. We were dependent on the shipping which was given to us by our allies. If we had adopted a selfish attitude in South Africa we would have harmed and injured the interests of South Africa most seriously. When we talk about export, we must also bear in mind not only the question of shipping for the importation of our requirements, but we must remember that the greater part of our export trade was to other parts of Southern Africa. Hon. members know what the position was. Those states were cut off from England. They could get nothing from Europe. Our stronger Allies, England and America, told us: “You in South Africa ought to help those people; they are your neighbours and if you assist those people you will release shipping which otherwise we would have had to use to send goods to them. That shipping will now come to you, and you will help the African territories.” The export trade of which we have heard so much, went to the African colonies, and in that way we built up markets for the future which will be of very great value to this country. I think one of the most salutary changes brought about in this war, is the fact that the states of Southern Africa have been drawn together, and that the people have learned that we are amicably disposed towards them, that we are offering a helping hand. We had products which they could use; and in that way we built up trade relations, friendly relations with Southern Africa, which will be of immense value to us in the future. It is not a one-sided question, however. It was not only a question of assistance from our side; on the contrary, they also assisted. They had many things which we required. For example, take our rubber factories in South Africa, which are now operating on a greater scale than ever before in our history. Where do the raw materials come from? To, a certain extent we are still able to supply the needs of our people, as far as tyres are concerned. Where do we get that rubber from? We get it from the neighbouring states: so it was a question of give and take, and although goods were exported, they were exported in such a way that we assisted our friends, and we are going to reap the fruits of that policy.

You admit therefore that the export is responsible for the present shortage?

To a certain extent but not to any extent which we ought to take up seriously.

How big is the export trade?

We must not take it up too seriously, because the present advantages to us and the future advantages are such that that was a price which we could afford to pay, and we did the right thing in paying that price during the war.

What percentage of the export went to these territories? That is of importance.

The Minister does not want to give us the figures.

Let me give the figures, then hon. members will see that there is a big exaggeration. There is a tendency to exaggerate the quantities which were exported.

It seems that these figures were very confidential.

I have been asking for these figures for the past three weeks or month, and the Minister would not give them.

I shall put the figures before the House. The greatest portion of the export trade for civilian consumption went to the colonies, on the west coast and the east coast, things which they did not have, such as butter, cheese, tinned vegetables, wine, brandy, condensed milk, eggs. These are all products which they imported from Europe previously, and which we are now exporting to them. I explained how necessary it was for us to do this, not only in order to help them, but to avail ourselves of the opportunity to build up markets now which can be of great value to us in the future; and by doing this we also stood a chance, with the goodwill of America, to get shipping facilities to supply our own needs. Of course, we had to export a certain quantity of food as far as our own troops were concerned. Hon. members will realise that we had many troops up North, and it was only fair to expect South Africa not only to send men but to see to it that they were provided with the necessary foodstuffs. Then there is the question of shipping stores and military supplies to convoys. We held ourselves responsible for that, and we supplied the convoys to a large extent, but there again it was impossible for us to avoid it. If we had not provided the convoys they would have had to get their food from other countries; the shipping space which we used, would have been used for that purpose and we would have suffered in consequence.

That is pistol politics.

It is a question of give and take. During this war our powerful Allies have said to us: “If you do not want to contribute it we cannot do anything for you either”, and we would have found ourselves in an impossible position. In addition to the question of exports and imports there is the question of the increased consumption in South Africa. I think figures have been submitted to the House in this connection, but let me quote briefly how our own consumption has increased. Money is plentiful in the country. That is one of the products of the war.

Foreigners are plentiful in the country.

But surely greater consumption does not cause decreased production.

No, the production also increased. The hon. member need not laugh too soon. The consumption in this country increased surprisingly; that is due to the higher standard of living. There was more money and the people could buy more and the consumption increased tremendously. Take mealies; before the war our annual consumption of mealies was approximately 17,000,000 bags. Today it is 21,000,000. Take sugar. Our annual consumption of sugar before the war was 280,000 tons. Today it is more than 480,000 tons; it has nearly doubled. Take butter. The consumption of creamery butter before the war was 35,000,000 lbs. Today it is 50,000,000 lbs.

How much of that remained in this country?

What about farm butter?

That is consumed here.

By whom?

The hon. member does not want to believe it. I am giving the figures in connection with the consumption in this country. The consumption is much greater today. People who formerly did not use butter daily are doing so now.

As a result of your control system the manufacture of farm butter has shrunk tremendously.

How much of that butter was consumed by foreigners and R.A.F. personnel?

The hon. member asked for the export figures, and I am giving them to him, as well as the consumption figures, so that we can have a picture of the whole situation. Our export had a great deal to do with our surplus. We had a large surplus of commodities which we ourselves did not consume in this country on a large scale. Take the question of our fruit. Even before the war we had an export market in respect of raisins, fresh fruit and tinned vegetables but during the war it has been increased. In 1944 10,000 tons of summer fruit jam was exported. That is not what the people consume in South Africa; it is surplus

5,000 tons of that is sugar.

Last year we exported marmalade from South Africa—citrus fruit which could not be exported and which could be converted into marmalade. It was 15,000 tons. That is how we kept our fruit farmers on their feet to a large extent.

No, let us rather leave the fruit farmers out of it.

The impression is created that a very great portion of our production was exported. That cannot be proved. Take mealies. The Union’s monthly consumption of mealies on farms and in the trade amounts to 1,600,000 bags. That is our monthly consumption of mealies in South Africa. During 1943 51,000 bags and during 1944 46,000 bags of mealies and mealie products were released for essential consumption outside the Union and South West Africa. That quantity is less than one day’s normal consumption in South Africa. That was exported to the states in the north. The states in the north have not got these products, of course, and they have to get it somewhere and they got is from us. As I have said, the export of mealies per annum is less than one day’s consumption. The same applies with regard to potatoes. During 1943 the Union had a large potato crop of something like 3,000,000 bags, and 350,000 bags were sold for consumption outside the Union. A portion went to Kenya where there was practically starvation. With the poor crop of 1944, the export was reduced to 120,000 bags. When we bear in mind the fact that the monthly consumption of potatoes in this country is a quarter of a million bags, the quantity which we export during the whole year represents a fortnight’s consumption. Take butter. I think these figures are of importance. The impression is created that we export on a tremendous scale and that the shortage was caused by that. Let us examine the figures.

Those figures do not give the complete picture.

I am giving the complete picture; for that reason I am giving all the figures. In 1939, the year before the war, our production of butter was 60,000,000 lbs.

Is that only creamery butter?

No, it is creamery as well as farm butter. Of that we exported 13,000,000 lbs. in 1939. That was the year before the war. In 1943, during the war our production was 66,000,000 lbs. Of that we exported 5,000,000 lbs. In other words the year before the war when the production was 60,000,000, we exported 13,000,000 lbs. and in 1943 when the production was 66,000,000 we only exported 5,000,000 lbs.

When you speak of export does that include the convoys?

No, these are the export figures.

Of course, it is not included.

But surely that is also export, because it goes on the ships.

The total production of butter last year was 64,000,000 lbs. Of that we exported 2½ million lbs. Hon. members will see therefore that the export dropped considerably. The year before the war we exported 13,000,000 lbs. and last year it was only 2,500,000 lbs. When one listens to hon. members on the other side, one would say everything was exported.

But you are leaving out the convoys.

It is only a small portion of the year’s consumption.

Two million people arrived in this country with convoys.

Let us take the cheese figures. Before the war the production was 11,000,000 lbs. with an export of 2,000,000 lbs. The production in this country is greater today, and notwithstanding that the export has dropped to 200,000 lbs. In 1941, it was only 1,000,000 lbs. and last year it was below 200,000 lbs. These figures prove that instead of exporting on a large scale, the export was reduced in every respect during the war.

But you say there is a bigger consumption.

The same applies in the case of eggs.

But where is the food then?

That makes the maladministration worse.

When I look at the hon. member on the other side, I can see where the food has gone. This country is flourshing. The people are better fed, and the standard of living has risen in every respect.

What about the mal-nutrition of children? Sixty per cent. of the schoolgoing children are undernourished, according to your own commission.

That is the old song.

But with a new tune.

The living conditions of the people on the whole, of all classes and colours, improved a great deal during the war. The standard of living has improved and the figures which I am giving here support that. That is the only explanation. Since our production has increased and our exports have decreased, there can only be one explanation, and that is that there is a greater consumption. Take the export of meat. In 1928 our export of meat was equivalent to 10,200 carcases. In 1939 it was 20,000 carcases. In 1943—this is the only increase in the figures which I have come across—in 1943 it went up to 40,000 carcases, and up to 1943 there was no question of a shortage of meat. The market was flooded with cattle; the prices were good; the prices were almost too good; there was a constant flow of animals to the markets, and there was not the slightest shortage. The farmers wanted to make money; they wanted to sell; and with these good prices we had a larger export.

And then Strauss came on the scene.

In 1944 a change came about. I am not going into the causes which led to the change; I am merely giving the figures. In 1944, i.e. last year, the export dropped to 12,000, and from this figure of 12,000, we must deduct 5,500,000 carcases which we imported from Rhodesia.

What carcases where these 5,500,000?

I am speaking of tons not carcases.

That is still worse.

It cannot be 5,500,000.

In 1943 we exported 12,000 carcases. As against that we imported 5,500 carcases from Rhodesia. Therefore the nett exports of meat in 1944 amounted to 6,500 carcases.

Now Rhodesia has no more cattle and we have eaten it all.

These are the facts; these are the figures.

That cannot be correct.

After the shortage became apparent here, after we saw that we would have trouble about the meat question, all exportation was stopped. The little that was exported was in connection with contracts which still had to be fulfilled.

Can you tell us how much tinned meat was exported?

I cannot say how much tinned meat was exported but I know it was stopped. The hon. member is probably referring to meat and vegetables, the M. & V. The exportation of that was stopped completely.

That is an important factor and yet you do not mention it in the export figures.

I do not want to weary the House further with all these figures.

May we know how much was exported to our armed forces and how much to the other military forces?

The quartermaster in the North provides for everybody. We put the food we export in a pool; it goes to a pool.

The nation would like to know how much went to other troops.

We did not act on that basis. What we can give we put in the pool and it has been included in the figures I quoted.

Did you export to England? Has anything been exported to England?

No, I do not think we export to England. Everything we exported went to the states in the North, to the troops and to convoys.

And was anything exported to India?

I cannot say with certainty. But I know our meat export was chiefly to the states in the North and to our military forces in the North where we were obliged to lend a helping hand. The figures I have given make it clear that our exports of foodstuffs decreased during the war in comparison with the pre-war figures. There was not an unusual increase in exports, and what we sent was sent mostly to the states in the North, and the trouble we landed in is mostly due to the increased consumption in South Africa itself. Consumption in South Africa increased to a surprising degree.

Then whence the dissatisfaction in the country?

Can you give us the convoy figures?

No, I have not those figures before me. Now I want to say a few words about the meat control. The meat control is naturally very unpopular.

What a confession!

Yes, but it is so.

Strauss did not say so. He said it is a wonderful scheme; even George finds it popular, according to him.

It is an unpopular step, and one not lightly taken by the Government. We know that the people of South Africa do not want control, and meat control least of all, and therefore the Government delayed with the matter, perhaps too long, but we know it is an unpopular matter; you will confuse the people and bring down more trouble on your head. But later it was a matter of necessity. The Government appointed a Commission—it was a very able Commission—the McDonald Commission, and the Commission brought out a report. It was fully representative of all classes and sections of our population, and the Commission said there is no other way out; however unpopular and however difficult it may be to execute, we would have to do it.

And then the queues started.

One cannot say that the Government acted hastily. The Government acted after proper investigation and on advice which it could accept.

The investigation was so proper that your Caucus did not even know about it.

The hon. member does not know what happens in our Caucus.

Just ask hon. members on the other side.

The hon. member must not give himself a headache about things he knows nothing about. Another fact is the following, that not only was the matter properly investigated, but in principle our farmers, our producers, accept meat control. There is trouble about grading and suchlike matters, but it is a remarkable step forward that the farming population, the producing population, accept the system of control, and in my humble opinion that may be the solution of the matter. The system which is now being hammered out may be the solution, in great measure, of our agricultural problem and the problem of agricultural production in years to come. We know what difficulties there were about the agricultural problem. One year prices soared to high heaven, and the following year they were down below, so that the farmer never knew where he was. What will now happen as a result of the system of control which is being put into being, in pangs of childbirth, so to say, is that you will get price stability in the future, and it will save agriculture from a dilemma which otherwise would have proved fatal.

We will welcome that ourselves.

I know that; therefore I say that the farmers in general will welcome it.

Yes, if you will stabilise it economically.

Yes, as far as we can. It is a question of our wisdom and brain.

That is the complaint against this scheme.

The complaint is not so much from the side of the farmers. The farmers perhaps complain about the grading.

And the price.

About the grading. The prices are good. Do not let us be unreasonable now. If a farmer tells me that the prices received by farmers in general today are not good prices I do not accept it; I do not believe him. I represent a farming constituency. It is one of the most excellent farming constituencies in the country and I know what happens there. The farmers tell me that they are satisfied with the prices. There are complaints about grading and suchlike things which can be solved, but the complaints are not about prices or about control. Our difficulty in connection with the system of control lies in the great centra. On the platteland and in the smaller places we have no trouble. It is in the great distribution centres that we have difficulty. And I hope we will manage to solve those difficulties. We must of course expect difficulties because we are on new territory, for which South Africa was not prepared. We had a tremendous amount of difficulty in connection with the administration and putting into effect of our scheme. We have not the necessary personnel, and when we get personnel they are untrained. Our difficulties are great but we will proceed. I think a System of rationing will still be brought into effect which will make it possible to control the matter better. That is something which is now being investigated as the Minister concerned has already announced.

But he has said that it is impossible.

It is impossible on the scale in which it is done in some other countries, as for example in England. For a general system of rationing, we need a national registration of the whole population. Such a registration existed in England before the war. Each man, woman and child is registered, and when it comes to rationing the system can immediately be applied. In South Africa nothing like that existed for Europeans, nor for Non-Europeans. If we want to bring about a general system of rationing we shall need such a registration, and it will take a year or two to plan it and to apply it. The matter is further being investigated as to whether a large measure of rationing can be effected by means of registration of clientele with retail traders. We have difficulty in the large cities but do not let us lose our perspective. In spite of all the little difficulties and the opposition and discomfort, our country has a better food supply than probably any other country in the world today. When I was in London I had the opportunity to convince myself about what the position is in England. The other day I received a letter from a friend in America and if I should read it here the House would be surprised to know what conditions in America are. We have little to complain about here. But We know that we like complaining. Our people are not happy if they cannot complain. I do not wish to say that all the complaints are unfounded. I know that some things are wrong. Our schemes do not work quite satisfactorily in the great cities, but we do our best, and we hope it will be possible to pass measures in the near future which will be more satisfactory. As regards the low income groups we are providing for them. A few days ago the Minister of Welfare quoted figures regarding certain places in the great centra where special provision is being made for the low income groups. We do our best in present-day circumstances. I now return to the other matter raised by the hon. member, namely that we are unprepared for post-war circumstances. That is an accusation we heard not only from him, but also from other parts of the House—the Government is so busy with the war and grants attention to the war so exclusively that internal questions are neglected! I deny that completely. I am sure that the Government, and I in particular, if that is possible, give more attention to internal questions, to conditions in South Africa than to the fighting outside. There is no neglect of the interests of South Africa. We do our best. Take the question already mentioned here, the success we will probably make of demobilisation and the treatment of the returned soldiers. That is one of the greatest problems of the country. It is certainly the greatest problem facing us now and which will face us for a while after the war. That question is being solved. The policy has been approved of and explained to the country during the previous Session. It is accepted by the army and the organisations created for it, and the large organisation which provided for recruitment is now working for the returned soldiers to see that they receive good treatment. There does not appear to be any neglect in that direction. South Africa has probably progressed further as regards arrangements for returned soldiers than any other country. But let us go further. Take the question of providing employment and of development. The hon. member accuses us of not devoting attention to that. Our internal effort, our industrial effort, during this war probably surpasses our war effort outside. The industrial effort of South Africa and the progress it made with the institution of war industries and subsidiary war industries was done on a scale nobody ever expected from South Africa.

Dr. Van der Bijl says that the war effort retraded the natural industrial development.

It is self-evident that certain things had to be retarded. We had to press forward with all the industries which fitted in with and worked together with the war effort. But many of those industries no longer make bombs or guns. They also manufacture clothing, shoes and such things. New factories have been erected and other factories were extended, and as I said, that development probably surpasses the excellent war effort we made outside. We must not think that all of this was done just for the war in the sense that it will all stop when the war ceases. There are certain aspects of the development which will not stop with the war. We will make no more bombs and guns, but there are branches of the engineering industry which will remain in existence. Many of the branches of providing employment which have been brought into existence did not apply just to the war but will remain in existence after the war, and we will continue to provide for the internal requirements of South Africa on a basis we could not imagine before. We have now laid the foundations and in future we will be able to produce much of the requirements of the country, Which will be surprisingly great. We will import much less. We have discovered that a thousand and one things which we have always imported into South Africa can be made just as well and as cheaply here, and the foundations of that have been laid.

But will you not act again as you did in 1919?

Let the hon. member be reasonable. In that year we had practically nothing in the country.

But in 1919 you did nothing for the development of industries, and will that not happen again?

You even opposed the formation of Iscor.

As far as the Government is concerned we have now laid the foundations and we will continue to build on them. The hon. member has already seen the announcement that we are going to erect a wool factory, which will be something on a very large scale. A cotton factory will also be erected, and in all sorts of ways there will be expansion. But the greatest expansion during the first years after the war will be in the engineering industry, the foundations of which have been laid in this war, and we can apply that industry, which has already developed, in all respects with the requirements of the country and to things which up to now have been imported. But it is a mistake to bring the country under the impression that they should just look to the Government and expect that the Government alone must create the new Heaven and the new earth. The whole population must co-operate with that object. Our industrial population, our factory owners and all the employers of labour must co-operate, keeping that aim in view. We have given them the best prospects of help. We will protect what is commenced here. If things can be produced here and an industry is erected which needs protection and is worthy of protection, that industry will receive it. We will do everything in our power to help that development. One of the members on the opposite side spoke about the financial system which causes difficulty in industrial development. That is true to a large extent. But the money was necessary for the war, and one of the things which must happen when the war is over, is that a great change will have to come about in our system of taxation. There can be no doubt about it that what was necessary and essential in time of war can be a hindrance in the years after the war. We shall have to remove some of the taxes and change others. If we want to see industrial development taking place on a larger scale in the country we shall have to change the system of taxation. The large number of people for whom work must be provided has been mentioned. I do not share that view. My view is that, if we make use of the opportunities which lie before us our country will be faced not with a surplus of labour but with a shortage of labour. Already there are complaints about that.

Do not play the prophet.

No, I mention the facts. The facts are that the great housing schemes experience great difficulty in obtaining the necessary labour. We cannot obtain sufficient labour. According to my information we shall have to train thousands and thousands of people for it, people who are today in the army.

But you do not make a start with it.

We are making a start.

Where?

The hon. member will still hear a lot about it. We are faced with this position in the country, in the mines and in agriculture and in the industries, that the people all tell us that the demand for labour is now great and will increase when the supply of labour is released. There can be no doubt that we need many people and will need many. No, there will not be a shortage of employment. It should not be there.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

There are just a few words I wish to say in conclusion, and I must apologise to the House for the length of my speech. I do not wish to detain you much longer, but I want to conclude with a warning. I spoke about the future with a certain amount of optimism. I myself do not feel pessimistic about the immediate future of South Africa. I think there are surprising opportunities for development and I hope that both the Government and the nation will make use of the available opportunities which are unparallelled in history. But there are considerations we must keep in mind when we speak of the future, the important developments which will take place in the world, on which we are dependent in such large measure. Our history shows that economically, at any rate, our fate is coupled with that of the old world. Our markets are there, and much of our future in this country, much of our recovery, will depend on the recovery of the old world which now to a large extent lies in ruins. That is the question mark. The old world to a large extent supplied our market, and it depends to a certain extent on the recovery of Europe as to what our future will be. It depends on what the peace will be, not the documents written out here, but the measure of recovery and the speed of recovery of the countries which are now exhausted and afflicted and which are being threatened by revolution. The fate of South Africa depends to a large extent on the recovery of Europe. There we shall have to do our bit in one way or the other and extend a helping hand. As we have done in time of war we shall have to do in time of peace. It will also assist us. We do not wish to be selfish in extending this help, but by extending a helping hand we will also help ourselves and assure our own future. The other warning I wish to issue is one I wish to direct to my friends on the other side. Here we have a motion of no confidence in the Government, and a motion of no confidence coming from the Leader of the Opposition means something. It is more than a gesture. It means that there are aspirations, expectations of change.

Hear, hear!

I admit that there are grievances, that there is unrest in the country, and a measure of dissatisfaction, and it is human on the part of our friends on the other side to try to make a little capital out of it. They do not succeed in that very well but it is only human that they should do their best to make a little capital out of it, because they need it. Matters have turned out very differently from what they expected. Let me issue a word of warning. The people of South Africa will not easily forget what has happened, the directions that were given, the course that was taken. It will take time for the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his friends to regain the confidence of South Africa, if they ever do so.

After the last war you said the same, precisely the same thing.

We know what happened. I do not wish to conclude on a note of party politics, but only wish to issue a word of warning. What strikes me is this. There is confession of guilt. There will be forgiveness when there is confession of guilt. But they confessed nothing.

Hear, hear!

The course adopted was quite wrong. Hitler was the friend. They hoped for a German victory.

And you were afraid of a Russian victory.

There is no confession of guilt, no change; they remain on the old road. South Africa will not forgive them. We have been thwarted all the years we struggled for the future of South Africa.

For the future of England.

The old course is still proceeded with. There is no confession of guilt. If in those circumstances they think there will be a change of Government they are making a big mistake. It is easy to make points in a debate, but South Africa will not lightly forget it. South Africa will not forget how in this period of test, this period in which South Africa was tested in body and soul, the leadership was wrong and that it remained wrong. The nation will not forget it. I therefore propose the following amendment—

I second.

The Prime Minister has this afternoon and this morning assumed various rôles. The last rôle in which he appeared suits him the least, it is the rôle of jester. After the debate of the past few days in this House it can only be regarded as a joke when the Prime Minister stands up here and moves an amendment of full confidence in the Government. He has shown himself in various rôles. He has shown himself here in the rôle of juggler. I have seen various jugglers of different nationalities, Indians, Greeks and English; I have seen good and bad; but never have I seen such a hopeless juggler as we have seen today in the person of the Prime Minister The Prime Minister has endeavoured to juggle with figures. Allow me to say that although the Prime Minister stands high in prestige in the world in philosophical circles, it has never been his strong point to handle economic matters and especially figures. Let me say, in passing, that the figures that the Prime Minister handled here today might have been of some value to this House if we had had them from the Minister of Agriculture earlier in the debate, because then we would have been in a position to have analysed these figures properly, and to indicate their value, or lack of value, during this debate. Questions were placed on the Order Paper asking the Minister of Agriculture to furnish this information, but on each occasion he has come to us with the weak excuse that the information was not available. But now we find that the Prime Minister, like the juggler with his rabbits, shakes these figures out of his hat. Where did he get them, and how has he handled those figures? I want to give the House a few examples to indicate what little value one can attach to the figures with which the Prime Minister has juggled, and how little value he himself attaches to these figures. Figures have simply no significance for him. When he was discussing the imports from Rhodesia he wanted to show that it was of the greatest possible importance that we had imported meat from Rhodesia, and he added that we imported 5½ million carcases from Rhodesia. I then asked him what sort of carcases, and he said cattle. That gives one an idea of how little value figures have for him. That was his answer, and when we on this side of the House laughed at him, the other side cheered him. The Prime Minister then realised that there must be something wrong, and he said it was not 5½ million carcases but 5½ million tons. Again the other side cheered him, and because we on this side merely laughed, the Prime Minister realised that there was something wrong, and he then came to light with the truth—it was 5½ million pounds. It was a case of coming down to earth from 5½ million tons to 5½ million pounds. I also want to give another instance of how little value one can attach to the Prime Minister’s figures. He tried to juggle with the limited exports. He gave information here which clashed with the figures which we got from the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture explained to us how much had been exported, and the Prime Minister again sought to give the impression that we had not exported a disproportionate quantity. The Prime Minister gave his figures for export, and I then asked him whether it included the food that had been given to the powerful convoys that year after year had taken past our shores thousands and perhaps a few million soldiers. His answer was that that food was not included. But it was precisely that which formed the greatest part of the export in those exceptional years. What value can one attach to figures when they are handled by someone who handles them as the Prime Minister did today? I want to go further with the juggling of the Prime Minister. In all seriousness he tried to make out a case that there was no food shortage in South Africa. He stated that our people had no cause for complaint; this is a land flowing with milk and honey. He tried to show by figures that the production of foodstuffs in South Africa had increased tremendously. Bear in mind that according to the figures that he gave here the production of foodstuffs in South Africa increased tremendously, and on the other hand he quoted figures to show that the export had decreased. Then I ask: In heaven’s name, if that is the case why have I to go round every day from one shop to the other to buy a little butter or my children and be unable to get it? Why are the butcher shops closed for five days out of the six because they cannot get any meat? Remember, the production has increased, and the export has decreased; where then is the food? Let the juggler now produce that from his sleeve. The complaint was made that the people of South Africa are starving while food is being exported on a big scale. What is the defence that we had from the Minister of Agriculture? He said: Yes, it is true that we export big quantities of food, but we do that for the benefit of the war effort. I have before me the written exposition and statement that the Minister of Agriculture gave to his supporters in Pretoria. The members of Parliament and provincial councillors of the party opposite had assembled, and the Minister of Agriculture gave them the reasons for the food shortage. The big reason that he advanced was the great quantities of food that was exported for the powers waging war. He did not say that it was only for the Union forces. It was for all the forces. He also gave figures for the first few years of the war, namely, to 1943, which showed that 700,000,000 lbs. of meat and foodstuffs were exported. During the year 1944 the Minister of Agriculture expected that we would produce 219,000,000 lbs. of canned foodstuffs in the Union, and that 85 per cent. of that would be exported for the belligerents. That exposition that he gave out was for his own people and the point was emphasised that this was the great service that they gave to the belligerents, and that consequently they were unable to provide the requirements of our own country fully. The Prime Minister has now apparently realised that the general public do not feel enthusiastic about this export of food when their own children are crying for food at night on their mother’s knee. Their defence is now that it is not true what the Minister of Agriculture stated. He said it was only a small amount that was exported. I say again that the people want to know from him: If there has been an increase in the production of food, and if the export has decreased, where is the food? Then he ought to bring it to light. The people are suffering hunger. It is particularly the poor people who are starving. I should like to have begun my speech with these words from the Bible—

That is the complaint that we have against the Government. South Africa’s mothers, its women and its children are asking for meat and they are given a stone, a snake and a scorpion.

Man cannot live by bread alone.

My hon. friend opposite says that man cannot live by bread alone. He is no longer alive, and he does not need to worry about that any more. What is the position in the country at present as regards food? It is a position such as we have never had previously in South Africa. I myself have seen in Pretoria poor women standing in long queues before the butcher shops, and they stand there not only during the day but they stand there right through the night to obtain a piece of meat for their starving children. I have seen the queues here in Cape Town. In Pretoria I have seen processions of hundreds and thousands of women who wanted to go to the Minister of Agriculture to obtain meat for their children. Here in Cape Town we have poor people and poor coloured people, standing in the butcher shops to get a little bit of meat, and they cannot get it. But the Prime Minister tells these people that they are wrong and that there is no scarcity of food. What I have stated here is the result of my own observation, and I say that the health of our people and especially of our children, is at the moment being undermined by the dearth of food. There is undernourishment, and in consequence of that undernourishment children are dying in our country. As the Government and especially the Prime Minister are the cause of this condition that exists in the country, they must bear the blame for the undermining of the health of these children who are today straving as the result of undernourishment. I turn now to a place like Durban. In this House we are frequently pulled up for agitating the people.

That is not true. Let me read to the Prime Minister a telegram that was sent him by one of his supporters. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) sits here as an independent, but he is of course a supporter of the Government. I want to read this press notice about the telegram that he sent to the Prime Minister—

These are not things that emanate from us but from English-speaking citizens in Durban. I go further and in the “Cape Times” I find this report. Remember, it is being stated that we are inciting the people. When women come and demonstrate in front of Parliament it is stated that they are Communists. Then members on the opposite benches forget that the Communists are their allies. While these women were standing outside Parliament, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), who is a supporter of the Government, addressed them, but we are told that they are our allies. They forget that the Minister of Justice is a member of the Friends of the Soviet Union. It is simply stated that these people are Communists, because they came to ask for food. Have the Communists then to starve to death? What will their friend Joseph Stalin say about that? I take the following report in the “Cape Times” of the 26th June 1944—

Stronger condemnation of the incapacity of the Minister of Agriculture, and of the Government’s conduct, cannot be found than this of its own supporters. Will the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) also say now that these people are Communists, and that they are our Communist allies? Let us openly admit that the position in South Africa is rottener than it has ever been in our history. There has never been such a state of affairs in South Africa when we have had such a shortage of food that people were standing in queues at butcher shops, and other shops, and are unable to get a little food for their children. That is the position we have arrived at under this Government, and this is a Government under a man who imagines that the people will allow him to remain in power for many years. He has stood up here and predicted that we would never assume power. Remember that the Prime Minister professed the same thing in 1918-’19; does he remember what happened then, and how Pretoria (West) dealth with him? Unlike him, I do not want to make a false prophecy this afternoon, but I want to give him the assurance that just as Pretoria (West) put paid to his account in 1924, so will Standerton have a reckoning with him at an early date. This is the way in which the Prime Minister has reacted to the misery and starvation that the poor people in our country have to endure. What was the reaction of the Minister of Agriculture himself? His wife gave the world the assurance that if the other women were yearning for a piece of meat because their children cried on account of hunger, Mr. Strauss had not lost a sleepless night over that. While the other women were begging for a little piece of meat, his wife boasted that he had never had a sleepless night on that account. What was her further reaction, as we read it in the “Rand Daily Mail”—that her only worry and anxiety was that she could not get any meat for her cat and her dog. During this period of meat shortage she is worried about her cat and her dog, but not over the poor people who beg for food, and also the children who are in misery and who are dying as the result of undernourishment. I say this. After we have seen the way in which the Minister of Agriculture has acted, and after we have observed what he has done in the country, we can only say that if the Prime Minister has ever made a mistake in his life he made a mistake when he appointed that man as Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) agrees with me. He has stated here that we should give the Minister of Agriculture a chance, because we must remember that he is inexperienced and also that his department is inexperienced, and consequently we should not indict him here. Has the Prime Minister any right to appoint an inexperienced Minister at this juncture, with the result that the women and children of our country should starve? What reaction have we had from the other side of the House to this debate? This motion that was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition touched the heart strings of every mother in South Africa who was looking for food for her children, but it is stigmatised by the hon. member for Caledon, with the approval of members on the opposite benches, as a joke. This motion is characterised as a joke. I only want to say this, that the manner in which the Government has acted and has treated this House during the debate on this motion, has been in my judgment, a piece of intentional and studied discourtesy. It was a piece of intentional and studied discourtesy on the part of the Government that bordered on studied contempt, and I might almost say insolence such as we have never seen in this House. Their intention had been, by their contemptuous attitude, to divert the attention of the public from this debate and from the food shortage. That was their intention, and what were the means they employed? The first was the deliberate interruption of this debate. That was wanton and deliberate and the Prime Minister’s excuse was that he did not know that it was a motion of no confidence. What did he do here this afternoon? He admits that it is so, that they understand it as a motion of no confidence. Every member on the other side has told us that this is a motion of no confidence, and that accordingly they will not vote for it. The big excuse made by the Prime Minister, however, for interrupting the debate was that they did not understand that it was a motion of no confidence. In that way he endeavoured to divert attention from this debate and to kill it, and in that way to let the general public forget all about it. He did not succeed in that. I think that it redounds to the credit of this side of the House that although it was an effort that took three or four days, it obliged the Prime Minister to take part in this debate. No, the Prime Minister wanted to shelve this debate, and to divert attention from it. He failed in that, and the upshot was that today he has had to participate in it. A further attempt to belittle the debate was that the Ministers attended the discussion as seldom as possible. I want the outside public to realise what happens here. The debate was hardly in train and before the other side of the House could put up its position in connection with the food question, when the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Welfare took part in the debate, and after that they and the Prime Minister took precious little notice of it, and were seldom seen in this House. When this debate commenced, and suggestions were made in connection with the food question, the Minister of Agriculture strolled about in the lobbies retailing gossip to this person and that. The excuse that he was busy with his work simply doesnot go down. Time after time I saw him in the lobbies exchanging gossip with newspaper men and journalists, while the debate was in progress here over the food question, which touches the people so closely. I say that their effort did not succeed. Now we come to the food position itself, and I take, in the first place, the position in regard to fish. Fish is an important food of thousands and thousands of poor people in the towns. Before the war I myself have bought Cape herrings at 1d. a piece or 1s. a dozen.

I have bought them for id.

And now we have to pay 6d. There is a reason for that, and it is the present method of control. The control in the Peninsula only extends to Retreat, and beyond that there is no control. The result is that here in Cape Town there is too little fish, because the other fishermen do not come here to sell their fish on account of the price being pushed up in those parts where there is no control. That is one reason for the shortage and for the high prices. There is also another reason that has been given to me by the fishmonger with whom I deal. He stated that there is a shortage of fish at the docks, because the Government have taken over for war purposes a considerable number of the trawlers that supply the greatest proportion of the fish.

That is perfectly correct.

The result is that not enough fish are being caught. That is one reason why the poor people are starving. The Government has taken possession of the trawlers for war purposes, and consequently not enough fish has been caught. Another reason is that when the fishing boats come in at the docks they have to sell the fish by the pound according to the fixed price. They simply don’t do that, because they havn’t got scales, and the result is that people from outside the controlled area come here and buy fish. They do not buy at the fixed price, because they are not going to sell in a controlled area. The result is that the poor people in this area cannot get any fish. I want to turn to another point. Poor people who are unable to obtain fish want perhaps to eat a bit of fish in a restaurant. The owner of the restaurant buys stock fish at the fixed price of 3½d. per lb. He rolls it up in flour and fries it and then the poor man has to buy that piece of fish which the restaurant proprietor has bought for 3½d. a lb., he has to buy it at 8d. for 2 ounces, or 5s. a lb.

Why does he buy it there?

Because he cannot get it in any other way. Now, however, I turn to the big thing, and that is the meat position. The Prime Minister has admitted that there is a shortage of meat, but is there really a shortage of meat in South Africa at present; is there really a shortage of slaughter stock in South Africa, and I speak particularly of cattle? I say that there is no shortage of slaughter cattle in South Africa. The shortage of meat in the towns is to be ascribed to the wrong system of control by the Government.

Why then do you object to exports?

I spoke about exports in general. If the Government sees to it that the farmers get proper prices there will be enough meat in the towns, and there will also be meat for export. I maintain that there is no shortage of slaughtter stock in the country. The Minister of Agriculture quoted the census figures. They showed that between 1937 and 1943 our cattle increased by 2,000,000. There has never previously been a shortage of beef in South Africa, and how can there now be a shortage when the number of cattle has increased by 2,000,000.

The demand is three times as great.

The demand cannot explain why the butcher shops have no meat. The hon. member holds himself out as an economist, and how can people in South Africa sell meat to satisfy the larger consumption if there is no meat in the butcher shops? No, the fact is this, there is no meat arriving in the butcher shops, and that is due to the control system of the Government under which the farmers are unfairly treated. I repeat that I am now dealing with the position that there is not a shortage of slaughter cattle in the country. Our census figures show that over the period stated, the total number of cattle increased by 2,000,000. I shall also give the House my own experience in this connection. I myself farm with cattle, and I have gone through all the cattle districts in the Transvaal. You can take it from me, and the country can take it from me, that with a few exceptions the number of cattle belonging to the cattle farmers, small and big, has become larger and not smaller in recent years. Go to districts like Zoutpansberg, Pietersburg, Potgietersrust, Waterberg, Pretoria and the whole of the bushveld up to Swaziland, and I give you the assurance that with a few exceptions the big cattle breeders, as well as the small cattle breeders, are in the position that their cattle have increased in number and not decreased. There is no shortage of slaughter stock in the country, but the shortage of meat that exists has been occasioned by the miserable meat scheme of the Government. I want to cite an instance of how the farmer is affected by the scheme, and I shall take my own farming as an illustration. I am a farmer who every year fattens animals for the market. I fatten up the animals, and I assert here that for these fat stock I have received from £4 to £5 a head less under the scheme than I had last year. The Minister of Agriculture is not here to hear these things. The period of the greatest scarcity experienced last year was in the months of November and December. Every year the offerings are fewer in those months. There is less fat cattle than in other seasons, because it is shortly after the winter and at that time the Government, on the advice of its experts, granted a seasonal increase of 5s. per 100 lbs. That was to encourage the farmers to fatten their stock. That is the stupidest bit of work that I have ever heard of. What encouragement is that to a farmer to fatten his stock. Take a beast that would be 600 lbs. dead weight. If it is fattened for sale in October or November, the farmer will get. £1 10s. extra for it to what he would get if he sold the animal from the veld. But has the Prime Minister any idea what it costs to fatten an ox. Let us take it that the farmer does not use mealies on account of them being so expensive. He will then utilise hay and silage. He will have to feed the animal for from 90 to 100 days. The fodder costs him £1 10s. for that period, and the hay will cost him £3. In other words, it will cost him £4 10s. to fatten the animal, and he will only get an additional £1 10s. In other words he has to spend £4 10s. to fatten each head of cattle and in return for that he receives from the Minister of Agriculture the princely reward of £1 10s. to represent the additional return for the animal. Excepting perhaps for the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) there is not a single farmer who will fatten his animals this year.

He is a very big cattle farmer.

The hon. member should keep quiet. He knows nothing at all about stock. I am a stock farmer and I maintain that if the Minister does not increase the seasonal premium he will this year in October and November experience a much worse crisis in the meat market than he had last year. We have told him, his own agricultural unions have told him, that if he increases the price of cattle he will get the cattle. Owing to his obstinacy, however, he refused until eventually he became afraid, and raised the price by 7s. 6d. a 100 lbs. for nine days, for the so-called Christmas market. At once the market was glutted, and sufficient cattle became available. One would have imagined that it never pierced the clouded brain of the Minister that if the price were increased the cattle would come in. When the price was raised the cattle appeared, but when the premium came to an end there was a return to scarcity, and today he is saddled with the same scarcity. When he brought up the price by 7s. 6d. a 100 lbs. did the consumer have to pay more? Not a brass farthing. When I, as a farmer, complained that the price was fixed too low, this was the answer given me: It is being done in the interests of the consumers, the consumers cannot buy dear meat. The farmers say that if the consumers, especially the poor people, received the benefit of the prices that have been fixed, if they really got the benefit, we would not be as dissatisfied as what we are. But the consumers have not got a scrap of benefit from these prices. The farmers’ price declined considerably, but the consumer still paid the same price. The consumer did not find the slightest benefit in the Minister’s price schedule. One might say that this price determination was in the interests of only two people; it was in the interests of the Government itself, that wanted cheap meat for the army, and the interests of the Imperial Cold Storage. What is happening now? Because the price is so low, no cattle are coming into the market. The retail butcher cannot obtain a sufficiency of meat to continue with his business and he is going bankrupt; the butchers have to close down their businesses, and then the I.C.S. comes along and buys up one butchery after the other. In Cape Town, Johannesburg and Pretoria, we have today virtually a monopoly in favour of the I.C.S. I want to say this, if the ordinary butcher in South Africa had sufficient meat to sell at the price fixed, he would never have made so much money as under this scheme, because there is a terrific gap between the price that the farmer gets and what the consumer pays; the butchers could have made a fortune if they could only have obtained the meat. But as a result of the price determination, the meat is not being sent to the market. And when I refer to the large profits that the butchers might have made, I want to draw a distinction between the butcher on the platteland and the butcher in the town. On the platteland there is no control, and the result is that the platteland butcher pays the farmer more than he would receive under the Government’s scheme, and yet the butcher sells the meat at a much lower price than the consumer in the town has to pay. We see, thus, how the whole scheme is merely calculated to benefit the wholesaler and specifically the I.C.S. I declare here that the farmer on the platteland receives a higher price than what he can get under the Government scheme, and notwithstanding this the platteland butcher sells the meat at a lower price than what it can be obtained for in the towns. What is the result? On the platteland there is no shortage of meat. You can go to any platteland town throughout the length and breadth of South Africa and buy just as much meat as you want to at a lower price than is asked here in the town. That is what I want the poor man and the consumer in South Africa to know that this price fixation is not in his interests. It hits him and it hits the farmer. The only people that derives benefit from it are the big capatalistic meat interests of South Africa, no one else. I am very sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place; the other day he made a speech here. We have to remember that he is a comparatively young man. He has to deal with the Leader of the Opposition, and he used towards the Leader of the Opposition this offensive and insulting language in his speech in reference to something that the Leader of the Opposition stated. The Minister of Agriculture overstepped the mark by saying that the Leader of the Opposition must have taken leave of his senses to have stated anything of that sort. Here you have a young man like him, and he directs language at a man who stands high in the estimation of the people, who stands high in the estimation of the Afrikaner people. That is going beyond the limits of decency. The Minister of Agriculture has cut all sorts of capers and advanced all kinds of propositions. You will remember how he asserted with emphasis that he never accused the farmers of withholding their cattle from the market, that he never accused the farmers of having tried to sabotage his scheme. The Minister says that he never charged the farmers, but only the speculators. Has this man, who accuses others of having taken leave of their senses, a memory that plays him such tricks that he himself can no longer remember what he said. On the 13th July the Minister of Agriculture stated: “Many farmers support the meat scheme; others sabotage and boycott it.” On the 14th July he said according to the “Rand Daily Mail.” that big speculators were holding back stock that was suitable for marketing. Why did he not take possession of the stock if the speculators were holding back thousands and thousands of fat cattle from the market? Perhaps he was referring to his friends. He went further, and he said at the Transvaal Agricultural Congress on the 15th August—

Here is another charge against the farmers. I want to put the question to the Minister of Agriculture whether the accusation is directed only against Nationalist farmers; are all the farmers Nationalists? It is only Nationalists who are holding back cattle? No, there they are sitting on the other side, Ministers included, people who are holding back cattle just like the Nationalists. If the Sap farmers are sending their cattle to the market, why is there a shortage? There is the Minister of Lands. I think he could send many more of his thousands and thousands of sheep. The question is, where are the sheep going to? No, the cattle are being withheld from the market not only by the Nationalists but also by the Saps. [Time limit extended.] I only want to say this to the Prime Minister, that one of the strongest opponents of this scheme of the Government, a man who does not make any secret of it is one of the supporters of the Prime Minister, a provincial council member for Pretoria. He has openly done everything in his power to wreck the scheme, because it was not in the interests of the farmers. So if the complaint is directed at us, I only want to say this, that it can be directed with equal force at supporters of the Government. One would swear that every Sap farmer reads “Die Transvaler” and is influenced thereby by the scheme. Apparently “Die Transvaler” and “Die Burger” are now read by the Sap farmers, and in consequence they are not sending their cattle to the market. I am glad to learn that they attach such importance to things that appear in the “Die Transvaler”, “Die Kruithoring” and “Die Burger”. If they continue to read these papers, they will shortly be convinced that the Government has left them in the lurch, and they will come and fight alongside us, those of them who really and honestly want to advance the interests of the country. Now I want to refer briefly to the Planning Council, to social security. The Hon. the Prime Minister indignantly denied that he was unfaithful to the promises he had made in regard to social security. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) went into that very fully and indicated where the Government had failed. I only want to recall a few outstanding facts. In 1942, before the elections were to be held, a Planning Council was appointed. The Planning Council directed the attention of the people to the fact that the Government was totally unprepared for conditions that would arise when the war was over. The Government became alarmed, and in 1943 shortly before the elections, appointed a social security committee. That was with a view to appeasing the people, and of holding out to them the prospect of all sorts of nice things. The Social Security Committee submitted its report, and then it was announced in the Sap newspapers, under bold headlines, wat marvellous things the Government was going to do. Among other things the Social Security Committee calculated, on the basis of the population figures for 1943, that a sum of £30,000,000 would have to be devoted every year merely for the purpose of social security, excluding services connected with health, hospitals and the provision of employment; and the sum of £40,000,000 would have to be devoted for social security on the 1945 population figure. With that the Government succeeded, during the elections, in making many voters believe that it was going to do big things as far as regards social security. But as the elections receded into the background, the enthusiasm of the Government for social security became progressively weaker and weaker. Then last year the Government appointed a Select Committee to frame plans affecting social security. I served on it and realised at once what was under way. The intention in regard to the Select Committee was that it should confine social security within the smallest limits. In that Select Committee I proposed that the committee should concern itself with social security in its broader aspects, that is to say, the creation of sources of wealth, and for the provision of employment for all, as also for the development of industries. My proposal was rejected, and the committee confined itself to the narrower aspect of social security. The Select Committee brought down the £30,000,000 and the £40,000,000 and recommended a scheme that would cost £19,600,000 a year. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister intimated here today that a Bill would be introduced before the end of this Session in this connection. I want to predict now that when the Bill eventually is presented, it will contain a scheme that will be smaller and even less significant than that recommended by the Select Committee. So the Government’s social security scheme will disappear as the mist before the morning sun, and the Government will finally allow nothing of it to be brought back. In the meanwhile, what is the position in the country. I have spoken of the food position. What is the position in regard to health and housing? The position is very bad. Before I resume my seat, I want to give the House, in a few words, a picture of the position in the country which the Prime Minister tells us is a land flowing with milk and honey, a land in which everything is beautiful, but I want to say that there is undernourishment, a shortage of houses and want. Listen to the report of Dr. P. W. Kotze of the Cape Board of Aid—

That is the condition of affairs prevailing in Cape Town. If there are members on the opposite benches who have not yet seen that, then they should look round a bit. If they are afraid to go round at night in the slums they can get police protection.

Shame!

Yes, of course the hon. member is not prepared to go.

I am.

Otherwise he would not have spoken as he did the other day. He can get police protection and visit the slums. Then he can see what occurs there. Then he can see how European families and coloured families herd together in the same houses. Then he will see how sometimes two or three families live together in the one room. Those are the conditions he could witness.

How long has that been the case?

I am not dealing at present with the carrying of meat from Heidelberg to Springs.

How long has that been going on?

Then I want to quote the “Rand Daily Mail” in regard to the conditions in Pretoria—

That is the condition of affairs in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Cape Town, and then the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister comes here and talks about a land flowing with milk and honey. I maintain that this distress should never have existed in South Africa, especially if one, on the other hand sees the apparent prosperity that is prevailing. The poverty that exists can only be laid at the door of the Government, and no one else. There is a shortage of houses, why? Because the Government has not made provision. It does not make money available for people, nor can they get building material to build houses. But while the poor people cannot obtain the building material for houses for their families, one sees in Johannesburg and Pretoria great blocks of flats being erected in the most expensive quarters, and while the poor people cannot obtain houses the big capitalist enterprises are placed in the position to buy building material and to expand their enterprise in order to make still higher profits. Poor people are living in the slums, five or six families together. They cannot get building material. The Government is sending it to India and such places, and what is not exported is given to big business concerns. Just look at Germiston and other places. Building material was placed at the disposal of big business concerns to enable them to expand, and building material was made available for the erection of racing stables, but there is no building material for the poor people. It is a shameful position. I want to make a last quotation, and it is from no other than Dr. Cluver. The other day he gave expression to these significant words—

First, as a result of undernourishment, secondly as the result of the scarcity of proper housing accommodation, and thirdly because there are no proper medical and health services. For these three reasons the Leader of the Opposition proposed this motion; and then we have to listen to a number of members on the other side of the House stating that this motion is nothing else than a farce. What is the cause of it all? It is that South Africa is today suffering under the most incompetent and weakest ministry that it has ever had in its history, under Ministers who have not the slightest idea of the real requirements of the country, and if they had any idea would not have the slightest ability and vision to tackle and to solve the problems that are present. We have the weakest Government in our history, and apart from the general incapacity of the Government we have a Minister of Agriculture who is described by his own supporters as young an inexperienced. I go further, he is not only young and inexperienced in regard to agricultural matters, but in the past he has not revealed the least sympathy for the farmers. I am not one of those who say that your Minister of Agriculture should necessarily be a practical farmer, but all things being equal, a practical farmer should be appointed. What is more, the man who is appointed must have sympathy for the farmers. If he has not got that how are the interests of the farmers going to be looked after, so that, seeing that they have to provide the food requirements of the country, they may also be provided with the necessary means for this task. Here you have a man who in the past has not betrayed any sympathy for the farmers, but on the contrary to judge by his conduct, is antagonistic towards the farmers in contrast to his affection for the big moneyed interests in the cities. This is just the sort of man who has been appointed as Minister of Agricul ture, and because he has made such a mess of the food position in the country South Africa has today the food shortage. That is one of the big reasons why the poor people and the consumers are today starving in the towns; and the third reason is that South Africa has for its Prime Minister the hon. member for Standerton (Field-Marshal Smuts). I do not want to detract in any way from the esteem in which he is held as a world figure. I do not wish to belittle the fact in any way that in many spheres he is known throughout the world as a very intellectual person. But I want, to say that as Prime Minister of South Africa, as a man who should have his finger on the pulse of the people, we have never had anyone who was such a misfit as the present Prime Minister.

Hitler has told you that before.

We have seen how through these years the Prime Minister has appeared as one of the intellectuals of the world and our experience is that he has never had time for the daily practical things that affect the needs of our people. He is always busy with world affairs. If he is not talking about the colossus that strides across Europe then it is his book about holism that occupies him. The other day I conversed with one of the foremost supporters of the United Party, and he told me that the difficulty with the Cabinet is that they could not get the Prime Minister to bestow attention on affairs in South Africa and that he was always absorbed in the problems of Europe and of the world as a whole, but that he is absolutely blind to what should be done in South Africa. That was from one of the prominent supporters of the United Party. Notwithstanding the high regard that the Prime Minister enjoys, he complains that the Prime Minister, perhaps also partly because of his advanced years, but in any event as a result of his entire mental make-up is simply not able to focus his attention on the common everyday affairs of South Africa, which are of the greatest importance to the normal men, women and children in our country. I hope that the Prime Minister will continue to enjoy good health so that at the next General Election Standerton may settle scores with him as Pretoria (West) did in 1924.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has taken it upon himself to tell the people of South Africa and the world in general that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is a misfit in South Africa. Speaking on behalf of the English-speaking people of South Africa I would like to take this opportunity in this House on behalf of the families of the men who are fighting at the front, on behalf of the many families of men who have fallen in this war, on behalf of the majority of the English-speaking people of this country, to say: We thank God for Jan Smuts. If it had not been for our Prime Minister this would have been a poor and a broken country today. When things were black the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister led us straight through the valley of the shadow of death right through the bad times and the dreary days, to this time when our boys are standing outside the gates of Berlin. That is why Mr. Strydom has acted as he has today. The nearer our lads get to Berlin the more the Nationalists dance like mad Dervishes. [Interruptions.] I do not want the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) to interrupt me. I never interrupt members of the Labour party when they speak. I entirely disagree with the food policy of this Government. My own constituency is the largest in South Africa and the people in that constituency today are unable to get food. I blame the Government for not looking after the public of South Africa during a time of war. It is a dangerous thing to leave the women, the mothers and the daughters of our fighting soldiers to stand in queues in order to get their food. I protest against this step. Now the hon. members on the other side are attacking the Government for this, but they are just as much to blame. The Nationalist Party supported the meat scheme from beginning to end. The only difference was they wanted higher prices for the farmer; but not for one moment did they discuss the question of what was going to happen to the consumer. The Prime Minister has addressed us today on the food question. The Prime Minister is living in Nirvana. He has told us that all our maize which we exported from this country during the year amounts to only one day of our food. Well, in 1940-1941 we exported from South Africa 13 million bags of maize. That was nine months’ consumption. And we had starvation among Natives in the country the next year.

What do you know about the war?

The hon. member for Fordsburg asks me what I know about maize. I know a good deal about maize.

I asked you what you knew about the war.

The hon. member knows a good deal about the liquid that is made from maize. Now this meat scheme was intended to ensure a fair price to the consumer, to the farmer and to the middleman. The scheme has failed hopelessly in every detail. The consumer was not protected, the farmer was not protected and the butcher and the auctioneer have all been hit or had a bad time. Sir, the Agricultural Department based its policy on a rigid price but they had no way of ensuring adequate supplies. There was no inducement of any kind. Today the Government is commandering. That is quite foreign to our policy, but the Government has commandeered and not only at stock sales, with the result that there is trouble and tribulation right through the platteland and there is less meat available for the big cities than ever before. This scheme of commandeering was tried in Germany and failed. In connection with this meat scheme there is high cost, heavy expenses, economic wastage and unsatisfactory grading and in the end we get no meat. Economically the scheme cannot work unless the State commandeers and unless the States turns it into a method of forcing the farmer to deliver.

You are supporting Dr. Malan now.

I am not. Why should you say that? The Prime Minister knows exactly how I stand on this matter. I have discussed the matter with him. It is my duty, as a member of an important constituency, where the people are not getting food, to put the matter before Parliament and the public whether my hon. friend likes it or not or whether my friend on the right (Mr. Burnside) who is looking at the Minister with big eyes likes it or not. But there is no machinery whereby a reasonable price can be ensured either to producer or consumer. The scheme may work if commandeering is resorted to but I doubt whether it will work in the end. Let us see how the Government comes out of it. I kept a note as to the excuses for the failure of this scheme. This is how it went. Originally the Minister of Agriculture said that the scheme was new but as soon as the producer saw what was happening he would send in supplies. Then, that the cold spell early in June was responsible for holding up supplies. Later, that as soon as the weather improved the position would improve. Still later, that the end of the financial year was responsible for withholding supplies. After that he argued there is a seasonal shortage, and he went on until 26 different excuses were given for his failure. I have made my protest in regard to this scheme and I am not the only one in the House who feels like this. The majority of my friends who represent consumers’ constituencies feel the same as I do, but when it comes to my own self, when something requires to be said openly, I do my duty and say it; and I take full responsibility for doing so. I am not afraid to stand up before the public and to say what the food position really is. But that does not for one moment mean that I am going to join hands with the Nats. No not for one moment. Before coming to that there is one other thing I would lik to protest against, that is the taxation levied in this country by the Minister of Finance, especially his Excess Profits Tax. That is doing us much harm on the Rand, so that when the time comes to carry Out the wonderful manufacturing schemes about which the Prime Minister spoke today it will be quite impossible to do so. Dr. Malan has asked me, and has asked other English-speaking members of this House, to join hands with him to turn out this Government. Does he for one moment believe that the English-speaking people of South Africa, or the loyal Afrikaans-speaking people, would join hands with the Nationalist Party today, with the record they have and in view of the speech he made only a few days ago in which he made the statement that the English-speaking men in South Africa, born in this country, still have one foot overseas, and the other foot in this country. I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that the English-speaking men in South Africa, born in this country, have played their part in this country as well as anyone else. I would like to ask him: Was it for the sake of England that Bain made the road over Bain’s Kloof, or the other Bain pictured the story of our Kaffir Wars in South Africa? Was it for the sake of England that Stubbs the Saddler fought in the Eastern Province against the Kaffirs for so many years, or that Somerset did what he did? [Interruption by hon. member for Fordsburg]. The hon. member for Fordsburg has had one over the odds. But let us take the history of Dr. Malan who now wishes us to follow him in preference to the Prime Minister. He was born on a farm called “Alles Verloren.”

A very appropriate name.

This was in 1874. Whilst General Smuts was fighting for the freedom of the Republics Dr. Malan was busy writing examinations under the Union Jack in the Cape.

And where were you?

I will answer that question at a suitable moment. In the byelection at Queenstown he sent a telegram to the natives and asked them to vote for the Nationalist Party because the natives were the best patriots in the country, and said the natives in South Africa must take their place in the same political arena as the white man. In 1925 he attended the Indian Congress at Cape Town and told them that he would never regard the Indians in South Africa as Asiatics, but always as South Africans. In 1926 he described England as the mother of our freedom. In 1928 he advocated the franchise for coloured women, and Sir, in 1939 he fell out with Hertzog, Havenga, Weichardt, and all the other sections. In 1941 he came to Cape Town and bought a house to await what was going to be said to him by Hitler offering a republic over the wireless. By 1941 the message had not arrived so he sold his house to a Jew and went to Stellenbosch to live at the foot of Helshoogte. Now Dr. Malan is going to ask us and others to join hands with him in getting rid of the United Party. No, the tree is known by its fruit. Right through this war the hon. members on the other side have let us down. I remember at Parys, on the 15th August, when Tobruk fell, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition celebrated that defeat of our boys. He and others at Parys celebrated it. They threw up their hats and cheered at the defeat of a number of young South African soldiers. For these and similar things we have looked upon them with contempt and we shall look upon them with contempt. We shall criticise our Party as much as we think fit, but we shall stand by our leader until the end, and we shall not allow anyone on the other benches, either drunk or sober, to interfere with us when we criticise our Party. We shall not allow the members of the Opposition to think that because we criticise our Party on questions of food, we are going to leave them in the lurch. No, Sir, this Party stands today more solid than it ever stood in its history. And why does it stand so solid? It is for this reason. I am a contentious man, but I say what I think and I never hope to do any man any harm. When I went into our Caucus I said I had on the food question to tell the world certain things and I did not know what to do. I was not received with jeers, but with sympathy and I was told that I could do as I liked, and I have done as I liked. That is why this is such a great democratic party, whose attitude will go right down the corridors of history. On the Nationalist side there is dictatorship. No-one in his party is allowed to stand for Parliament until consent is given by Dr. Malan. No-one can do anything unless he says it can be done. He is the Hitler of South Africa, the Goebbels of South Africa and the Goering of South Africa; he is also the Malan of South Africa, which is the worst of the four. I am against the meat scheme. I recognise the difficulties of the Government. I recognise the difficulties the Prime Minister has to contend with. It will not be long before the Germans capitulate, and we know it will not be long before the Field-Marshal has to go overseas, and when he does go it will be with the goodwill and blessings of all good men and women in South Africa. 75 years of age and I thank God that he has been spared to us all this time. 75 years of age and as young as any man in this chamber; patient and courteous. I sit here as a man who has been in and out of this House for 50 years and I have just heard the Prime Minister make a speech for two hours, most courteous, patient and gentlemanly the whole time. But one of the chief leaders on the other side, who hopes to be Prime Minister, instead of thanking him for his patience, as an older man, and as is an old Afrikaans custom, was instead discourteous towards him and insulted him, and that insult was an insult not only to every man in this House, but to everyone in the country, and it will go right through the country, and if my friends on the other side think that they are going to come back to Parliament as a Government because of the small differences between us on this side of the House, and that they will rule this country by insulting one of the greatest men South Africa has produced, I can tell them that they will remain in the wilderness for many years. The custom of this country is not to insult its elder statesmen. It is the history of our country that whether we agreed with Kruger, Milner or Hertzog, we always respected the man at the top. These men, Sir, sitting on your left have done much to bring down the Afrikaner people in this country; they have preached politics, politics, politics, instead of trying to assist their people. They have dragged their people down into the very slums of which they talk today. With their Reddingsdaadbond and the other things they have, they have crucified their own people and they sent Gen. Hertzog to his grave a brokenhearted man; he was the man who saved their people, who saved their country and saved their language. I charge these three men sitting on the front benches of the Nationalist Party, in the name of all decent South Africans with having brought Gen. Hertzog to his grave. No wonder they look down their noses as they do now in misery and in shame. Yet they move a resolution, which is the most impudent resolution which has ever come before this House, a resolution asking us to pass a vote of no confidence in the Government, the Government of a great soldier, who has led South Africa from the dark valleys up to the great hills above and to final victory.

I do not think the House will expect me to reply to the speech which has just been made on the other side. As far as I can remember, it is only under very extraordinary circumstances that anyone on this side of the House or even on the other side makes any reference or replies to anything which was said in a speech made by that hon. member. The House and the country in general have summed him up and know his worth. All I can say is this, and it will throw a light on the value of what that hon. member says from time to time that a short while ago he wrote a letter in his newspaper to the Prime Minister, and in that letter he said that what the United Party required above everything else was a new leader. Well, we need not pay any further attention to him. We have come to the end of this debate in regard to the motion which I introduced, and what I am about to say is intended to close this debate. But I think I am correct in saying that this debate in regard to the subject-matter of the motion, will be remembered in the history of Parliament and in the political history of this country. If ever there has been a debate in regard to any matter in this House, which was eagerly awaited in a wide circle in this country, which was expectantly awaited, it was this debate. The debate on this subject was not regarded by the people outside, at any rate, as an ordinary political fight between the one side and the other side of the House. This motion deals with a state of affairs in the country a serious state of affairs in the country which no one can deny. There were very few members who dared in, the course of the debate, to deny the seriousness of the state of affairs. This matter deals with three extremely important subjects. The first is the food of the people, and it is a matter of fundamental importance whether or not the nation is being properly fed. The second is the health of the nation. The proper feeding of the nation and the care of the health of the nation are matters which are at the root of all welfare which is possible in this country. These are the two matters which engaged our attention; and the third is the future of the nation as a whole. We have reached a stage in our history where we are not only dealing with the war; that is a passing phase. But where we are dealing with the effects of the war, effects which have already started to manifest themselves, there is no one who denies that there are serious problems which face up, problems which will become more serious after the war, and in connection with which timeous preparations must be made. The question which we put in the House was this: What is this Government doing; what was the Government’s duty, and what did it actually do, having regard to perparations in the future for the solution of the great and serious problems with which we are faced at present? This is not an ordianry political fight between one side of the House and the other side, but is is a matter affecting the vital interests of the people. For that reason it does not only affect the nation as a whole, but it also affects every family and every person in this country, and I say therefore that this debate was expectantly awaited. On the other hand, this debate was undoubtedly followed by those wide circles of people with a large measure of disappointment. Apart from the merits advanced by one side or the other side, the nation had the right to expect something positive from the Government at this time, and especially since it affected the question of food for the nation and the question of health for the nation. But what was the result of this debate, as far as the Government replied to it? Nothing or precious little which was not already known by everyone in this country and to which little value was actually attached by the people outside, was held out in prospect. As far as undertakings on the part of the Government are concerned, we came out of this debate just as barren and just as unfertile as we found the Government and its promises. Well, during this debate some members on the other side wanted to know why we on this side had not moved a motion of no confidence, which was an out and out motion of no confidence, and why we had worded the motion in this way, instead of coming forward with a motion of censure, as we did. Eventually we have got the assurance that the Prime Minister, at any rate, despite other assurance on his side, for its own purposes, regarded it as a motion of no confidence. In his mind no confidence and censure were synonymous. As far as that argument is concerned, the bottom has been knocked out of it by the Prime Minister himself. But because it is not a motion of no confidence in the ordinary broad sense of the word, all sorts of motives were imputed to us in that connection. The most common was the opinion that We are supposed to have admitted or discovered that we have been on the wrong course these past few years, since September 1939, and that we now wish to distract the attention of the nation from this mistake which we are alleged to have made and from our wrong policy. I need not repeat, while I am on my feet, what I said when the Prime Minister advanced that argument, that there is nothing in the attitude which we adopted in connection with this matter, of which we need be ashamed. On the contrary I want to express the view that the more we see where this war is leading, and the more we see what conditions have been created by the war the more I am proud of the fact that at that time we adopted the policy of keeping South Africa out of the war.

Harry Stalin.

We shall hear more in regard to this matter on a later occasion. But let me say here that the Prime Minister may not openly admit here, although he did admit it by implication in his London speech, the so-called explosive speech, that he too is not satisfied with the trend of the war, and I make bold to say that today the Prime Minister, although there is a victory in prospect in the military sphere, is feeling more depressed today than he has felt at any time during the course of this war. He is feeling more depressed than at any time in the course of the war, and to come here now while things stand as they do today, and to tell us that our policy is wrong, does not hold Water. If in the future any side of this House will stand disgraced in regard to the outcome of the war, in regard to the fact that we were dragged into such a war with such a result, it will not be this side which will stand disgraced, but that side. We never regarded this war from the point of view of England or of any other European country. We regarded it from the stand-point of South Africa, and South Africa alone, and we need not be ashamed of that. The question is why we did not move an out and out motion of no confidence in the Government, in broad terms. The reply to that is very clear, simply because, if we had moved a general motion of no confidence, the debate would have covered the whole terrain of party politics in this country and oversea, and there would have been no concentration on the matter which is today almost uupermost in the minds of the nation. We would not have been able to devote our attention to what I call the blind wounds of the people in connection with matters which are mentioned in this motion. But because we did not give them an opportunity of escaping, because we did not give them an opportunity of putting up all sorts of smoke screens, the grievance against us in that we moved a motion of censure and not a motion of no confidence. I refer to smoke screens which they would have been able to put up, which they would have been able to use to escape from their responsibility in connection with the food and the health of the people and in connection with social security. But unfortunately in moving this motion of censure, we could not quite succeed in limiting them to these matters which we wanted to bring before the House. The action of that side in constantly departing from the merits of the case and calling out “Hitler! Hitler”, or “war, war”, “there is a war on!” and “what did you do in this war”, that action reminds me very much of a certain person whom the Prime Minister may remember from his student years, as I do, a person who travelled throughout the country. He was a combination of “cheap Jack” and quack. He had the name of Sequoia. The Prime Minister may remember him.

I do remember him.

Well, this Sequoia cured all ailments and especially rheumatism, and he cured it very quickly. After he had put up his tents, he invitetd those who wanted healing to come to the tent, and there he had three or four strong, muscular men, and the healing consisted of very hard massaging by these men; they treated the patient roughly. They wanted to kill pain with still greater pain, and when discordant sounds issued forth which could be heard for a great distance, the orchestra started to play. The orchestra then started to play ear-splitting music and smothered the screams of agony which came from the tent. The nation is in pain. The cry of the people has gone up for a long time; the cry of the people has reached this House, and then this “Sequoia” Government plays war music in order to drown that cry.

And Harry plays the drum.

With his fez on.

The debate which was conducted here was important in certain other respects because it threw a penetrating light on certain sections and persons in this House. The first penetrating light of this debate was the indifference which was shown on that side of the House. Let me say at once that if there was a lack of interest on the part of the Minister of Agriculture—and he was taken to task about it unmercifully so that it is not necessary for me to add anything—I do want to pay the Prime Minister this compliment; I want to give him credit where he deserves credit, and that is that throughout this debate which lasted for so many days, it almost never happened that the Prime Minister was not in his seat. In any event, I do not want to absolve him for the indifference, the lack of feeling which was evinced by some members on that side of the House. We remember—and it was read with a certain amount of shock in this country—what the Prime Minister said in Bloemfontein at the United Party Conference not so long ago. His own delegates at the Congress insisted that steps—and effective steps—should be taken in connection with the scarcity of meat. And what was the Prime Minister’s reply to that? He said there was no such question, that we in this country were consuming too much meat, that we in this country were suffering from “meat” disease; and that statement was greeted with loud laughter. I take it for granted that the Prime. Minister may not have intended that statement to be taken seriously, but a remark of such a nature at such a place and coming from him, must necessarily have an effect on his Party and in the country. And therefore it was possible for the hon. member for Kimberley to make the speech which he did make here. What did his speech amount to really? It was nothing but this: “You speak of a food problem; you speak of a meat crisis; all I can tell you is that there is no such thing.” The whole state of emergency which exists is simply being ignored. I have said that I do not want to add to what has already been said in regard to the indifference of the Minister of Agriculture, except that I think I cannot exonerate him in the first place, because he had to go to another place and open an agricultural exhibition there. The opening of the agricultural exhibition could have been attended to by one or other of his colleagues. He could simply have gone to one of his colleagues who had nothing to do with this debate, who did not take part in the debate, and asked him to open the agricultural exhibition. After what happened there, he surely cannot think that the people wanted to see him at the exhibition because he is so popular. That everyone is very inquisitive to see him after his action I can understand, but inquisitiveness to see him is not a desire to see him because he is so popular. But what I want to point out is that this debate was conducted to a large extent on the meat and food question especially. What is the Minister doing? Instead of doing what all Ministers always do, and rightly do, namely to wait until he has heard all the criticism, and, if suggestions come from his own side or from the other side, to hear what the suggestions are and then to react to them, he simply participated in this debate as the second speaker and never heard the other criticism which was expressed. He said nothing after that and he could say nothing after that because he sheltered behind the fact that his turn had passed.

Rather cowardly.

I say that this debate threw a revealing light on the recklessness we saw on that side of the House. Furthermore, it undoubtedly cast a revealing light on the value which the nation has to attach to all sorts of statements and to the actions of members of that party when they pretend on platforms outside that they look after the interests of the nation and are prepared to protect the interests of the nation, in spite of and notwithstanding the Government’s delay. This debate cast a revealing light on the value which the nation will attach to such statements. There is a whole series of them on that side of the House. There is the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) there is the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), there is the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman)—I am sorry to drag him into this—and there is the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), and so there are others who can be mentioned, who all used strong words outside on platforms to indicate the delay of the Government; but what did we find in this House?

He is now running away.

He is holding meetings of protest.

While these matters are being brought to the attention of the House and of the nation, they have proved to be dogs that bark but do not bite. But even if they remain quiet, like the hon. member for Rondebosch—I want to give him credit for it; when he comes to the House he remains quiet; he said what he said, and after that he sits in the House and remains quiet and takes no part in the debate. That I can still understand. But there are others in this House who used strong words outside. Now they come to the House and instead of criticising the Government, they praise it, and then they attack this side of the House as if we are the Government and as if the blame and delay on the part of the Government are our fault. We are attacked because we stand up for the interests of the nation, something they have not the courage to stand up for in this House. There is another section on whom a revealing light also fell during the course of this debate, and that is our friends on the Labour benches. The actions of the Labour Party in this House and in this most important matter cannot be described otherwise than as a tragedy. There is no Party which pretends so much on the platforms outside that it is they who protect the poor people in this country. If one hears them speaking one would say that they have a monopoly to protect and to represent the poorer section of the population. What did we get from their side during this debate? A big round nil. Did they stop bragging outside and attack the Government inside? Oh no. I take as an example the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg).

He even continues talking until he gets to the gates.

When this meeting of protest was held at the gates of Parliament—this demonstration—he disappeared out of this House. He addressed the demonstration of women at the gates and what did he tell them? He said: “These gates are now being locked against you but I am prepared, if you wish it, in the near future to lead a procession of 10,000 of you to the Houses of Parliament”. His words outside give us the impression that we are dealing with a lion, but then he comes in the House and We find that he is a lapdog on a leash.

You promised coloured women the vote outside the House.

I must tell the speakers of the Labour Party that I am sorry that they have to cut that figure, that they have to adopt that attitude. There is a struggle in prospect in South Africa; I think it is unavoidable, and it is a struggle against Communism, especially if matters progress further in America as they have been doing recently. If there is one party in this country which can serve best as a spearpoint against Communistic agitation, it is the Labour Party, just because they pretend that they are in close touch with the poor people in the country. I say that a struggle is in prospect. Moscow spoke and the Communists in this country replied and the reply is this: “Moscow, we will do what you say and we will expand our Communist Party further to such an extent that those who join us need not be Communists by conviction; they must just join our front”. In other words, the Communist Party aims at swallowing the Labour Party and to take the lead in the labour front, and the Labour Party know it. In a congress recently held by them in Johannesburg they themselves decided to form a labour front. But where they negotiate with certain sections, they exclude the Communists. I say the Labour Party can serve better as the spearpoint against the Communistic wave which is threatening our country. But is this the manner in which to achieve it? To come here when the nation is in need and in pain? And especially the poorer sections of the population, and to act here as they are doing? It simply means that they are making themselves impotent as against the poorer section of the population. It is an indirect strengthening of the Communist Party in this country. And why do they do it? They do it simply because they are tied on that side of the House to that rope of which I spoke. Why do they it? Because their Leader sits in the Cabinet and because they are prepared to sacrifice the interests of the nation and the interests of the poor people in the country in order to have a seat for their Leader in the Cabinet.

Scandalous!

I say I am sorry that something like that has happened and that the Labour Party render themselves powerless in that manner. As to what further became evident here I need say nothing. The argument was used that we are acting destructively; that we are not constructive; that in relation to the matters mentioned in this motion we have nothing positive to bring forward on our side. I do pot think that if hon. members had followed the debate closely they would have had any reason or right to use that argument. Nobody in this House from time to time acted more strongly and more constructively about the food position, which is necessary for building up the agricultural industry, which is the foundation on which everything rests, than this Party, in speeches such as we have had for example from the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux). As far as public health is concerned I have already drawn the attention of the House, and I do so again, to the fact that the Report of the Health Commission contains, as far as its fundamental recommendations are concerned, precisely what stands in our own socio-economical programmel In other words, we do not destroy. We construct. As far as giving effect to this report is concerned, as the hon. member for Yeoville wants it and as the Commission proposed it, I gave the Government the assurance, and I repeat it again today, that if the Government wishes to give effect to it, it will not find a stumbling block in us, but that we shall be prepared to throw our full strength in, in order to place it on the Statute Book. Is that negative; is that destructive, or is it constructive? It is not alone constructive, it is not only positive, but it is an offer on our side to make use of all our powers in order to help the Government to put it on the Statute Book. As to social security, our socio-economical programme also speaks for itself. As regards our actions in this House, as recently as yesterday you had constructive criticism from a man like the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and from the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). We do not act destructively. We do not only criticise. We are prepared to put something fin the place of what we break down. As regards the defence put up here in connection with the various divisions of the motion, I do not have to go into detail. I just want to say another few words about the food position and more specifically about the meat question. There are two questions which had to be asked in the debate and which were asked, and the first is: Is there a shortage? And we cannot gather from the Government whether they think there is a shortage or not. Even on that point they are not certain yet. But if there is a shortage the question must be asked: Why is there a shortage? and when that question has been answered, then the second question is—and it is an important question, probably more important than anything else: Why is there no proper distribution; why is there a shortage and why is there such a hopeless distribution? I do not want to enter into these questions. They have been discussed time and again in the House and arguments have been levelled from both sides. On the side of the Government the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister gave reasons for their judgment as to why the position is today as it is, and in those reasons given by them, one was met from beginning to end by the same kind of jumping about which one found m the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture outside. I do not wish to enter into it but just to say this, that one reason was given by the Minister of Agricuture and also by the Prime Minisfer today, for which the country had to wait until this Parliament assembled before they could hear about it, and even had to wait for a long time in this House, and that is that the food in the country, the enormous quantity of food in the country, as it turns out to be, which was available for the requirements of the nation, was exported on a scale which accentuated the position in the country. The impression given by those two Ministers is that there is something in connection with this matter that they wish to hide. An attempt was made by the Minister of Agriculture in his speech to admit the export, but to account for it mainly as exports to neighbouring states in Africa. But further than that he did not get in spite of the fact that time and again he was asked in the House to tell us how much was exported also to other countries or to other armies. The Prime Minister mentioned the matter again today but he confused the whole position by omitting from the exports the quantities supplied to convoys which touched at our ports with their thousands and hundreds of thousands of troops. He did not tell us what had been supplied to them. When the Prime Minister was again asked this afternoon what percentage of exports was delivered, not to African neighbouring states, but what was exported to other military units, of other countries, he, as ever, neglected to reply. I now wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the position is not such that we in South Africa are bound, as regards the delivery of food to other countries and to other military units. I want to know from him whether South Africa is not bound hand and foot, so that the Government cannot help itself but have to fulfil their obligations. It was short-sighted to enter into such an agreement as there now appears to be, but my question is whether it is not a fact that we are bound. I cannot say that I have seen it anywhere in black and white, but as far as I can deduce, that is the position. One puts two and two together. When Germany invaded France and Paris fell, and when it was considered in England that under the circumstances it would be much more difficult to get produce and supplies from Europe, from the Continent, England asked the question whether the colonies or dominions would not assist and undertake to supply what England had lost, in regard to the importation of food especially. It seems to me that the fact is that an agreement was made and that that is one of the reasons why there is a shortage. One of the reasons why I say that this is the case is that when we had to consider importing food because our own population suffered from hunger it was said that Australia and also the Argentine were willing to supply the food—it has never arrived and we do not know whether it will ever arrive,—but Australia and the Argentine would be prepared to supply the food, but then England must first be asked whether she would give consent to it. Why should England give consent if a binding contract had not been entered into? I think that that is more or less the root of the trouble in South Africa. In other words, in your hurry to serve overseas countries, in your Imperialistic fervour, you thought of other coutries and their needs and forgot South Africa. There is one great outstanding fact and that is that other countries made thorough provision for supplies of food on the home front and made thorough provision for the future. England did it. England increased its agricultural production tremendously, encouraged it in all possible ways, until it could supply 80 per cent. of its requirements out of its own production. And England did not stop there. It told the farming population which produced its food that after the war, seeing that they had gone to expense in order to produce these products, they would not again revert to the old conditions, but that the country would see to it, for a number of years, that they would be able to carry on their operations on the same scale and be able to make a decent living. Decent help and protection was put in prospect for them even after the war. Therefore they could use all their energies to increase production. Take Canada. Canada did precisely the same thing and, I believe, also Australia. But what did we get in South Africa? First the Minister of Agriculture, with regard to a long-term meat scheme, jumped about in a circle until the farmers’ associations eventually had to press him and demand from him that if their market was ruined and prices fixed lower than what they could obtain in the open market, they must receive the assurance that they would get protection after the war in that they would receive an economic price. In other words they asked for a long-term scheme. The Minister delayed in connection with the matter and brought forward nothing positive, except right at the end. Now, in this connection I wish to ask something, because it is necessary that the nation should know, and that the farmer should know what the position is in connection with control and a long-term scheme, and it is also necessary that the House should know. The Minister of Agriculture promised a long-term scheme. The Prime Minister seconded it this afternoon and said that when the war is over we will retain control and then the principle of control will be exercised, and it will not be permitted that the farmers who must now produce for a controlled market will get into difficulties again. The Minister expressed himself forcibly. But how does that rhyme with what he said at the congress of the United Party at Bloemfontein? There were other sections of the population who took up another standpoint in connection with control, especially the commercial section. And then they received the following reply: “The systems of control we at present have in the country are temporary measures and will disappear after the war.” I ask you how these two things can rhyme. After all we have heard from the Minister of Agriculture about a longterm scheme and after what we have heard from the Prime Minister in spite of the forcible language he used, we still do not know what the policy of the Government is in regard to that matter. As regards distribution I want to say this. If there is a shortage of food, then the steps taken by the administration of the country in connection with distribution occupy a more important position than when there is plenty of food. When there is plenty of food, distribution does not matter so much because then everyone can get what he wants, but if there is little, and too little, it is necessary to provide for good distribution. With reference to this matter the important question is, if for the moment we leave the past: What does the Minister of Agriculture hold in prospect in regard to this matter? The position is that people stand in queues, that there are meatless days, for a large section of the population each day of the week, and with an eye to that we ask what the Government holds in prospect. How will it tackle the matter? All I can say in this connection is that we received nothing from the Minister. He held out no hope that matters would improve. There was drought, supplies are decreasing and where we have this miserable position the Government cannot offer us anything and cannot say that the position will improve. The Minister of Agriculture gave us a feeble hope. He said that experiments were being made on a small scale as regard distribution centra. There are some of these distribution centra in Pretoria and he praised them and said that they worked very well. But there it remains. He said that at Durban another scheme was inaugurated, namely distribution to the houses. A register of consumere and of what they needed, was drawn up and supplies were delivered to their houses. In Durban that system was forced on the Government by the spread of the Infantile Paralysis epidemic. The Minister said that it worked very well, that Durban was quite satisfied and was pressing for the permanency of this system. What happened about that? Nothing. He does not intend to extend it further. A Commission was appointed to investigate the matter. A deputation interviewed the Prime Minister and they were put off with excuses, and when they made certain recommendations, they were told that these were unacceptable and impracticable. Until today we have received nothing from the Government except the statement that the matter is receiving serious consideration. It remains a round nil. Under these circumstances the nation is driven to despair. With regard to proper distribution, it is a case of “hands up” on the part of the Government. The latest measure now is that the Government sends people to the stock sales to commandeer cattle. Whether this is the solution of the matter remains to be seen. Probably it will make the position still worse, because instead of the farmers continuing to send cattle to the sales they will Simply keep the cattle. To what shall we have to resort? Commandeering on the farms? But enough about this. I now come to what I wish to deal with last. Other matters I will leave there. I now come to the report of the Health Commission, the Gluckman Report. It includes, as was recognised from the commencement, the great problem of housing. As often happens in debates of this kind, especially on the side of the Government, arguments have been used which are really beside the point. But in general a great issue is made of the fact that they have now moved in that direction, and these are referred to as beautiful speeches, as deadly speeches. The first in connection with this was a resumé, a wide resumé from the side of the Government, of what the Government has done in this connection. The Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation in his reply to the introduction of this motion, went in that direction and mentioned what the Government had done in connection with the milk scheme and in connection with this and with that, a whole series of things. Let me just say this—I also say it because of my own experience when I was a member of the Cabinet—that reference to a series of figures about all the good deeds of the Government generally makes no impression on the nation. The people do not ask what was done in the past but what the problems of today are and what means are used to solve the problems satisfactorily. They do not want to know what happened last year and the year before that. They do not want a long series of figures as regards the good deeds of the Government, but they want to know how the problems of today are being tackled. But there is a second line of argument which is adopted, and that we heard from the beginning when the Minister of Welfare spoke until the last member sat down, and that is the question of what I did when I had authority. I want to enter into that. In the first place the question was asked in connection with housing: “What did you do, and what did the Nationalist Party Government do at that time in connection with the urgent housing question?” and then it is alleged that the Nationalist Party and I, as Minister of Public Health, who were concerned with the matter, neglected our duty and that as a result of that neglect this great shortage arose and that that is the reason, why there is now such a shortage of houses. But let me remind the Minister of Welfare of what the actual state of affairs was. When I was Minister of Public Health there was no shortage of houses. That was not my problem. Large numbers of houses stood empty in Cape Town and could not be let That was not my problem, but there was another problem with which I had to cope. I do not wish to take all the credit for what was done at the time, because I had the help of my colleagues and of my Department, but there is one thing we realised at the time, namely that there was a large number of people, especially in the cities, who could not take the houses available because their wages were so low—I am thinking especially of unskilled labourers—that they could not pay for these houses. That was my problem. What was done? There were houses enough, but in a large part of the city there was overcrowding. Because wages were so low people had to be satisfied with small rooms in which two or three or four families lived in a small room. In order to deal with this the Natioalist Party Government instituted a system of sub-economic housing. That was the first step taken in our country in that direction, and later on they simply built on that foundation. Not alone did we come with a new scheme, and not only did we go in a new direction, but we also told the municipalities that they could have as much money as they liked to use for sub-economic housing, and we made available millions of pounds. The fact that the money was not utilised to the full was not the fault of the Government but of the municipalities. I even went so far as to threaten the City Council of Cape Town, where the position was serious, by saying: If you do not want to do anything and are not prepared, as I am asking you to do, to have a survey made to see how many houses can be used and how much overcrowding there is and how many houses are needed, I will use my powers under the Public Health Act and force you to do so, so that we can have a survey on which to build. At that time I left the Government and the matter remained there. But to blame us for the backwardness, the shortage of houses in connection with which the Government is sitting with its hands in its hair, does not wash. It only shows that the Minister of Welfare simply does not understand the position or does not wish to understand it. At that time there was no lack of houses.

We had to amend the Housing Act. You were not able to act under the Public Health Act, as you allege.

We now come to the non-acceptance of the Report of the Gluckman Commission. As regards this matter, it is clear that there is one basic and all pervading recommendation, the very thing of which the Government takes no notice, namely that there should be unity of control as regards public health, because the root of all the trouble lies in division of control, and various authorities handling the matter. I cannot enter into the debate carried on yesterday about the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) who was the Chairman of the Commission. In his speech in this House he made clear what the actual contents of his report is, and he very clearly pleaded for and said that unity of control was the first step towards the solution of this problem. I cannot enter into everything he said, but the stress he laid on this matter and the fact that that is just what the Government will not accept, is the strongest condemnation of the Government. As regards the hospital aspect the Minister of Welfare also said: “Yes, you were Minister of Public Health and what did you do in connection with the matter? In connection with this matter there was a recommendation or rather, a remark in the Report of the Hospital Commission, as early as 1925, to the effect that the position with regard to hospitals will remain unsatisfactory as long as there is divided control”. He says that the opinion was expressed as early as 1925 and he wants to know what I did. I will tell him. In the first place I met the Administrators and the Executive Committees and we discussed the whole matter of the unsatisfactory position and I told them: You have no proper machinery for the building of hospitals and for hospital administration. I will help you. The Government then appointed an Inspector of Hospitals. That was an important step in bringing improvements. Not only that but there was a great lack of hospitals. I approached my Government and asked: Let us not allow the health of the nation to suffer. We cannot say that we have no money for it; we must find the money. The result was that we told the Provincial Administrations: Build hospitals and you can incur such debts as are necessary, and you can obtain money cheaply, just as much as you need. I did something else too. At that time hospitals were built in the wrong places, and not at the best strategic points, just because there was no proper machinery. As a result of that we later on had hospitals in the Cape standing empty. In conjunction with the Provincial Administrations I then appointed a commission to make a survey of the whole hospital position in the country and to recommend to the Provincial Administrations, after proper investigation, at which spots hospitals should be built. I went so far, and later I tried to tackle this great problem. What encouragement did I receive from the other side? They thwarted my efforts.

You were in power all those years.

As I said when I introduced this motion, not only did they not wish to cooperate, but when I asked them to keep the matter outside politics, they refused, and when I wanted to appoint a commission of my own they went so far as to move heaven and earth in order to try to persuade people whom I had asked to serve on the commission to refuse to serve. In other words, they placed party interests higher than the interests of the nation. That was the position. Now we have a peculair position as far as this matter is concerned. The Report of the Gluckman Commission has been made quite clear to us. What is the reply received from the Minister of Welfare and also from the Prime Minister? In effect the reply is: “You may criticise the Government; we thrive on it.” The Minister went so far as to say that we are condemning the Government because it did not accept the fundamental recommendations of the Gluckman Report, and that we are right. He said that he had no objection to it. The Federation of Medical Associations took a strong resolution in connection with the Gluckman Report. They strongly condemned the Government’s delay in accepting it, and specially on the fundamental point of unity of control, and they used forcible expressions; stronger language than that we did not hear on this side of the House, and the Minister rose and said: “I agree.” He agrees with everything. I would have liked someone to quote what was said by Dr. Luke, a member of the Gluckman Commission, when he stated that in connection with this matter the Government is not only deserting the nation but, with reference to the promises made and the hope aroused, it had betrayed the nation. If that had been done, I wonder whether the Minister of Welfare would also have said: “I agree.” Eventually the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville was accepted. I wish to say just one word about the so-called stumbling-block the Government sees in the way of the acceptance of this Report. That stumbling-block is said to be the relationship between the Provinces and the Union Government, according to the South Africa Act as it was later amended. The division of control which the Gluckman Commission wishes to see taken away lies at the root of the chaos in public health. There is chaos, delay and all that, with the result that a portion of the nation is deprived of medical services and simply dies. That division of control lies at the root of all the trouble, and if it is not taken away, says the Gluckman Commission, with the best will in the world one can do nothing else but patchwork; and the nett conclusion to which the Government has come is that it will continue with that patchwork in spite of that position, as far as the health of the nation is concerned. Why is the Government in that position? The reply to that is that it is a difficulty which the Government created for itself, the Government and the Party sitting behind it. Mention has been made here of the Act passed in 1934, which is an amendment of the South Africa Act, as regards the relationship between the Union Government and the provinces. According to the South Africa Act, as it was, the Union Parliament was sovereign. The Union Parliament could put aside a law of the provinces and accept other legislation over the head of the provinces, in spite of Article 85 of the South Africa Act, which entrusted certain matters to the provinces. The Prime Minister again said today that he was not in favour of any tampering with the South Africa Act, but in 1934 he tampered with it. The Act went through Parliament, with the result that the provinces could not be deprived of any of the functions entrusted to them under Article 85 of the South Africa Act, and their powers cannot be decreased unless the province or provinces petitioned the Union Parliament about the matter. Only then could it come about In effect it amounts to this, that Parliament and the central Government were rendered powerless in regard to the most important matter. Where these difficulties exist today I say they are difficulties created by the Government, by the other side of the House itself, because it passed the Act of 1934. The Government was warned by one of the members on this side, namely by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). Let us refer to his speech when the Act of 1934 was accepted. Inter alia he said the following—

Such as now in the case of the Gluckman report—

This was a sound judgment expressed by the hon. member for Winburg about the Act. What he said at that time is literally happening today. That warning was not given in vain. It is just what the Prime Minister confessed here today. If he gives effect to the Gluckman Report on this essential point, that no patchwork should be done, then the provinces will say that he is breaking faith. Why did they do it? It is of interest to read this Hansard Report and to see why this Bill was proposed. It was initiated just after the Status Act was before Parliament, and in that Status Act the Government, and especially the Prime Minister of today, was concerned with the Dominion Party. The Dominion Party did not want the Status Act, for this reason, because they saw that it might be passed, and because they wished to continue with their oppression of the Afrikaner nation and its language in Natal,—I say it deliberately,—and wished to continue with their Imperialism, and therefore they wished to entrench themselves. They wished to entrench themselves in Natal as regards this matter and therefore they wanted this Act on the Statute Book, and because the Dominion Party in Natal was strong, and in order to get an advantage over them and to minimize their strength, a concession was made on that point. They wished to go further and to add that a change could only be made by a majority of two-thirds. But concessions were made to them to such an extent that they practically, to this degree, received the federal system which Natal wanted to have at the time of Union. It may now be said that this Act can be repealed by a majority of one vote. That is so, but if we pass such an Act we are faced with the position that we will be told that we are breaking faith as against the provinces. In other words, because of party political considerations you sacrificed and still today sacrifice the cause of the health of the nation, because of the dictatorship of Heaton Nicholls in Natal. Because of the dictatorship of Heaton Nicholls in Natal you leave the nation in its conditions of ill-health and of physical deterioration; you leave them to die. I say it is necessary that at this stage we should take the position in review, and that we should see why the Government is in difficulties. It is a difficulty of their own creation, and all I can say is that we on this side are prepared—I repeat it—not to consider party politics where the health of the nation is concerned, and that we do not intend to sacrifice public health for a system. The system is there for the nation and the nation is not there for the system.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—40:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Noes—97:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S A.

Clark, C. W.

Conan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Gluckmari, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J, W.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, H. A.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

The substitution of the words proposed by the Prime Minister, put, Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—94:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F, C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—40:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Words proposed to be substituted by the Prime Minister accordingly agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and the House divided:

Ayes—94:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—40:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Dönne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz.: “That this House expresses its full confidence in the Government”.