I move—

I second.

This notice of motion for leave to introduce a bill of such importance has taken this House and the country by surprise, and although it would be unusual to raise a debate on a motion for leave to introduce, the subject matter of the bill is also most unusual, and I think before the House is set the task of passing a bill of this character, the country should be taken into the confidence of the Government and some information should be given as to the conditions which have led to the proposal which the Government has now put before the House. For example, in other countries this procedure of granting a pension to an ex-Prime Minister is not followed, except in the case of Great Britain, where an Act was passed in 1937 under which ex-Prime Ministers who had been Prime Ministers previously to, or after the passing of the Act, would, as a matter of course, be entitled to a pension. If that were the proposal of the Government, it would be open to less objection than the proposal which is indicated in the notice of motion for leave to introduce a bill this morning. I say it would be open to less objection and it would provoke less controversy in the future if that course had been adopted by the Government. But the concern of the public outside is as to whether this pension has become necessary owing to the circumstances of the late Prime Minister, whether there are any conditions attached to the granting of the pension, and in short whether by the granting of this pension it is not possible that the country may be doing more harm than good. The last occasion upon which the late hon. member for Smithfield spoke in this House he dealt with the question of the present war. And the whole of his effort was to slow down, if not completely to stop, the war effort in South Africa.

And quite right to.

Is that why you kicked him out?

And on another recent occasion upon which he spoke he spoke in such terms of panegyric of Hitler that the Prime Minister was moved to say that in no other country in the world could such a thing happen that while a country was at war with another country the Leader of the Opposition could stand up and devote the best part of an hour to the praise of the very leader of this effort to dominate the world. General Hertzog on that occasion said that there was not a tittle of truth in the statement that Hitler’s aim was to dominate the world, and if we are being asked to vote a pension which may conceivably be made use of for the purpose of furthering propaganda such as this, then I should quite consistently decline to vote for that. I am not at this stage dealing finally with the matter, because the merits of the case for the pension have not been stated, but I hope the Government will follow this procedure of first taking the country into their confidence. And if a preference is expressed for a more general measure which will apply to all former, present and future Prime Ministers having a pension in case of need, then I hope that they will take the sense of the country on that matter and introduce the matter in a form less controversial than the present Bill promises to be.

I do not propose at this stage to deal with the general question raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). We have, as a Government, thought fit to introduce this Bill, thereby making special provision for a pension in this particular case, and not including it in the ordinary pension supplementary Bill which will doubtless be passed during the course of the Session. We have done so because we regard this as an entirely special case. So far we have had one Prime Minister of the Union who died in harness. Provision was afterwards made by way of pension for his widow. We have now had a Prime Minister who has retired from public life. He has done so after a long and distinguished career of public service. He has been a member of this House for thirty years—since Union. He has been Prime Minister of South Africa for half that period. We felt that those in themselves were sufficient reasons for laying down a special procedure to deal with this special case. That is why we have acted as we have done. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, we are fully prepared to justify these on the second reading debate. In the meantime I merely want to say that in the old Cape House there can be found precedents for a similar procedure where by means of special legislation special pensions were granted to those who had rendered distinguished service to their country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read first time; second reading on 30th January.

I move—

1. (a) four-and-a-half hours shall be allotted for the motion that the House go into Committee on the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure;
2. (b) eight hours shall be allotted for the Committee of the Whole House on the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure, including the consideration of the report of the Committee and the First Reading of the Second Additional Appropriation Bill;
3. (c) seven hours shall be allotted for the Second Reading of the Bill; and
4. (d) two hours shall be allotted for the Third Reading of the Bill.

For the purposes of this resolution—

1. (1) Application when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair.—When Mr. Speaker is in the Chair at the conclusion of any period of hours allotted, he shall, after allowing the Minister in charge of the business before the House in reply to the debate, forthwith put the original question before the House and any amendments that have been moved but not disposed of shall drop. At the conclusion of each stage the date for the next stage shall be fixed by a Minister: Provided that when the Second Additional Appropriation Bill has been read a Second Time the Committee stage may be taken forthwith instead of on a future day.
2. (2) Application when the House is in Committee.—When the Chairman is in the Chair at the conclusion of the period of hours allotted under paragraph (b), any amendments (other than amendments proposed by a Minister) which have been moved but not disposed of shall drop. The Chairman shall thereupon proceed to put forthwith, without debate, any amendments which have been moved or may be moved by a Minister, and thereafter only such further amendments as may be moved by a Minister and such questions, including votes, items or heads, as amended or as printed, as may be necessary to dispose of the Estimates. The Chairman shall thereupon bring up the report of the Committee without question put. Such report shall be considered forthwith without amendments or debate and when the Second Additional Appropriation Bill has been read a First Time the date for the Second Reading shall be fixed by a Minister.
3. (3) Eleven o’clock rule.—When the question has been put from the Chair at the conclusion of any period of hours allotted for any stage of proceedings specified above, the application of Standing Order No. 26 (eleven o’clock rule) shall be postponed until the proceedings on that stage have been completed.
4. (4) Dilatory motions.—At none of the stages above set forth shall Mr. Speaker or the Chairman receive a motion that the Chairman report progress or do leave the Chair, or a motion to postpone a vote, item, head, resolution or clause, or a motion for the adjournment of the House or of the debate, or a motion to recommit, unless moved by a Minister, and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith without debate.

I am proposing this motion on account of the fact that it is essential for the financial provision asked for, contained in the second additional estimates of expenditure, to be made early next week. I should have liked to have avoided the application of this guillotine measure, but in the circumstances it is impossible to do so. We would have been able to have avoided it if we had asked the House to meet a week before the date to which it had been adjourned, but I do not think that this would have been a very popular step with hon. members. I had hoped that it might have been possible for the whips to have met and to have come to an understanding which might have made it unnecessary to proceed with the action which is contemplated in this motion. All the Government wants is that the Bill, that is the Appropriation Bill, containing the additional estimate proposals, should be passed through all its stages by Friday so that it may then be sent to the Other Place. It might have been possible to have arranged matters in such a way, by means of discussion, that we could have achieved our object without the application of this measure. It would also have been possible along the road of such agreement to introduce possible suggestions and improvements in the time table if necessary. For that reason the chief Government Whip, in consultation with myself, addressed a letter to the Chief Whip of the Other Side in which he suggested a discussion before the beginning of the Session, which might have made it possible for those points to be considered. It was found impossible, however, by our colleagues opposite, to avail themselves of this offer, and in view of the fact that time was short the Government could do nothing except give notice of this motion. I just want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that it is still possible for such an agreement to be reached, and for such discussion to take place. It might be that even now if desired the proposed time table may be amended and improved upon. All the Government desires, as I have already said, is that the Bill which will follow on the acceptance of this resolution, shall be disposed of and passed through all stages by Friday next. Now, may I be allowed to tell the House what these proposals amount to? In connection with the proposals for the defraying of additional expenditure, there are three principal stages. The first stage is the debate on the motion for the House to go into Committee; the second is the consideration of the various estimates in Committee, and the third is the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. Then comes the third reading of the Appropriation Bill which as a rule does not take up much time. For those three stages, together with the third reading debate, there is provision in this motion for 21½ hours. When we met here last time I made a similar proposal in regard to the previous additional estimates. Provision was then made for thirty and a half hours. Now the provision is for 21½ hours, but on that occasion we were concerned with estimates to an amount of more than £33,000,000. We are now dealing with estimates involving an amount of less than £16,000,000—less than half of what they were last time. In addition to that we have the fact that there will be considerable opportunity in the immediate future for the Opposition, and for the House as a whole, to discuss these matters. Not only has notice been given of a vote of no confidence but we shall also have the ordinary debates on the second reading and on the third reading of the Part Appropriation Bill, and in addition the main Budget will be introduced within the next six weeks. The House as a whole therefore, and the Opposition in particular, will not be lacking in opportunities to discuss this matter by way of debate, and in addition to that we have this fact—when I last submitted the additional estimates to the House I was not only dealing with increased expenditure, but also with increased taxation. The House on that occasion therefore, in dealing with the motion to go into Committee, did not only have to discuss expenditure, but also taxation proposals, whereas on the present occasion we are only discussing expenditure and not taxation proposals—no taxation proposals are being made on the present occasion. For that reason there is no need to make so much time available as would otherwise have been necessary, and that is the reason why the time set down for the first stage of the consideration of this matter, that is to say, the motion to go into Committee on the second additional estimates, only provides for four and a half hours. On the present occasion there will be no need to discuss any taxation proposals; all the House will have to discuss is expenditure. If there should be any members who feel that the time set down may be too short, I want to point out that we are providing practically for a full day’s debate, not only in regard to the Committee stage of the Estimates but also for the second reading of the Bill, and hon. members who perhaps to-day may not have the opportunity of saying everything they want to say, will then have ample opportunity of doing so at the next stage.

I second.

I do not think it is necessary to have a long debate on this matter. This is a motion similar to other motions which we have repeatedly discussed in this House. For that reason the arguments which may be used would to a large extent be a repetition of arguments and objections raised on previous occasions. But in spite of that I feel that we on this side of the House cannot allow this motion to pass without registering our protest. So far as we are concerned it is not merely a matter of the convenience of the House; it is not a matter of opportunities which the House may have at a later stage for discussing matters of this kind; we are faced here with a question of principle. We on this side of the house look upon this as a matter of principle, and on previous occasions we have emphasised, as we are doing again to-day, and we have given reasons for our emphasis, that this matter constitutes an effort on the part of the Government to make an onslaught on the rights of members of this House. We are dealing here with the principle which is being followed, not as an exception, but it would appear that it is becoming a rule to place restrictions on the debates in this House over and above the provisions laid down in the Standing Orders. To this House the matter is a serious one, a very serious one, and it is for that reason that we are opposing this principle. The Minister referred to a letter which had been sent to the Chief Whip on this side of the House asking that we should go into the question of whether we could negotiate on this matter, and whether it would not be possible to come to an agreement; that sort of thing is all very well if it is only a matter of convenience. If that is all that is involved one can consider it. But when one is faced with the question of principle, as is the case here, then I do not think that we are entitled to compromise on the matter. That is the reason why we were unable to enter into any negotiations. However much we may be prepared to negotiate with our political opponents, in regard to the procedure in this House, we cannot do so when a question of principle is involved. I further want to point out that in actual fact there is no need for this method of doing things. I want to point out that the House has sufficient time at its disposal, that it has more time available for debates which have to take place than was the case during the short session which we had last time. That is also proved by the motion of which the Prime Minister has given notice, which shows that the position is such that next week we are to revert to the operation of the ordinary Standing Orders of this House. The position is such that from next week it wil no longer be necessary for us to resort to all kinds of measures of this kind. I also want to refer to the argument used by the Minister that we are dealing here with an extraordinary position and that it is essential for us to pass the additional estimates within a short space of time owing to the fact that the financial provisions placed at the Government’s disposal by Parliament, for war purposes, will shortly be exhausted. The Minister stated that it was a matter of urgent necessity to make the necessary provision. We are now being asked to vote a further £15,000,000, nearly £16,000,000, which will mean that in the future there will be a large deficit in the estimates which will come bofore the House. This is a most important matter which requires the careful consideration and thorough discussion of this House, in view of the fact that the money has to be found by way of a loan, so that a burden, a heavy burden, is being placed on future generations. That being so, it is an extremely important matter, but I further want to point out that it is no excuse to say that there is too little time at our disposal. There was no reason why the Government should not have called Parliament together a week earlier when it saw that it could not come out on the money that had been placed at its disposal. If Parliament had been convened a week earlier, the necessity for the application of the guillotine would not have arisen. It was not a definite decision of this House to adjourn until the 27th January, but while it was decided to adjourn until the 27th January, powers were at the same time given to Mr. Speaker in consultation with the Prime Minister, to convene the House at an earlier date, and we are now faced with the position in which we find ourselves, simply because the Government allows its own convenience, or the convenience of members, to weigh more than the rights of members. We on this side of the House look upon the position in a different light, and we take up the attitude that the rights of members who have to represent their electors here must weigh more than their convenience. For those reasons I want to lodge my protest against this motion.

I should be failing in my duty if I did not lodge a protest against the motion at this stage. The Minister of Finance has just been telling us that all sides are apparently satisfied with methods of this kind. I do not think the Minister was in earnest when he made that statement. He knows how we opposed a similar motion during the last session; we opposed it as energetically as we were able to do. The fact that we asked for a division at each stage should be ample evidence to make the Minister realise that it was a serious matter so far as we were concerned. Now at the beginning of this session the Government comes along and immediately introduces a motion of this kind. In other words, our work is made practically impossible and our mouths are shut so that it is made impossible for us properly to discuss this important matter involving the country’s ependiture. I think it is most unfair. The Minister tells us that he needs the money now, but he does not give us any opportunity of discussing the country’s finances; he does not take us into his confidence, and we are not given the opportunity clearly to show the country what is going on. Discussions are restricted and we are deprived of our rights. We find that for defence purposes only the Minister is asking for an additional amount of nearly £14,000,000. It is a huge amount which the taxpayer of the future will have to bear, and when the Minister comes and asks us to pass such a huge amount I consider it is only fair and right that we should be given the opportunity to discuss the matter properly. Yet what do we find? Restrictions are imposed, and we, as representatives of the people, are not being given a proper opportunity of expresing our opinion and of levelling criticism. The Minister knows perfectly well that many of us will not get the opportunity of properly discussing the matter because when the time laid down by the Minister is up, the guillotine drops and our mouths are shut. I think it is most unfair on the part of the Government to take a step of this kind at the beginning of a session. I know that the Minister personally would perhaps like to give us the opportunity of discussing matters, but the Government with its slavish majority is not prepared to allow criticism on this subject.

Order, order!

He is one of the members of the Government.

The hon. member must confine himself to the matter before the House.

I feel that the whole Government is responsible. If one studies the Additional Estimates one finds that a huge amount is being spent on the war, but for the poor people who are suffering great hardships an amount of only £5,000 is available for irrigation purposes. All this tends to show that we should not at this stage be restricted in our discussions. Burdens are being placed on the people which will have to be borne by future generations, and I am convinced that the people demand that when huge expenditure is incurred, they, the people, at least, shall be informed of what is going on. It is not only the present generation which will have to bear the burdens of this war, but it is future generations as well.

The hon. member will have to reserve his criticism on the Additional Estimates themselves until such time when those Estimates are before the House.

Yes, but the motion now before the House will prevent me from giving expression to my criticism when the Estimates are beforte the House. The Minister of Finance laughs. He is not concerned, but the people outside have to suffer and to pay. It is not only the members of the Defence Force which in days to come will be held responsible, but the people as a whole have to pay, and have to suffer under the unbearable burdens which are being imposed upon the public.

I want to say a few words in connection with the motion now before the House, and I shall be very brief in what I have to say. I am very sorry that this session should start with a guillotine motion. If there is one thing which we as Opposition regard as a kind of challenge, as an act of defiance, on the part of the Government, it is a motion of this kind. One feels at once that one is being challenged, defied, “Do what you like, you are only going to get so much time.” The Minister knows, and the Government knows, that it has been our experience in the past that this kind of motion does not tend to facilitate our business. To tell the truth, debates are extended as a result of measures of this kind. But I want to say on behalf of the Opposition that we do not unnecessarily want to debate matters, and we are actually now producing evidence of that fact. For instance, we would be able to have a three hour debate on this motion, but it is not our intention to take up three hours. We want to be reasonable, and we do not want to carry on with unnecessary discussions. I want to point out, however, in connection with these additional estimates, that members only arrived here yesterday. That was the first day of sitting. It is perfectly true that this is the continuation of a session which started last year, but in actual fact it is really a new session, and hon. members are quite unprepared to go on with the debate. I appreciate the Minister’s difficulties, and I know that he expects, and has to expect, the additional estimates to be passed before Friday. My leader pointed out that if the session had started a little earlier, there would have been no difficulty, and there would have been no need for all this unnecessary haste, and that being the position I want to ask the Minister not to proceed with the debate on the Additional Estimates to-day, because members are not prepared. If he carries on with the debate we are going to have a discussion for which members are not prepared, and a great deal of time will be wasted in that manner. I do not want to commit this side of the House, but I feel that it is possible for us to co-operate in such a manner that in any case we shall be able to dispose of the Additional Estimates by Friday next. I therefore want to suggest that after the Minister has made his speech on his motion for the House to go into Committee on the Additional Estimates, the debate be adjourned until tomorrow. We shall then be able to continue the debate to-morrow.

I feel that we on this side of the House are jointly responsible for the country’s financial position, and we as an Opposition are called upon to act as a brake and to level fair criticism in respect of matters which we consider unjustifiable. For that reason we consider it is most unfair to restrict this side of the House by guillotine methods. I am convinced that it is unfair towards this side, and really unjust towards the country outside, that the Opposition should not be given the opportunity of ventilating reasonable criticism. It is unheard of. The Government naturally has its plans, and does not want to be thwarted, but we feel at the same time that the Minister and the Government should be generous towards this side of the House, and towards that section of the country which we represent. Our public debt is mounting up and is top-heavy, and conditions are abnormal. A huge burden is being placed on the country. Where is it leading us? When burdens of that kind are being imposed on the country this side of the House should be given an opportunity of putting forward criticism which is fully justified. This step which the Government is taking is most unfair, and it is small-minded on their part to restrict the Opposition which is here to criticise, in such a manner as it is doing now, through this guillotine motion, and to try to knock the Opposition out in that way. It is nothing but hitting below the belt, and we feel, and the country feels, that it is not fair. For that reason I feel that the Minister should abandon methods like these which are unfair. Why is he continually going on with them? We have had enough of them in the past, and they should be put an end to as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan)—I do not know whether I should call him the Leader of the Opposition—first of all called this matter a question of principle. He said that because of the fact that the Opposition was in principle opposed to the guillotine procedure he was not prepared to discuss the matter with us; that is to say, the application of this procedure, or even the adoption of an arrangement, which would do away with the application of the guillotine procedure. The Opposition was not prepared to discuss this with us, because, so he said, it was a matter of principle. The House has already given its decision on this question, and the principle has been adopted for this session. I want to point out to the hon. member for Piquetberg that the feelings of the Opposition on this principle question were so strong that the whole debate had run its course in less than an hour and a quarter. They had practically unlimited time to keep the debate going for days on end, but so strongly did they feel against the principle of the guillotine that they were talked out within an hour and a quarter. The principle, as I have said, has been accepted for this session, and I am not prepared to go into that question again. We are only concerned now with the question of the application of the principle in special circumstances. The hon. member for Piquetberg said that they would like to have more time for the debate. They are only too willing to do their duty as members of this House; they will always be prepared to sit here. But what has been our experience? Yesterday, when the session started, the benches opposite were empty. This morning the benches opposite were empty again, but the Government benches were full. And what do we find further in regard to those indefatigable champions of Parliamentary rights? Who are the first to leave Cape Town—hon. members on this side or on the other side? What did we see at the end of last year’s session, the normal session, and what did we see at the end of the first part of this present session, towards the end of last year? The benches on the other side of the House were empty. It does not become hon. members to come here and to say that they are prepared to give all their time to the discussion of the interests of the country. In regard to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), I may just point out that he remarked that members were not prepared for the debate which will have to take place to-day. I am sorry if that is not so, but I see no reason why it should be so. Hon. members were all aware of the fact—and as a matter of fact I announced it publicly—that additional funds would be required for defence purposes. The Additional Estimates were placed on the table of the House yesterday morning, and the House adjourned yesterday morning at 11.15. Hon. members therefore had time to study the Estimates. But if some hon. members are not prepared to discuss matters to-day I want to point out that there is a full day left to-morrow and also on Thursday to discuss this question. There is ample opportunity left for them. The argument used by the hon. member therefore does not carry much weight with me. But seeing that the hon. member for Pietersburg asked whether it would not be possible to come to some arrangement I want to point out that when I introduced this motion I stated that we were even at this stage still prepared to come to an arrangement, and to amend the time laid down for the various stages so long as we could conclude the debate in all its stages early on Friday afternoon. The hon. member for Piquetberg thereupon said that it was a question of principle so far as the Opposition was concerned and that they could not discuss, or negotiate, on the procedure. The Acting Leader tells us that they are unable to negotiate, but the Whip—if he is still a Whip—wants to negotiate.

It was stated that we could not negotiate on the question of the guillotine, the guillotine as such.

But we are now concerned with the application of the guillotine. I said that we were prepared to negotiate, but the hon. member for Pipuetberg does not want to have anything to do with negotiations.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—73:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon. V. G. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—54:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Brits, G. P.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus. F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

It is not customary for the Minister of Finance when he introduces additional estimates at this stage of the year to make a detailed financial statement. That is so because of the difficulty of anticipating the Budget statement. When additional estimates are introduced at the end of January, it may be anticipated that the Budget statement will fall to be delivered within a period of four to six weeks, and on that account it has come to be the custom for additional estimates at this stage merely to be introduced formally and for discussion of these estimates, mainly to take place during the Committee stage. This year, however, I think it is necessary to depart from that custom and for me to make at least a brief statement in general in regard to the additional estimates which I am submitting to the House. That is so because of the exceptional circumstances of the time in which we are living, which have led to the submission of additional estimates for an exceptionally large amount. On that account I feel I owe the House the statement which I now propose to make to it, but I feel sure that the House will not expect of me either to go into details at this stage which would be more appropriate to the Budget or to anticipate the Budget proposals for dealing with the general financial position which will be submitted at a later stage. Technically, these estimates which I have laid on the table fall into two parts. First of all we have the estimates from Revenue funds, and secondly the estimates from Loan funds. It will, however, be more convenient to consider the estimates not under two but under three headings. In the first place we have the estimates of Additional Expenditure on Revenue votes, no provision being included for defence. There we have an amount of £898,564. In the second place we have the provision for expenditure from loan funds on the loan votes other than the defence vote. There we have an amount of £882,250. And thirdly, and with this I propose to deal separately, we have the additional expenditure on defence amounting to £14,000,000. That amount it is proposed to charge to our loan account. I shall explain later the reasons for our increased defence expenditure, and I shall also give the reasons for charging this £14,000,000 to loan and not to revenue account, and I shall refer to the effect of our doing so. Now, first of all I propose to deal with the first two heads to which I have referred, namely the items of £898,564 and £882,250. These may be regarded as being on the same footing as the estimates of additional expenditure which are normally introduced at this stage of the year. Let me then deal first with the expenditure from revenue funds. I would just like to draw the attention of the House to the main items of these headings. There is first of all £10,000 on the Prime Minister’s vote. This amount has been provided in order to pay compensation claims of officers of overseas legations for the loss of personal effects which had to be abandoned in Germany, Italy and the occupied territories. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into details in regard to that. The House will, of course, appreciate that the necessity has arisen of meeting these claims.

Were these officers in the employ of the Government?

Yes, they were our own officers at our legations. Then, there is the public debt vote. There we are asking the House to vote an additional £400,000. The explanation is twofold. First our borrowings have been heavier than was anticipated when the estimates were originally drawn up. Last August I had to come to the House and ask it to provide for an additional £23,500,000 on loan account. That amount has had to be borrowed and interest to be provided. But the whole of this £400,000 is not accounted for by additional interest payments on our debt. There is also a substantial amount under “D,” “Exchange on Remittances,” and the greater part of that is represented by the cost of remitting money to London for the repayment of debt. The House will recall that it was decided after the estimates had been laid on the table last year to repay in London a loan amounting to £7,900,000. I believe every hon. member of this House endorses the adoption of that policy of repayment of overseas debt wherever possible. That policy was followed, but, of course, provision had to be made for the remittance of the money, and that provision now has to be voted. Then, on the vote for Agriculture, provision has been made for an additional £50,000 in respect of locust destruction. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will, of course, be able to give further information if desired, in regard to the position of the locust campaign this year. On the agricultural vote, under the heading of Assistance to Farmers, provision is made for £100,000 which is the first instalment of the amount which is being provided for assistance to wheat farmers during the present session. A further amount will be provided on the Main Estimates which I hope to lay on the table of the House a little later. Then, under the vote Interior, I would refer to two items. The first item is also one of the unhappy consequences of the war. There are a large number of our South African nationals who have been caught by the war blizzard, and are to-day unable to return to their homes. We have always accepted the principle of assisting our nationals who are in difficulty overseas. Always such assistance is given by way of loan, and usually these amounts are repaid. In present circumstances there are many such Union nationals caught by the blizzard of war, and on that account we have had to provide an additional £20,000 which, however, will be partially recoverable since the payments are regarded as loan payments. There is another item on the Interior vote which I am sure will have the approval of all members of the House, and that is the additional amount in respect of the contribution to the cost of the Voortrekker Monument. The Government assumed a large share of the responsibility for that cost; for some time, however, there was delay in the continuance of the work, but happily the work is now being expedited. The necessary machinery has been obtained, and the work is proceeding more rapidly than we thought possible originally, and on that account we shall have to pay out an additional £13,000. Of course, this pro tanto relieves us of that amount of expenditure in the future. Then I think I should also refer to the vote under Prisons and Internment Camps for internment expenditure. An additional £153,000 is asked for there. The bulk of that is in respect of the cost of the military units which are guarding these camps, and to that extent the defence Vote is relieved. It seems an appropriate thing to charge that expenditure to this particular vote, the more so as in part this expenditure is recoverable from the United Kingdom and other Governments which are making use of our internment camps for the purpose of providing for their own internees. These are the main items in this expenditure of £898,500. Let me say just a word on the effect of this additional expenditure on our Budget position. That, of course, is really a matter for the Budget statement, and I shall therefore not go into it in detail, but I think I should only anticipate that statement to this extent. In our first and second expenditure estimates, that is in the Main Budget and in the Supplementary Budget introduced last August, we provided for an expenditure on revenue votes of £65,061,000. That is the figure which is quoted in the abstract attached to these additional estimates. The House is now being asked to vote an additional £898,500. That therefore brings our total expenditure to be voted for this financial year to £65,960,126. Now our first and second revenue estimates, that is the estimates contained in the original budget, and the estimated yield from taxation imposed last September, amounted to £61,967,000. There would therefore appear to be a shortfall of some £4,000,000 on our Revenue Account. But the House need not be alarmed by that figure. First of all, we have a surplus carried over from the previous year, which goes against that figure. That surplus is of the order of £1,500,000. Secondly, there are savings on our expenditure estimates. In August last year I put the figure of these savings at just over £1,000,000. In this abstract the figure is put at over £1,250,000. I feel confident that that figure will be further exceeded as this present financial year draws to its close. Finally, I have little doubt that the revenue estimates for this year will also be exceeded. I am not prepared at this stage to say by how much they will be exceeded, but I do not contemplate the position of our revenue account with any great apprehension. I think I should also say that the yield of the additional taxation which was imposed last September has, taken as a whole, been quite satisfactory. That is all I need say at this stage on the additional estimates from revenue funds. I come now to the additional expenditure proposed to be defrayed from loan votes other than defence. There you have an amount of £882,250. Of that the great bulk is taken up by the provision to be voted for the Industrial Development Corporation. The House last year passed an Act providing for the creation of that Corporation, and provision was made for the taking up of shares by the Government. The Government could either pay for these shares in cash or by the transfer to the Corporation of its shares in Iscor. The Government has decided as far as the first instalment is concerned to pay in cash, and on that we are asked to vote this amount of just over £500,000—£500,000 for A shares and £1,000 for B shares. I do not think I need at this stage go into the other items on our loan vote. I need merely say this, that I anticipate that the additional amount of £882,000 will be met largely if not entirely out of savings on loan votes over and above the savings on loan votes which I foreshadowed when I introduced my Supplementary Budget in August. They may also be met in part out of additional receipts on those heads of revenue which are placed to the credit of our loan account. To that extent I also face the prospect with no lack of equanimity in regard to the financing of this additional provision. I now come to the third head to which I referred, the Additional Expenditure on Defence. This House and Parliament have already voted for defence this year as contributions to the war expenses account an amount of £46,000,000. Of this amount there had been spent up to the end of December all but just over £7,100,000. We have been spending in recent months at the rate of rather less than £6,000,000 per month. On that basis an additional amount of £11,000,000 might suffice to carry us through to the end of the financial year, but we have to take account of the fact that in March spending is always on a heavier scale than ordinarily, merely because of the fact that owing to the close of the financial year amounts are brought to charge which would otherwise be carried over to the following month. Our March spending can be regarded as spending for a month and a half, and having regard to that fact I have decided not to ask for the minimum provision of £11,000,000, but for £14,000,000, which will bring our defence expenditure to a round figure of £60,000,000. As Minister of Finance I would have been very glad not to have had to come to this House for a further appropriation. But, as everyone knows, expenditure on defence in times like the present is something which no Minister of Finance can estimate with any pretence of certainty or assurance. That is the experience of other belligerent countries, and of neutral countries as well. In my Supplementary Budget statement I gave figures showing how the United States of America, a neutral country, within three months of the introduction of their Main Budget for 1940/41 had to ask for supplementary defence appropriation which increased by 250 per cent. the original defence vote.

They have changed their policy.

I am referring to the early part of this year. Since then further appropriations have been asked for in America for defence. My hon. friend may ascribe that to the change of policy, a change of policy which I am sure is very welcome to those who have at heart the cause for which we are fighting. I could give even more spectacular figures of the defence appropriations asked for in the United States, but I am merely repeating that statement of the increased defence expenditure within three months of the submission of the country’s budget at the commencement of the present financial year—an increase of 250 per cent. And that in the case of a neutral country.

Did you say neutral?

Now if it is deemed that the Government has erred because our defence estimates are being exceeded, because additional appropriations are asked for, well, I could adduce a veritable cloud of witnesses both from belligerent and neutral countries to prove that we have erred in very good and very numerous company.

Does that make it any better?

I am quite prepared to face any criticism that may be levelled under that head.

You will get it all right.

Now the biggest single item in regard to this increased expenditure of £14,000,000 is £5,500,000 for pay and allowances to volunteers. That means simply that we have been able to increase our army to a very much greater extent than we believed would be possible. It is to a large extent the measure of the success of the Government’s war effort.

Victimisation.

May I say that when account is taken of the opposition which we have had to face, of the attempts which have been made to discredit our war efforts, the Government’s achievement is very much greater than it would otherwise appear to be. I have no doubt that there will be bitter criticism from the Opposition benches.

Hear, hear!

There will be bitter criticism of our increased expenditure.

And quite right, too.

But the bitterness will largely arise from the realisation in the minds of my friends opposite that all their efforts to create an atmosphere which would be detrimental to the success of the Government’s war effort have failed utterly and completely.

The people will call you to account.

The rest of this increased expenditure is almost entirely due to increased expenditure on arms, equipment and stores of various kinds. To some extent, of course, it is due to the increase in the size of the army which has brought with it increased expenditure on arms and equipment, but to an even larger extent that increase is due to the speeding up of our own war supplies production effort. May I say this: that one of the difficulties in estimating defence expenditure under present circumstances is the uncertainty in regard to the speed with which deliveries will be made. One knows what commitments have been entered into, but one does not know to what extent those commitments will be met within the current financial year. What has happened is this: that in respect of a large number of items of arms and equipment which we had not expected to get from overseas, and in regard to which we knew there would be delay, and where we thought delivery would not be made until the following financial year, in regard to a large number of such items, production of such items in South Africa has now become possible. That speeding up of our war supplies production effort, I think, should be to all of us a source of gratification, and, moreover, it is again a measure of the Government’s success in putting South Africa’s war effort on a basis worthy of South Africa. The plain fact underlying this increased defence expenditure is simply this, that we have built up a larger army than we thought would be possible, and that that army is much more fully armed and equipped at this stage than we believed would be possible.

Especially the 12 o’clock army in Adderley Street.

And that has been done out of our own resources here in South Africa, our own resources financially, and to an overwhelming extent our own resources industrially. I say that we have every reason to view this additional expenditure with satisfaction, certainly as far as that point of view is concerned, and I have no doubt that the additional expenditure necessitated by that achievement is something which this House will readily vote. I come then to the way in which it is proposed to deal with this additional amount of £14,000,000 defence expenditure. The whole of it is debited against our loan account. No good purpose would have been served by debiting all or portion of this £14,000,000 against our revenue account unless we were prepared at this stage to impose additional taxation to cover that expenditure. As everyone knows, we are now within two months of the end of the financial year. It is hardly worth while imposing additional taxation for this year at this stage. It is also hardly appropriate at this stage to review the financial situation as a whole. That is the reason why I propose to debit the whole of this amount of £14,000,000 to our loan account, but in the Budget proposals which will shortly be submitted, we shall, of course, have to take account of that fact in submitting those proposals so as to maintain a fair balance as between borrowing and taxation in the financing of our war expenditure. Now I come to the result of the action we are taking. I am proposing, as I said, to debit our loan account with this amount of £14,000,000. As I have already explained, our expenditure in respect of the war during the previous financial year was just under £5,000,000. Parliament has already provided £46,000,000 in respect of war expenditure for this year, making a total therefore of £51,000,000. I explained to the House on previous occasions that of that £51,000,000 on war expenditure we were finding over £30,000,000 without imposing any burden on posterity. I explained also that it would only be necessary to borrow rather less than £21,000,000. If we add this £14,000,000 as the final amount for this financial year, the position is this, that out of a total war expenditure up to the end of this year of £65,000,000—£5,000,000 for last year and £60,000,000 for this year—the total amount we would have to borrow would be under £35,000,000—that is just over 50 per cent. I think that in this respect our financial record will bear comparison with that of any belligerent country, and in fact with that of many neutral countries. I think I should also say something to the House about the method of financing this expenditure of £14,000,000. I have told the House that I am not unduly disturbed about finding the money necessary for the other items of expenditure on revenue and loan account, for which authority is now asked. I want to say a word about the financing of this £14,000,000 which we are debiting against loan account. I need not for reasons which I have indicated go into undue detail, but I can give sufficient indication of what we have in mind, to deal with our proposals in an intelligent manner. We have to find an additional £14,000,000 out of borrowing over and above what we contemplated in September last. Now we can borrow either on a permanent or a temporary basis. Our permanent borrowings are either from the public generally, or from the public debt commissioners. Our temporary borrowings are either from the public generally, by way of Treasury Bills, or from the Reserve Bank by way of ordinary advances, or as a loan, against the stabilisation account of the Reserve Bank, which is really our money anyhow. As far as the permanent borrowings are concerned, the House will be aware of the fact that during the latter part of last calendar year we went to the public with a loan issue which proved to be an outstanding success. We have every reason to be gratified with the success of that loan issue. As far as the Public Debt Commissioners are concerned, they have subscribed to that loan issue, and they have also been able to provide moneys for Government stock of other kinds. Taking these two items, taking the amounts lent to us by the public, and by the Public Debt Commissioners, I think I can say that we shall probably have received by the end of this year in borrowings an amount of anything up to £7,000,000 more than we contemplated in September last. That £7,000,000 or nearly £7,000,000 will therefore be available towards this £14,000,000 to which I have referred. Then, of course, there is the possibility of temporary borrowings. I have indicated the sources of such temporary borrowing. I merely wish to say at this stage that the public has been coming forward with increased amounts by way of offering for the issue of Treasury Bills. We already hold a considerable amount in Treasury Bills over what we held last year. The market is favourable as far as we are concerned, and I think I can therefore say that I foresee no difficulty of a technical kind in financing this £14,000,000 during the present financial year. That is as far as I need go at present. It is not necessary for me at this stage to foreshadow the Budget proposals. It is also not possible for me to do so for the simple reason that these Budget proposals have not yet been formulated. They cannot yet be formulated because I have not yet all the information necessary as a basis for their formulation, and therefore for a little time to come I shall have to content myself with deriving instruction from what I read in the Press as to what will be contained in Budget proposals which are not yet known even to the Minister of Finance.

I have not really got up to take part in the debate on this motion. A great deal has been said by the Minister of Finance which we will be able to deal with far better for instance when we have another general discussion about the war policy, and the war efforts of the Government. For that reason so far as I am personally concerned, it is not my intention to go into that at this stage. But the Minister of Finance made a speech here first of all about the tremendously large amount which Parliament is asked to vote; an amount of over £15,000,000, which is about half of what until a short while ago constituted the total expenditure of the country for a whole year. And this was not the first supplementary Budget speech made in this House, and not the first supplementary amount asked for here. This is the second supplementary amount asked for, and this second amount is the tremendous amount mentioned by the Minister. The speech made by the Minister here this morning is for that reason, and rightly so, a minor Budget speech in itself, and that being so I feel that it is highly necessary that what he said here this morning should be properly studied by members on both sides of the House before the debate starts. The Minister during the guillotine debate left an opening, and said that proper opportunity would be given to members on this side of the House, perhaps I should rather say to members on both sides of the House, to prepare themselves properly for the discussion of this motion. He said that if he only had an assurance that this matter would be disposed of by Friday he would be willing to negotiate with the Opposition about the allocation of time to the different stages of the discussion.

Friday, in good time for the Bill to be sent to the Senate. That is to say, Friday, at about half past two.

Some other member will move the adjournment of the debate later on, but I want to prepare the House for such a proposal by saying that what is being suggested here about negotitions taking place in connection with the allocation of the time is by no means in conflict with what I said just now, that in principle we are opposed to the guillotine method. We are opposed to the principle, and we opposed that motion in principle. We lodged our protest against the principle, and we voted against the principle. In exactly the same way as we, in principle, in this House vote against the application of the closure and do so time after time whenever it is proposed, in exactly the same way have we voted in principle against the guillotine motion. But if it once becomes a resolution of the House then every member of the House has to acquiesce in the decision of the House, and after that one can without surrendering any principle, negotiate about the application of the decision taken by the House.

I beg your pardon?

The Minister should listen more carefully.

I say again that in exactly the same way as we oppose the application of the closure so this motion is opposed by the Opposition In principle we are opposed to the guillotine arrangement, and we vote against it as we did just now. But once the decision has been taken, once the principle has been adopted by the House, every member has to acquiesce in it, and without surrendering our attitude so far as the principle is concerned, we can then negotiate … I hope the Minister will not make it necessary for me to repeat again what I want to say.

The Whip does not want to give him a chance to listen.

Without committing ourselves so far as the principle is concerned, we are definitely able to negotiate about the application of that principle, and all we are now saying in this respect is this—the principle of the guillotine has been agreed to; a fixed time has been laid down for this debate, and that we have to acquiesce in. It is no longer a question of principle now; it is now a question of the allocation of the time which, under this guillotine arrangement, is allowed for this debate. What we now want to say to the Minister is that we on this side of the House are prepared to negotiate with him on that aspect of the matter. That is a distinction which the Minister with all his ability of making distinctions lost sight of during the previous discussion, and he certainly did not do justice to himself when he did not realise that.

May I, with the leave of the House, be allowed to say something?

[There being no objection],

I do not want to go into the question of distinctions; I only want to say that, judging by the speech of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) the Opposition is apparently prepared to conclude the debate by Friday. If the hon. member is prepared to give us the assurance that the Bill in connection with these Estimates in all its stages will be concluded by halfpast two on Friday afternoon so that it can then go to the Senate, we on our side will be prepared to move the adjournment of the debate. I just want to point out that no other member can move the adjournment. Under the Rules it has to be moved by a Minister, but if the hon. member on behalf of the Opposition will give us the assurance that all the stages will be concluded at halfpast two on Friday, one of the Ministers will now move the adjournment of the debate, and then the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), or any other member, will be able to continue the debate to-morrow. Do you give that assurance?

Yes.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 29th January.