I move—

I want to move as an amendment—

I want to say a few words to explain my motion. You know that various amendments have been moved to this Bill, which unfortunately for certain reasons have been ruled out of order by the Chairman. There was also an amendment that persons who have mortgage bonds affected by this legislation, should still have the protection that after 1951 they will not be called upon to pay more than 5 per cent. interest. The Chairman then ruled that this was a proposal that affected an important principle, and it was then thought desirable that the House should be given an instruction referring the matter back to a Committee of the whole House. Now I just want to say that is quite true that it embraces an important principle. We on this side of the House, and hon. members on the other side of the House realise that farming is a very fluctuating business, and that you must keep the rates of interest on mortgage bonds on as low a level as possible. That was also the reason why the previous Government, which I want to call the Fusion Government, introduced the Bill in connection with farm interest subsidised and then the interest rate of this group of mortgage bonds that fell under the Act was at 3½ per cent., to which the Government added another 1½ per cent., so that the maximum was 5 per cent. Now the Minister comes with a bill that will systematically reduce the interest subsidy and eventually take it away altogether, and which will also abolish the protection in respect of the interest rate of 5 per cent. This is an important principle, and therefore we have specially brought forward this motion to refer the matter back to a Committee of the whole House. I have, as the Minister knows, already charged him in the Second Reading that his measure is not a mortgage redemption plan. As a result of pressure from hon. members on the other side of the House he simply comes forward and takes away the interest subsidy. But he does it systematically, it is reduced gradually and it is done in such a way that the farmers get the impression that it is a scheme for the redemption of capital. It is true that whereas the State at first had to pay an interest subsidy it now goes towards a reduction of the capital, but the farmer is no better off. The measure simply means that after eight years the interest subsidy is taken away, and then the farmers are again in the same position as before 1933—they will again be left to the mercy of money-lenders, and there will be no law to prevent them from demanding of the farmer eight per cent. or even ten per cent. I am speaking from personal experience. The Minister from time to time warns us that after this war a tremendous depression must be expected. He warns in the platteland and he warns in the cities that people must be careful, and we on this side and hon. members on the other side agree that we do not know what the position will be in eight years time. We may then be in the middle of a depression where the farmers will perhaps be three times or four times worse off than in 1933. Now we come this morning and ask the Minister not to abolish the protection in respect of interest. He can surely not object to this. If he is prepared to extend the protection further than 1951, to those who choose the third alternative, then he can surely have no objection to maintaining the provision that interest shall not be more than 5 per cent. If the Minister objects, we are entitled to say that the Minister has come to this House to take away the interest subsidy with a stroke of the pen and to create the impression that it is a mortgage redemption scheme. If the Minister does not accept our advice, then he is going to throw the farmers back into the claws of money-lenders after 1951. The Prime Minister is here at the moment and I want to ask him to give some attention to the matter. We ask that interest should remain fixed at 5 per cent. until such time that the State introduces another Bill. It is a small concession, it will not cost the Government anything extra, it merely stabilises the position. If at a later stage it becomes unavoidable to make an alteration, then it can be done. For that reason I make this proposal, and I hope the Minister will meet us and will allow Clause 2 to be referred back to a Committee of the whole House, where I will introduce an amendment, before we take the Report Stage.

I second. I feel that the Minister perhaps thinks that when we raise this matter, we are bringing forward a matter that it is not necessary to bring forward. Therefore I feel that it is my duty to second this proposal and to explain the matter. I should like to point out to the Minister that the Act of 1933 which introduced farm interest subsidy, contained two important principles: The one principle was that it reduced the interest rates on mortgage bonds to 5 per cent. The Minister knows that at that time, as today, there were people who were compelled to purchase a place because they had children for whom they had to provide a living. And these people in many cases contracted mortgage bonds at a rate of interest that was too high. Now the Minister comes along and says that farmers must see that they do not do such a thing. But he surely knows what the position of the farmers is. They are not moneylenders. The moneylenders are always the masters, and they pressed the farmers for interest. Then the protection was given that interest would not be more than 5 per cent. It was a very great benefit to the farmers who had to pay a higher rate of interest. I do not want to repeat what the mover said, but it is repeatedly being stated that we do not know what the position will be in 1951. We do not know in what state the money market will be and therefore we cannot fix something for after 1951. The Minister says that the interest will probably be on a lower level than 5 per cent. I agree. But on the other side it can also be higher. The people must be assisted because they contracted debts in a time when prices were very high, and they were compelled to pay too much for land. At that time we left the Gold Standard, and there were also other reasons which brought the people into difficulties, and Parliament thought fit to meet these people, and to accept the principle of fixing interest rates. I know that I cannot demand anything from the Minister, but I want to make an earnest appeal to him to make a concession. The State loses nothing by it, there is no principle that is being destroyed. I feel that if the people have the assurance that they will have to pay only 5 per cent. then you can perhaps save them, but in the case of many of the mortgage bonds a high rate of interest was originally fixed, and if the protection disappears, the people might land in difficult waters. It will mean a great deal to those people if we can give them the assurance that they will not again be pressed for a higher rate of interest. Now they gradually lose the subsidy, but if we only protect the important principle that interest shall not rise higher than 5 per cent., then it will mean a great deal to them. I think the Minister should give this House the opportunity to thrash the matter out in a Committee of the whole House. Here in the confusion of Parliament perhaps things are not said that can be said. Therefore I feel entitled to ask the Minister to accept the proposal, to give us the opportunity to discuss the matter. There is only one principle affected, but it is an important matter. If the interest subsidy disappears, and the people also lose the protection of the limiting of interest after 1951, then it is a serious matter. The objection that we do not know what conditions will be then, you can also bring against his own bill which he has introduced. If the conditions in 1951 are such that a change is necessary, then the Government of the day can do it. I appeal to the Minister to meet the people. As he is prepared to say that the people who make use of the third alternative will retain the protection until 1951, I feel that he can also go a little further. If it then becomes necessary to make an alteration, then it can be done. I feel that we have a good case, and I ask the Minister again to accede to the request.

I think that I must again briefly state the aim of this Bill. In 1933 provision was made in respect of a certain class of farm mortgage bonds. Mortgage bonds contracted up to a certain date under special circumstances, were of such a nature that it was considered necessary to make special provision. The provision was twofold. In the first place provision was made in respect of the interest rate. No direct limitation of interest rates was introduced, but it was done indirectly; a tax was imposed of such a nature that if anyone received a rate of interest more than 5 per cent., everything above 5 per cent. went to the State by way of taxation. There is nothing in the Act that says that a man may not charge more than 5 per cent. interest. But the provision that everything received above 5 per cent. is payable as tax, was effective and it limited interest to 5 per cent., in respect of this group of mortgage bonds. In the second place a subsidy was introduced which meant that 1½ per cent. was paid to the mortgage holder. That subsidy was given on a basis of one year—it had to be extended from year to year by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. If this Bill that is before us now is not adopted, and no further resolution is adopted, then everything lapses on 31 March next. At this moment therefore, this class of farmer only has an assurance of assistance on a yearly basis and at the moment they have the assurance for only a month, unless we adopt a further resolution. What we are now doing in this Bill is to give a definite security for the next eight years.

And after eight years?

At the moment they have no assurance for more than a year, and even at this present moment for no more than a month. We are fixing it at eight years. We have accented the principle that the subsidy will lapse after eight years. Now the hon. members want to go back in a Committee of the whole House to again raise the question of the fixing of interest rates. But it appears to me to be absurd to determine now in the case of a certain group of mortgage bonds that the interest rate shall not be more than five per cent. after 1951. It will mean that after 1951, there will be a limitation in respect of the interest on certain mortgage bonds, but not in respect of other mortgage bonds. I know that what hon. members really want is that there should be a general limitation on interest rates in respect of all mortgage bonds, but we are dealing now with only certain mortgage bonds, and it will certainly not fit into this Bill to determine now that the restriction in connection with the interest rate should not only apply in respect of mortgage bonds that fall under this bill, but also in respect of all other mortgage bonds. This we shall have to do if it is necessary, when the time comes. I have already given the assurance here, that as far as I am concerned, if I am here, and it is necessary, then I will take action. But it is not now the time to determine what the interest rate on all mortgage bonds should be after eight years, and this Bill does not really offer the opportunity for it. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the proposal.

The hon. the Minister has again declared that there is no assurance in respect of the limiting of interest to 5 per cent. in the existing legislation. The Minister said that in the past the restriction existed in the form of a tax on everything that was charged above 5 per cent. If the Minister cannot see his way clear to fix the maximum interest in another form, then I want to ask the Minister to re-apply the old clause, and to take everything in the form of a tax that is charged above 5 per cent. That will serve the purpose. If the Minister does not see his way clear to do something else, then let him restore the old position. Then everything above 5 per cent. can again go to the State in the form of tax, which will mean that no one will charge more than 5 per cent., because it will not benefit him a single penny if he does. The Minister said further that the old act was of a temporary nature and had to be extended from year to year. We admit this, but the Minister must also realise that for ten years already, since 1933, the Act has been extended every year, and the Minister should not come with a deviation. Let him rather say straight out: Look, I am finished with this interest subsidy business, I am going to take it away now. Then we at least know what his aim is. But for ten years it has been renewed, and it is usual that when something has existed for seven years, then it is regarded as more or less permanent, and the farmers also think that after seven years in which they have received the interest subsidy, they are entitled to retain it. Let the Minister do it in the form of taxation as in the past. What is the position that is created now? What the Minister in the past has paid in the form of an interest subsidy, he is now simply going to pay in reducing capital debt; the farmer himself must pay in 1½ per cent., and then the Minister will assist with 1½ per cent. Consequently the farmer gains nothing by it. If the Minister feels that he would rather withdraw this co-called mortgage redemption scheme, in order to introduce a real scheme for redemption that is worth something, and that will really mean something to the people, then we will be satisfied. Let him withdraw the Bill then and renew the ordinary Interest Subsidy Act for another year. Then in the meantime he has time to draft a fair and real mortgage redemption scheme, which will really help the farmers to get out of the difficulties. Under this measure of the Minister, as it is before us now, the weak farmers especially, will not benefit. Of what use is it if he after four years reduces his mortgage bond by 4 per cent.? Then I ask the Minister to rather draft a real mortgage redemption scheme, which the farmers will applaude, and which will not be a patch-work measure. We cannot continue any longer with patch-work measures. The Minister says that when we come to 1951, and he is still there, he will be prepared to fix something of this kind, so that the interest rates will not rise unreasonably. But does the Minister not realise that the greatest difficulty with which the farmers have had to cope in the past was uncertainty and instability. The Minister surely knows that this was so. He himself says that he does not know what is going to happen after 1951. Possibly interest will rise again, and the Minister says that perhaps then he will take action to limit interest to 5 per cent. But it is just this uncertainty that makes life difficult for the farmer. If the Minister says eight years beforehand that the maximum interest rate will be 5 per cent., then the farmer knows whether he is off or on. Today the Government can borrow money at 2½ per cent., but the farmers are still paying 4½ per cent. on the open market. It is usually the case that the farmers must pay a higher rate of interest. The exploiters are always out to get as much as possible from the farmers. What does the Minister do himself? He can get money at 2½ per cent., but still he lets the farmers pay 4½ per cent., and 5 per cent. through the Land Bank. There are still mortgage bonds on which 5 per cent. must be paid. The Government therefore also adopts the same attitude that an attempt should be made to make a profit out of the farmers, and I am very much afraid that in eight years time the interest rates for the Government will rise to 4 per cent. and 5 per cent., when it will then be calculated at 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. for the farmers The farmers always pay a few per cent. more. If money is available at 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. the farmers must ipso facto pay 6 per cent to 8 per cent. That is what experience has taught us. Now the Minister says that if he is still here in eight years time, then he, if necessary, will take steps. Why can he not fix the interest at 5 per cent. now? The argument of the Minister is also that it is only a small group of farmers who fall under the Interest Subsidy Act, not the others. But does he not see that if a small group of farmers—and it is a large group—who belong to the weakest farmers, and who in many cases are not even in a position to pay then’ interest, are no longer protected, they will land in the greatest difficulties. Their interest subsidy is now gradually reduced, every year by one-eighth. If the protection for those weak farmers disappears, then they again fall into the hands of the money-lenders who can exploit them. It is surely an easy matter at a later date, if it is necessary, to bring about a change. Fix the interest at the present time at a maximum of 5 per cent. and if the time comes to change it, it is a simple matter. Why are we so keen to have it? Because the farmers want certainty. It is a very important point, certainty. I appeal to the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) and other representatives of farmers on the other side to assist us. Take away the British wool scheme. We have opposed it with all our power, but there is one good thing in it, and that is that the farmers know whether they are off or on. It gives them a measure of certainty in their busineses. Let the hon. members on the other side support us in our appeal to the Minister.

I was on the platteland recently and came into contact with many farmers, especially in the Albert-Colesberg constituency, and the farmers with whom I spoke are very thankful to the Government for this Bill. They tell me that they really did not think that the Government would go so far in these times, when produce prices are abnormally high, to still pay the subsidy for eight years, and to assist the farmers on to £ for £ system to reduce their mortgage bonds. I came into contact with leaders there, who told me ….

Mention a name.

Mr. Koos Grobler, chairman of the Co-operation at Burgersdorp. He told me that the farmers were thankful for the measure.

He is not one of my constituents, and I doubt whether he said it.

The hon. member can write to him and ask him whether he said it or not. The hon. member will not deny Mr. Grobler’s influence in Burgersdorp. All these things are of no use. The farmers are thankful to the Government for this Bill. It is a mortgage redemption scheme, because for eight years the Government pays 1½ per cent. if they pay 1½ per cent., and it is used to redeem mortgage bonds. The Government immediately contributes 1½ per cent. if anyone wants to pay off.

That is not correct.

The hon. member does not understand it yet. I realise this because he is a little confused. But the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) is worried about what the interest will be in eight years time. He wants it to be fixed at 5 per cent. now. But does the hon. member forget what he said at Colesberg, during this war, at a large political meeting, that our finances should be coupled to the German Reichsmark?

I do not know what that has to do with the matter under discussion. The hon. member must confine himself to the proposals.

I just want to explain what this proposal means. We cannot say what the world conditions will be in eight year’s time, but the Minister has given us the assurance that when the time comes, and he is still here, then he will take action. But the hon. member for Colesberg already wants to couple our finances to the German Reichsmark. The hon. member knows that he said this and he dares not deny it. But now he wants to make a proposal about interest rates in eight year’s time. It is a purely party political matter. The hon. members on the other side are so politically bankrupt ….

The hon. member must confine himself to the proposal.

This proposal and the amendment is intended only for party political purposes. Their policy in connection with the war has collapsed, and now they are falling about and even resort to the interest subsidy in order to have something for their political propaganda.

I should like to remove a misunderstanding. I understand that the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) says that the Minister is prepared to reduce the debts of farmers on a £ for £ system. I just want to point out that it is limited to 1½ per cent.

I again want to appeal to the Minister of Finance. We have now heard how hon. members on the other side, also the Minister of Finance, say that they do not know what the position will be after eight years. The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) also comes now and says that he does not know what the position will be. I want to point out that the best thing in connection with the interest subsidy was the limiting of interest to 5 per cent. The other provision meant very little. But the assurance that not more than 5 per cent. could be demanded, was of very great value. Now the Minister himself will admit that the danger exists, not in eight years time, but within a short time, that interest rates will again rise and the farmers will again find themselves faced with the difficulty that they must pay 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. I believe that the Minister realises the position. He is surely intelligent enough to be able to do so. If we accept the first scheme to pay off £100 on £1,000, and the State contributes £100, then there still remains £800 of the mortgage bond. Now I have already asked the question before. If the mortgage holder says that he does not want the £800 but wants the full £1,000, what can the farmer do? Must he take out another mortgage bond? Then his interest is no longer fixed at 5 per cent. Or otherwise the mortgage holder will perhaps allow him to pay off £200, but will make him pay a higher rate of interest on the £800. He will be able to say: “Now you must again pay me 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. as in the past.” Then the farmer will be worse off than before. If people in this position accept the third alternative, they can immediately land in difficulty, and it can perhaps again be demanded of them to pay 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. interest, or even more. I want the Minister to take this into consideration. These difficulties are going to arise. The hon. member for Kimberley, District has again a great deal to say about party politics. He was on the platteland recently and he told us how he misled the people in Albert-Colesberg by telling them that the Government is going to pay off mortgage bonds on the £ for £ system. There must be people who believed him, and it does not surprise me that people are satisfied with the Bill if it is misrepresented to them in this way.

At every meeting that I held there the people asked me to oppose the Bill.

This is a matter of importance to the farmers, not of party politics. But the hon. member must now just talk after his party, and the interests of the farmers come second with him.

Order!

I just want to point out that the danger can perhaps arise in a short time that the farmers will again be pressed and I implore the Minister to meet the farmers and to protect them.

It was during the previous Session that the Minister of Finance announced his intention to introduce this Bill, and it is already months ago that the Bill has been published. During this time meetings were held throughout the Union to organise wool farmers to establish a wool factory, and to give the Wool Council statutary powers. I read the reports of the meetings carefullly, and I know of no single case where objection was made to the Bill that is before us today. It may be said that the meetings were not called for that purpose but I know our farmers, and if there is something that chafes, about which they are dissatisfied, they will make use of the opportunity to air their objections. The measure is well known, in the Eastern Province, at any rate, and everywhere I have been, nothing but thanks to the Government have been expressed for this measure. I am thinking particularly of a prominent farmer, practically a leader of the party on the other side, who said to me that it was absolute nonsense, this agitation that is being set afoot against the Bill. It is this Government that stands up for the farmers, it is this Government that introduced the interest subsidy. I am now going back to 1931.

The hon. member must confine himself to the proposal that is before the House now.

I just wanted to quote what happened in the past but I will perhaps get an opportunity to do so later. The farmers are thankful to the Minister of Finance for what he has done.

It surprises me that the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) gives an explanation here as if the Government is prepared to pay the 1½ per cent. subsidy to farmers on their mortgage bonds for eight years. That is what the hon. member says, and also that the Government is prepared to assist in the paying off of mortgage bonds on the £ for £ system.

I did not say that.

That is the impression that the hon. member tried to create. Now I just want to say that the farmers in the country are not, as the hon. member for Kimberley, District says, so pleased with this measure, unless they have been given a wrong impression by people like the hon. member for Kimberley, District.

They understand the position better than you do.

The hon. member for Kimberley, District says that the farmers can now use the 1½ per cent. subsidy for eight years.

As a redemption subsidy.

As a redemption subsidy! I just want to point out to the hon. member that the Minister proposes to reduce the interest subsidy gradually over a period of eight years, until after eight years, it disappears altogether. In 1944 they get only 7/8ths of the interest subsidy, the year after 6/8ths, the year after 5/8ths and the year after 4, 8ths. The hon. member for Kimberley, District, probably knows that 4/8ths are but the half. And if a person does not know it, then naturally you are satisfied with everything. But what we on this side are anxious that the Minister should understand clearly is that there were circumstances in which the government of the day found it necessary to introduce such legislation. Rightly, the Minister has said that two steps were taken to assist the farmers, namely firstly the paying of an interest subsidy of 1½ per cent. That was intended to ease the economic pressure that mortgage debts imposed on the farmers. Secondly, the Minister found it necessary to prevent money-lenders and exploiters by legislation from exploiting the farming community. For this reason a tax was imposed to take everything that the money-lenders made over 5 per cent. That was the aim of the old Act. What does the Minister announce in this Bill? That after eight years this assurance that the farmers have had, will disappear. Then the farmers can again be exploited by the money-lenders, then they can again be forced to pay 5 per cent. interest. That is what it amounts to, and while the Minister says that the interest rate was not really limited directly in the Bill, but was only limited by the tax provision, and while the Minister will admit that it was a good provision to limit interest, I want to ask him to bring all mortgage bonds under the Act. If he considers 5 per cent. a reasonable rate of interest on farm mortgage bonds, let him then introduce it in respect of all mortgage bonds. Then the Minister will assist the farmers. Now there is still opportunity to do so. Then the Minister at the same time can draft a Bill so that the hon. member for Kimberley, District, can also understand it, because the hon. member appears to be completely in the dark. The Minister has already on a previous occasion in reply to our questions made it clear that if a farmer makes use of the £ for £ redemption, up to £97 and some shillings on £1,000, then the farmer no longer gets the interest subsidy. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) asked if such a farmer could still be entitled to the interest subsidy during the eight years and the Minister replied in the negative. It is clear that if they use the £97 to reduce their mortgage bonds, then they no longer get the privilege in respect of the subsidy. But the hon. member for Kimberley, District, imagines that the Government will assist with a mortgage redemption on a £ for £ system and then still give the interest subsidy for eight years.

I did not say that.

I hope that the hon. member will now understand the position better, if he gives the true explanation to the people of Albert-Colesberg, they will no longer be so satisfied as the hon. member claims that they are.

It surprises me that hon. members come here and plead and plead, and keep on pleading for something they already have. In the first place they ask for a general limiting of interest rates on all mortgage bonds on farms.

You do not understand it.

The Minister of Finance has given the House the assurance that if he is still here in eight years time and the circumstances demand it, then he will again consider the position and he will be prepared to introduce the limitation again. There is not the slightest doubt that the Minister will still be here in eight years time, but supposing the impossible happens and the hon. members who sit on the other side get into power, then they also have the assurance that interest rates can be limited—because I assume that they will do it. Why then ask and ask for something we already have? And when we come to the pleas in connection with the mortgage bonds that are actually under discussion, the mortgage bonds that have had assistance since 1933, and for which the act was intended, there the hon. members have the assurance that the farmers who have these mortgage bonds are by no means delivered to the money wolves, because they know just as well as I do that the interest rate is decided by the security which you offer, and after eight years as a result of the reduction of the mortgage debts under this Bill, the security will be so much better that no mortgage holder will dare to ask for a rate of interest higher than 5 per cent., because the farmers will then be able to get the money at any place at less than 5 per cent. There may be a few cases where this is not the position, but I want to say with emphasis that I am convinced that at least 95 per cent. of the security of farmers will be such that they will probably be able to get money at less than 5 per cent. Why must they therefore be bound for eight years to pay 5 per cent.

We do not say that they must be bound to 5 per cent.

One should never ask for something one already has. I also come into contact with farmers, and I want to give the House the assurance again that the farmers on the platteland who have the kind of mortgage bonds that fall under this Bill and who are going to make use of the assistance under this Bill, say that they never expected such a concession from the Minister of Finance. I am prepared to say it at any farmer’s meeting, on any platform. It is a fact.

The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) apparently does not understand the position, and it seems to me that he is somewhat ignorant of what we are advocating here. Seeing that he is still a young member, we cannot take offence. But now we find the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) who previously represented an exclusively farming constituency, and who always pleaded for the interest of the farmer, gets up an tries to defend the Government and says that the farmers are so satisfied with this Bill, so satisfied with the extention of the subsidy, as it appears in this Bill. I at any rate represent farming interests exclusively, and I am naturally pleased that the Minister intends to extend the subsidy, although it is to some extent being restricted. But what I feel is that the farmers in general are dissatisfied with the existing system of subsidy as set out in this Bill. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland said that the farmers do not want the interest to be fixed after eight years. He says that they are not in favour of it, and he does not want this House to give the assurance as to what the interest for the farmers in the future will be. He is definitely ignorant in respect of the interests of the farmers, because if there is anything that the farmer desires and about which the farmer wants certainty, then it is that they want to know what their interest is going to be. The farmer does not know whether he must pay off his mortgage bond, because the value of money can perhaps decrease, and he does not know whether he should let his interest remain as it is at the moment. That is the difficulty of the farmer, and for this reason he wants a certain measure of assurance. But we do not only ask that interest should be fixed for a period of eight years; we do not only want interest to be fixed for a period of eight years, but we want to assure the farmer of a reasonable rate of interest. With the amendment we propose here, we want to place the whole matter before the Minister, for this reason, that there are other matters that are related to this question of mortgage bonds which have received the interest since April 1939. We also want the other mortgage bonds to be discussed in connection with this. That is why the hon. member for Kimberley, District in my opinion is so surprisingly wrong and also ignorant, now that he no longer represents a farming constituency and now that he is no longer acquainted with the conditions under which the farmers are living. Let me in the first instance point out to the hon. member that if there is one thing about which there is dissatisfaction, then it is this, that we feel that it is not right that one section of the farming population should get a subsidy, while there is such a large and deserving section of the farming population who are not entitled to the subsidy. That is the great dissatisfaction. And let me say this, almost ten years have passed, and after all the promises of the Government, we find that those farmers must still suffer, and that they do not get the subsidy. Let me say with emphasis that if there is a section of the farming population who must be assisted, then it is the young farmers who have now become independent in the last three, four or five years. But the Government refuses to help that section of the farmers. It is neither fair nor just, and it is now time that we should treat all farmers equally. Further we still find—and it seems to me that it is a matter to which the members on the other side give no attention—that the interest rates at the moment are low for the Government. The Government has issued a loan and it expects its money at three per cent., and also that the loan will be over-subscribed. Now we find that there are many of the mortgageholders who, because the mortgage bonds will be paid off, will reduce the interest from 5 to 4½ or to 4 per cent. I know of cases where it has been reduced to 3½ per cent. If a farmer gets interest at 3½ per cent.—the farmers borrow money from one another—then such a mortgage bond cannot get a subsidy from the Government. If interest is paid at 5 per cent., then the subsidy is 1½ per cent., if interest is paid at 4 per cent. then the subsidy is 1 per cent., and on 3½ per cent. interest there is no subsidy. That is a state of affairs—the Minister must admit it—that should be improved. Take the Land Bank. The Land Bank is the greatest mortgageholder on the farms of the farmers at the moment, and that is quite in order. It is a semi-Government institution. The State supplies the institution with money and it is no more than right that that institution has so many farm mortgage bonds. The Land Bank must be the mortgageholder of the farming population. Now we find that the Government lends mopey to that institution at 3 per cent. plus ½ per cent. for administration costs. At one time it was fixed at more than a 4 per cent. But where we have to do with such a great amount as this that is made available to this institution, 4 per cent. is sufficient for administration costs. Where this institution charges 5 per cent. interest, a subsidy of 1½ per cent. is paid. It can even borrow money at 3½ per cent. So that the money that it lends costs it practically 2 per cent. or 2¼ per cent. That is a great reduction, and is it then not right that the farming population should at any rate get the benefit of the reduction in the interest rate? Against this we on this side of the House object, that the farmers must pay a higher rate of interest. The farmers do not get the benefit of a reduction in the rate of interest in our country. It also does not encourage the farmer to pay off his mortgage bonds, because it is not in his interest to do so, or at any rate he does not know whether it is in his interest to do so. I am in favour of the farmer paying off his mortgage bonds, but he is suspended between heaven and earth. He does not know what is going to happen to money. We are coupled to the money of Britain, and we do not know what is going to happen to our money in that respect and whether there will be a reduction in interest rates. We do not plead only that interest rates should be fixed for eight years. There are many other matters in connection with the interest subsidy that deserve the attention of the Government, and seeing that the Government can devote so much money for war purposes, it is no more than right that the Government should give attention to the whole question of interest subsidy on farm mortgage bonds. I have already mentioned the fact in this House that the farmers at this moment are going through a period that is very difficult for them. I do not know whether the Government realises what droughts there are in the country and how difficult it is for the farmers.

The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons why this Bill should be referred back to the Committee.

I want to try to get better facilities for the farmers. I want to mention here that the farmers at the moment are experiencing an extraordinarily difficult time, and perhaps members of the Government are not so well acquainted with the difficulties with which the farmers have to cope. If there is one section of the population that should be assisted, then it is the farmers. They develop the country and if it were not for them, what will happen to the country? Therefore it is no more than right that they should receive assistance. The Minister himself has said that the farmers are deserving, that they have paid off large amounts, and now he does not encourage them to go further in the matter.

He also does not try to encourage them to do even more. The farmers who are experiencing difficulty, as is the case at the moment, become discouraged if they find that the Government of the day is not sympathetic, and therefore I want to ask the Minister to do more for the farmers. I want to ask him not to deal with this matter piecemeal, but to take the whole matter into consideration to see how we can place every farmer on the same basis and make no difference in the interest of some, while others who are experiencing difficulties, and who deserve assistance, are not assisted. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter. We are pleased with what the Minister is doing, for the little bit of assistance he is giving, but we say that the whole matter deserves to be investigated. It should be dealt with as a whole and there should be no preference for one section before the other.

Question put: That all the words after That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—58:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie. J. M.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and A. E. Trollip.

Noes—37:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C, R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

I move—

I object.

Third reading on 2nd March.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of these estimates will probably provoke two questions. The first question is why there are so many items on the estimates, and the second question is why are we introducting estimates of this nature at this stage. Hon. members, I think, have grown accustomed to the introduction of the fairly lengthy list of additional estimates in January at the beginning of the Session, and then a shorter list of additional estimates towards the end of the financial year in March. On this occasion the additional estimates which we introduced in January at the beginning of the Session, comprised a small number of items, and although there were some very important items, and the amount involved was considerable, the list was a short one. We are now at this stage introducing estimates comprising an elaborate list, even longer than we have normally had at the commencement of the Session. It is therefore natural that these two questions should be put. The main answer on both these questions is virtually the same. Each year Parliament votes money to various departments, and our experience has been that each year, speaking generality, Parliament votes to the departments a good deal more money than they actually spend. You see, sir, it is quite natural that the officer who has to ask for money to spend, tends to over-estimate his requirements, wheras the tax collecting officer always tends to under-estimate his collection. It is the same conservative tendency which operates in both cases, and the result of that is to be seen in the fact that practically always the ultimate result of a year’s financial operations is better than the estimate put forward by the Minister of Finance when he introduces his Budget. The result of the conservatism on the part of the spending officer, the head of the department who asks more than he will actually spend, is that each year there are heavy surrenders to the Treasury in respect of the previous year. I think one can say that apart from the present year there have been such surrenders to the extent of £600,000 or £700,000 a year; in other words, Parliament has voted to the departments some £600,000 or £700,000 a year more than they have spent. Such surrenders are always very acceptable to the Minister of Finance when he comes to introduce his next budget, but they are unfortunate from other points of view. In the first place, it means that Parliament is given a wrong picture of the financial position, because Parliament is told that the expenditure is going to be more than it actually proves to be; and the second point is that the departments have more money available than they actually need, and that inevitably tends towards extravagance. It encourages spending by the department because they have the money, on services on which they otherwise would not have spent the money. It is therefore quite obviously in the public interests that this tendency on the part of heads of departments to state their requirements too high, should be curbed. Ever since I became Minister of Finance, I have been applying myself in that direction, and I think I can say I have applied myself with some measure of success, because whereas in the past the surrenders have been £600,000 or £700,000, this year the surrenders have come down to £350,000, but naturally one wants to go further than that if possible, and so in the framing of the estimates for the current year, the year 1942—’43, the Treasury cut more deeply than ever before. We went even further than we have done in the past in cutting down the requirements of the departments. I think that was justified by the results, and I think that was a desirable thing to do. But it is inevitable that when you cut very deeply, while you bring some departments down to the actual requirements, in one or two cases you must cut too deeply, and bring the department below the figure on which they can come out, and therefore at a later stage you have to provide them with the additional amount required. That was a risk we took in cutting down these estimates as low as we did, and it was because of the fact that we took that risk, that we now have to ask for an additional supply. That tendency has been accentuated by a further fact peculiar to this year, namely that during the year the cost of living allowance rates have gone up very considerably. Just for that reason alone pretty well every department has had to come along and ask for a bigger figure in respect of salary, wages and allowance, than that for which we originally made provision. That, I think, will tend to give the answer to these questions which I stated at the beginning. But a further point arises at this stage. Usually, as I say, we have introduced estimates like this at the beginning of the Session, about three months before the end of the financial year. Now obviously the nearer you get to the end of the financial year, the closer your estimate can be, and with the same object, therefore, of reducing the amount of over-estimation and reducing the amount ultimately to be surrendered, therefore, we have wherever possible delayed the presentation of the additional estimate from the commencement of the Session until this stage of the Session. In other words, we are now about six or seven weeks nearer the end of the financial year than we would otherwise have been, and our estimate is therefore correspondingly more accurate. We reduced our additional estimates at the beginning of the year; we only included these amounts where it was absolutely essential for the money to be voted at this stage, where the Governor General’s special warrant had already been issued, or where we knew that the money would be required before further estimates could be presented. I think that will serve to answer these two questions I asked at the beginning. The next question that will be asked will probably be this. Will the fact that we are now asked to vote £2,258,209 on the revenue account and £880,660 on the loan account have any effect on the Budget which was introduced last week? The answer to that is no. The acceptance of these estimates will have no effect on the Budget. As hon. members will probably have noticed, in the White Paper I allowed for second additional estimates still to be submitted. We knew then already that these additional estimates would have to be submitted, and the amount allowed in the White Paper was therefore taken account of in the Budget, and the revenue amount is the exact amount we are asked to vote. In the case of the loan accounts, there is a difference of £5,000 in respect of one particular item, the necessity for which only arose after the White Paper was prepared. I can therefore say that the adoption of these estimates will have no effect on the Budget. Apart from these Questions of procedure to which I have referred, there is no important issue raised by these estimates. I think we shall find that the various points that call for discussion can best be discussed in Committee, and I hope therefore that at a fairly early stage the House will agree to my motion to go into Committee, and that we shall then be prepared to take the Committee stage forthwith, when the Ministers concerned with these votes will be able to reply to any points of detail. At this stage I shall only refer to the largest items in these estimates. The biggest by far, of course, is the Vote on pensions, a sum of £778,600. That is accounted for under two heads, in the first place in respect of old age pensions, and war veterans pensions. We are paying a great deal more in cost-of-living allowance than we thought we would have to pay, for the same reason I have already suggested. The cost-of-living allowance has increased, and we therefore have to pay more in respect of these pensions than we expected to. The other item is military pensions and there we have to provide this additional amount partly because of the incidence of the War Pensions Act, which we enacted at the end of last Session, and partly because of unexpectedly large casualities in the North, which I am sure we all regret. The second big item is the item “Agriculture, Assistance to Farmers, £178,822.” These are the two main points. In the first place, when we introduced the subsidy for fertilisers and made provision for the payment of such subsidies, we did so on the basis of twelve months, that is from the 1st April, 1942, to the 31st March, 1943. But we subsequently decided to antedate this to the 1st January, 1942. Then the other main item in this vote is assistance to the deciduous fruit industry, where a large amount is also involved. The third main item under the revenue estimates is the post office, an item of £170,000. Well, I have already referred in the Budget speech to the increased activities of the post office. It is earning for us this year £8,000,000. More staff is necessary, and of course, higher cost-of-living allowances have to be paid. It is on that account that this large additional vote is now asked for. Then on loan account there are only two items to which I need refer. In the first place, there is sub-head C, “Telegraphs and Telephones”, where the amount is £350,000. That is in respect of the standard stock account of the postal department. Every department of this nature carries a standard stock account. In the case of the post office, the normal capital is £600,000. I think in pretty well every other department, owing to factors which have arisen out of the present emergency, we have already had to increase the standard stock account, and we now have to do it in the post office. Finally, I would refer to the increased amount of £400,000 under the heading “Local Works and Loans”. That is for the National Roads Board.

Hear, hear.

I think my hon. friend is a little premature in his “hear, hear”. It does not mean that they will have extra money to spend. The position is that for the current year the National Roads Board estimated its expenditure at £2,750,000. It estimated its revenue at £1,600,000. We are therefore voting the balance of £1,150,000 on the loan estimates. But the revenue from petrol has dropped for the National Roads Board, as for the Treasury, and at the time we undertook that if there was a shortfall in the revenue of the Board, we would provide for that shortfall by means of an additional amount. We therefore have to make up that additional amount by voting an additional £400,000 as a loan to the Board, and it is that amount which appears under this subhead “F.—Local Works and Loans”.

You are not reducing it?

No, we are not reducing it. We are maintaining their activities. That is all I think I need say. As I have indicated, there are no points of principle arising out of this; there is no vote for defence, and I think we can most profitably discuss this in Committee, and I hope we shall at an early stage, be prepared to go into Committee.

The hon. Minister of Finance tried this morning to present this additional expenditure which he is making very innocently to us. The excuse is this. He tried last year to cut the estimate to the bone! Experience taught that he went too far, with the result that he has to come and ask Parliament to make more money available. I think that before the discussion is over, it will appear that there is nothing whatever in what the Minister said this morning. As far as I am concerned—and I hope I shall receive the help there of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell)—it seems, if we look at the amounts drawn up here, more as if we have here an attempt, as if we have here a new habit which is developing. It is a bad habit, namely, to present the country’s expenditure to Parliament in bits and pieces; not as a whole, because then the public outside gets too good a picture of the extravagant way in which the administration is carried out, and in an attempt to gloss over the matter the expenditure is presented to us in bits and pieces. It is a dangerous precedent that is being created, and I hope that we shall get the help of members on the other side in preventing that precedent from becoming a fixed institution. The size of the amount which is asked for here in the first place belies what the Minister adduced here this morning as an excuse. We have not to do here with a small amount. We want the Minister to know that, together with the first additional estimates, we are asked to vote an amount of £24,686,000 more. These are the additional estimates. Here I have with me the report of the Auditor-General. I looked up what the administration of our country cost but a short ten years ago. What were the total administration costs, the total expenditure at that time? They were nearly as much as the Minister now asks for in addition.

On loan estimates, too?

No.

You cannot compare those two things.

What the Minister asks for here on his two additional estimates is all current expenditure, with the exception of a small amount.

Is the expenditure on Iscor current expenditure?

No, I said with the exception of a small amount.

It is £4,500,000.

With the exception of a small amount. The largest part of the £24,000,000 is current expenditure. There is an amount of some £20,000,000 on current expenditure. I have the report of the Auditor-General here before me, and a short ten years ago the total administration costs of the country were £27,000,000.

But now they are much greater.

That shows the extravagance.

But we are living in time of war.

Still apart from the war. Out of the additional £24,000,000 some £16,000,000 is devoted to the war. That means that £8,500,000 has still to be sought for other expenditure. The position of our country is this—I wish to repeat it. We voted on the original estimates an amount of £88,000,000 on current expenditure and £52,000,000 on loan expenditure. Together that is an amount of £140,000,000. Then the additional estimates came. There was added £4,000,000 from revenue and £17,000,000 on the loan account, namely £21,000,000. Now come the second additional estimates, namely, £2,250,000 in additional administration costs and £880,000 on the loan account. That brings us to £3,138,000, which means altogether an amount of £165,000,000.

When the proceedings were suspended, I was engaged in calculating how much money the Minister has expended altogether in the course of this year, and we came to the amount of £165,000,000. I think that if anyone in South Africa had said 15 or 20 years ago that our expenditure would come now to £165,000,000, no-one would have believed him. One thing we can tell the present Minister: Under him we spend merrily. If extravagance is a sign of competence, then our Minister of today is certainly the most competent we have ever had. The point which I wished to make was this: Although our estimates last year stood at £140,000,000, revenue and loan, that was not enough for the Minister, and now he has come to ask for an additional £24,500,000. That is a very large amount, and the impression which we get from the Minister is this—and we want the assurance from him that it will not happen again in the future, that he will try to estimate his expenditure better. We have to do here with very bad estimation on the part of the Minister. It is either bad estimation on his part, or we did not make a proper attempt to present the expenditure of the country to the House correctly at the beginning. Either the Minister estimates badly or we have an attempt to present the expenditure of the country, because it has now reached astronomical figures, in bits and pieces to the House. It is one of the two. He tries either to gloss over the situation by putting our expenditure in bits and pieces before the House, or his estimation is very bad. I think we can accept—it is an unwritten rule of our Parliamentary system—that no money must appear on the additional estimates unless it is an urgent case, or unless it is a case of emergency. It must be one of those two. It must be either an urgent case or an emergency case. If one goes through the estimates, it seems that certain of the increases do indeed fall under this class. I think of the vote Native affairs, emergency relief. We know that this year there was an exceptional situation in our country, and it was necessary for the Minister to grant emergency relief. It is a case against which we cannot in fairness object. But I cannot say that of some of the other votes. I am now going to take one of the votes which fall directly under the control of the Minister of Education, and that is the same as the Minister of Finance. Take, for example, the Education Vote. The Minister skated very smoothly over this, but it looks to me that a terrible important principle is at stake, and we need a statement from the Minister. If I understand the position correctly, then the maximum amount which could be made available for the University was £100,000. I did not unfortunately, have sufficient time to go into the law on that point to find out whether it was a question of policy or a question of law. The maximum was fixed at £100,000. We know that the University of Johannesburg and of Cape Town stood this year at a maximum of £100,000 a year. We know that they made representations to get the maximum raised. They did not succeed in that. How is it that the Minister has now suddenly been moved to raise the amount? It affects an important principle. As I said, additional expenditure must be made only when it is an urgent case or an emergency case. Deputations saw the Minister last year, but he refused. The amount still remains at £100,000. What happened in the meantime to move the Minister to raise it now from £100,000 to £103,000, in the case of Cape Town and Johannesburg? What happened? Is it such as urgent case? Or when did it become such an emergency case? Then I want to refer to some of the other items. Take, for example, the vote of the Prime Minister, and then you can tell me whether these estimates can stand that test, that we have to do here with urgent cases or cases of emergency. Take the Prime Minister’s vote. The first item is “incidental expenditure.” It is raised from about £3,000 to £10,000. Somewhere they scrape £2,919 together, with the result that there has to be found an amount of £3,961. What falls under these incidental expenses? Is it to ensure additional bodyguards for the Prime Minister? Has that become so necessary? Is it to pay for his journeys oversea? Can you imagine that that should be an urgent case? Then we come to “United States of America, Washington: Salaries, wages and allowances.” Has it so suddenly become essential to obtain additional staff in America? Could it not stand over for a few months? But note the following: It is again incidental expenditure.

Wait with that.

The hon. member says I must wait, but I have to do here with a principle. You can read up any book in connection with additional estimates, and you will find that no amount should appear on an additional estimate unless it can be justified either as an urgent case or as an emergency case. Many of the expenditures here do not fall in that category. And if they do not come in that category, then we have here a deliberate plan to present the expenditure in bits and pieces to Parliament, and it is not justified. But what happens here? It is a sub-version of Parliamentary control in the first place, because Parliament is placed before an accomplished fact. The expenditure has already been made. What choice have hon. members on the other side; they are not free to vote against it. The expenditure has already been incurred, and the House is confronted with an accomplished fact; it is wrong. What choice have hon. members on the other side? They are not free to vote against. The principle that the House be confronted with an accomplished fact, the fact that the expenditure has already been made, is wrong. We must prevent it from becoming a habit for the future, and for this reason I raise it on the Second Reading There are innumerable items of incidental expenditure. Thus under the Treasury Vote you get the same thing. I can still understand that the Minister of Finance needs additional staff because the revenue has risen. But those words “incidental expenses” perhaps cover a hole series of sins. On the vote for “High Commissioner in London” we find an increased amount for travelling and subsistence expenses. It is now the time when the High Commissioner has to travel around unusually much in England or in London. On page 7, under the head “South African Mint”, we find increased expenditure in connection with offices, expenditure for brand-new office equipment. But I wish especially to come to a later vote, namely, No. 28, “Government Motor Garages”. In the original Estimates an amount of £34,000 was voted. We live in a time in which we are asked to make all the less use of our cars, and the Minister of Finance is so fond of telling us that we must “practise austerity”. But what do we find? The amount of £34,000 was not enough, and Parliament was asked to vote an additional £46,000 for the purchase of cars. Now we find that even this amount was not enough, and a further amount is asked for for salaries, wages, and allowances. Why is so much additional staff necessary to manage cars? Under the item “Tyres and Tubes” we find also a considerable increase. If one of us dares apply for a new tube or tyre, then it is represented as if we are almost committing high treason against the war effort, but the Government may to its heart’s content ride around through the country, and old cars are no longer good enough. There must be brand-new cars. The expenditure on petrol and oil and grease has also risen considerably. Suddenly, another £7,000 is necessary, in addition to the £34,000. If we apply the test, then we find that the expenditure cannot stand the test. What is the conclusion to which we must come? I must honestly say, to me it looks as if such a thing as Treasury control also exists no longer. I was also once at the head of a territory, and I had officials under me, and I know what the procedure is that is followed. Before the original estimates are drawn up the officials are asked what they need. They have to present to the Treasury what they expect their expenditure for the new year will be. Of course, as the Minister made clear this morning, the officials eagerly ask for much more than what they possibly get, but the Treasury is there and knows what the revenue is, and thus the expenditure is gone through with a fine-tooth comb to delete what is unnecessary. Now the corps of officials in the country must know that what the Minister has granted them in the original estimates, that is the law of the Medes and Persians. It will not be changed, except in an emergency or urgent case. If the idea once takes hold among the officials that the estimate which the Minister has approved on his original Budget is not a law of the Medes and Persians, but that it can merrily be expended further, and that later approval can be sought from the Treasury, then it means that our expenditure is not being carried out according to plan. There sits the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). He sat at the feet of such financial purists as Mr. Merriman and Mr. Jagger. I wonder what they would have said if the Minister had dared to come with an Additional Budget for an amount of £20,500,000? I think they would have had a fit and also have given the Minister a fit. The hon. member for Kensington sat at their feet, and I think that if the hon. member could speak from his heart, he would agree with me. He must be careful now about what he says in the House, because “there is something in the offing”. But I just quoted this point, because there are great things at stake in this connection. I very much want the Minister to say when he compiles his original estimates that he is going to abide by the estimated expenditure of the various departments which has been approved. The fixing of the amounts in the Budget, the estimates, must not be a pure formality, but the officials must be expected to subject themselves to it, and arrange their expenditure in accordance with it. If it is a pure formality, then Treasury control is gone to the moon, and if it is gone to the moon, Parliamentary control also goes to the moon. The impression which I have received is that hon. members on the other side find everything good, because it is, of course, for the war and it is war time. The spirit which hon. members on the other side reveal dominates also in the country, and it demoralises the country and the Government. They no longer have a realisation of the value of money. There is a blunting of financial sense of responsibility in the Government and among the officials. They no longer have a realisation of the value of money, and that is why the Minister comes here with his additional expenditure. The Minister also referred us to his White Paper, in which the new expenditure is dealt with. Even in that the figures are not completely up to date. Loan expenditure is given as £875,000, and now it is suddenly £880,000. In a week’s time it has risen again, and I shall not be astonished if the Minister comes with further additional estimates before the end of the month. I protest against this procedure, because I feel strongly that the Minister and the Government and most Government departments have lost all realisation of the value of money, and that there is today no longer any proper control over our expenditure.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in the speech which he has just made, made another of his customary allusions to myself. He referred to me as one who had sat of the feet of Messrs. Merriman and Jagger and he asked what they would have said today if they had been alive, and had to meet a Budget such as this.

The rafters would have rung.

I am inclined to think that both these gentlemen, if they had been alive today, and had to swallow a Budget of £160,000,000 would jointly and severally have thrown a fit. But let us view the matter in its correct perspective. The financial methods of Messrs. Jagger and Merriman, estimable though they were at the time, were certainly not applicable to a time of war. I remember Mr. Jagger; I remember his financial methods. He took office as Minister of Railways in 1921 in the Cabinet of the present Prime Minister, and he did more in those three years to ensure that we were thrown out of office in 1924 than anyone else would ever have done.

And that is what is going to happen to you again.

Mr. Merriman, estimable gentleman though he was as a critic, would have been a disaster to any Party as a Minister of Finance, so I do not want the hon. member to put me in the financial shoes of any of these gentlemen. The truth is this: that today we have a Minister of Railways who looks ahead and sees lean times coming to the Railways—and what does he do? He builds up a Reserve Fund so that when the time of depression comes he need not resort to the drastic measures which Mr. Jagger resorted to. Those measures Mr. Jagger thought were necessary, but they were cruel—he sweated blood out of the Railway servants of this country. There is just one more personal point I wish to deal with. The hon. member made an allusion to myself. I hope he did not mean to be offensive. I hope he did not suggest that any criticism of mine in this House is inspired or tempered by any thought of my own position. He should know me well enough and he should know that I speak my mind in this House on financial matters. Now, his criticism of these supplementary estimates is that once again the Minister of Finance has come forward and has asked for his money in dribs and drabs. He calls it “stukkies en brokkies.” Most Ministers of Finance ever since the Union has been a Union have come along with two sets of supplementary estimates. I am not quite sure that that has happened every year but it certainly has happened generally. The Minister has brought in his first supplementary estimates and then his second and if the hon. member wants to call that “dribs and drabs,” well he is welcome to it. The practice followed by the Minister of Finance this year is no different from that in previous years. I agree with my hon. friend that if anyone had told us ten or five years ago that we would be facing up to a national expenditure of £160,000,000 in one year, we would have been flabbergasted. There is one answer to that.

Yes, the war.

Exactly, the war, and of that money £96,000,000 is war expenditure. Well, we can go on talking about that till doomsday and we shall never agree on it. By a decision of this House taken on the 4th September, 1939, we entered this war, and that decision has been reaffirmed repeatedly since that time, and the Leader of the Afrikaner Party (Mr. Conroy) who interrupted me a little while ago, has told the public from many platforms that because of that decision he and his colleagues were not going to interfere with the Government and their war effort. Well, I wish the hon. member would translate that into action.

I said that we were not going to become saboteurs of the Government’s war effort.

Oh, I see. Well, this was the resolution taken by the free vote of this House and the hon. member said that they would not oppose it.

That doesn’t justify an expenditure of £96,000,000 yet.

On this £160,000,000, £96,000,000 is war expenditure. Now, we may disagree on the expenditure of that money—we may disagree on it being spent on the war—I am not going to argue that point, but we all agree on one thing, and that is that the money should be spent as wisely and economically as possible. I make this concession at once, that in times of war when you are spending these astronomical sums, the need for control and watchfulness on the part of the Treasury is tenfold. There is no doubt that in every war financial control tends to weaken, and the Executive Officers entrusted with the functions of defence are naturally impatient of Treasury control, and of regulations. They say: “Our business is to get on with the war,” and they are apt to be impatient of any financial control and restriction. I agree that despite that there is a duty on all of us in this House to see that war expenditure is efficiently and vigilantly controlled. Now, my hon. friend started off on a lofty tone, but his speech petered out in the end into some querelous questioning about some individual items. The Minister of Finance said at the beginning of his speech: “Don’t ask me to explain these items now.” If he had given his full explanation in advance he would have had to address the House for at least two hours or else put all of the details into a supplementary White Paper to be laid on the Table. Take education. The Minister has asked for additional money for education—this money which he has asked for for the various items, is spread over twenty or thirty different educational institutions. Yet the hon. member for George comes here with a lot of footling criticism about “incidental expenditure.” He knows that he can get all his information in Committee. Why take up the time of this House now with all these footling questions? But now let me get back to the £160,000,000. We are spending £160,000,000 this year in this country on all purposes—but of that £160,000,000—nearly £100,000,000 is spent on the war. Yet have we reached, have we begun to reach the austerity limits of Great Britain, Australia or Canada? I look round this House, I look round Cape Town and the country, and I cannot see that anyone is one penny worse off for this war expenditure. A day of reckoning may come, and probably will come.

You know it will come.

Oh, yes, we are under no illusions, as to the aftermath of this spending in any great war, and this money which we are spending will have to be found one day, but in the meantime the country seems to be living on a more luxurious level than ever.

Naturally, because of the money you are spending.

We have to submit to black-outs in Cape Town and Durban, we do not get quite as much petrol as we would like to have for our cars, we have to eat bread which sometimes revolts our stomachs, but what sign is there of austerity beyond that? And how much worse off are we because of this enormous expenditure?

Yes, at the moment the party is still on, but wait till the headache comes.

I agree that the headache will come.

And then there will be a black-out.

Yes, and the hon. member’s head will also ache.

Yes but the black-out will be on your side.

Can you tell me where to get razor blades?

If the hon. member will come to me I shall give him half a dozen blades—used ones, of course. But to get back to the hon. member for George and his criticism. He draws attention to the fact that an unprecedented amount is asked for this year on the additional estimates. He says that the Minister now in his first and second additional estimates is asking for a huge sum of money, £24,500,000. He says this is as much as ten years ago a Minister of Finance would have asked for in his entire Budget. Well, that is so. But what is the value of such a comparison? Ten years ago we were not in the midst of a World War. Now, let us analyse the figures. The Minister told us that he had budgetted to spent £6,000,000 per month on defence. But now he says that he has to spend £8,000,000 per month on defence. Does my hon. friend know what England is spending on this war? The amount she is spending is between £11,000,000 and £14,000,000 per day.

Yes, but this is not our war.

We can discount the hon. member who stands for a Nazi victory. He can go out and …

Order; order!

It is this country’s war—it is South Africa’s war.

Oh, no; it is the Empire’s war.

Well, I am not going to be led into a discussion on the war. On the first additional estimates of £21,500,000, £16,000,000 was for defence. The hon. member for George disagrees with that, but he agrees that if there is a war, and if we are in it, we have to find the war expenditure. Then £4,500,000 was a subscription to Iscor. How many safe 6 per cent. investments can we find in South Africa today? Would the hon. member suggest that instead of the State subscribing the money, we should hand it over to the public? It would be subscribed one hundred times over. It is one of the best investments we can find. The hon. member smiles.

Because it is our child.

Yes, it is a child of the hon. member’s party, and the hon. member should be grateful for the Government’s care of that child. Then we have £250,000 for the Industrial Development Corporation. Hon. members over there agreed with that Corporation—they voted for it; £579,000 was assistance to farmers in relation to the price of bread. The hon. member did not oppose that. Now, what is left? When you take £16,000,000 for defence, £4,500,000 for Iscor, £250,000 for the Industrial Development Corporation, and £579,000 for assistance to farmers, how much is left of the first additional estimates—something just over £100,000. The thing is trifling.

That is what he founds his charge of extravagance on.

Then take the next Estimates. They are for £3,000,000—both revenue and loan. Now, the revenue items are spread over 32 different heads. If my hon. friend says: “Your Estimate might have been a little closer than it was”, he is welcome to that criticism, but all the extra revenue works amounting to £2,500,000 are spread over 32 different votes, and have nothing to do with defence. And £750,000 alone is for pensions. Does my hon. friend object to that? Nearly half of that is for old age pensions. A great deal is for cost of living allowances to pensioners, and a great deal more is for extra pensions to soldiers. Surely my hon. friend did not object to the Pensions Bill passed last year, and most of this money is due to that Bill? Is he going to object to that? And then the next item is £124,000 for agriculture. He and his friends are always asking for more money to assist agriculture. Surely he does not want to ask that this money be taken away? If he wants it taken off let him say so. Then the next item, “Assistance to Farmers, £178,000”, in the form of two subsidies. If my hon. friend says that he would like these items to be taken off, I shall ask the Minister to consider taking them off.

You are the one who wants them taken off.

Oh, nonsense! And then posts and telegraphs, £176,000. Our posts and telegraphs seem rapidly to become a first class—or rather a second class taxing machine, and this £176,000 is to enable the posts and telegraphs to earn more money for the State. And then there is this loan of £400,000 to the Roads Board. Does he want that to go out? We promised to lend the money to make up their deficiency from the petrol tax. Does he want that taken off? Then, £109,000 for forests. That is to enable our forests in the present emergency to supply a need which cannot be filled from overseas. We are at last beginning to reap dividends from the money which we have spent since Union on our forests. This £109,000 is extra working expenditure to enable us to cash in on these dividends. Now, I take all these items which I have mentioned—they total £2,225,000 out of £3,250,000, and the other million is spread over very nearly thirty different votes, and of that £1,000,000 at least £500,000, at a rough estimate, is under the cost of living allowance. My hon. friend and his friends opposite want us to pay those cost of living allowances to the public servants,—or don’t they? If they object to them being here, let them say so. Now, I want to summarise. Our original estimates of expenditure were £88,500,000.

That is from Revenue Fund.

Yes. The first additional estimates were roughly £4,000,000, and the second additional estimates £2,225,000, making a total of £94,750,000. The saving on the original votes are roughly £1,225,000 and therefore the total expenditure on revenue account for this year will be £93,500,000, so it comes to this. The Minister of Finance at the beginning of the year told the people that the Government of the country was going to cost them this year £88,500,000. It actually cost £93,500,000 of which £3,500,000 is extra war expenditure, and more than covered by a revenue surplus. So what does it come to in the end? The Minister told the country that he was going to spend £88,500,000 and he actually, if you ignore the extra war expenditure, is spending £90,000,000. Then where is the financial misdeed? Why are the shadows of Mr. Jagger and Mr. Merriman to be invoked by my hon. friend? That is all it comes to. Now let me take the loan estimates. The original loan estimates were £52,250,000. The second estimate was £17,500,000 and the third £1,000,000. The total amount of loan estimates was therefore £70,750,000. But there were savings my hon. friend has seen of £3,750,000, and the actual expenditure was therefore £67,000,000. Of that amount £13,500,000 is additional war expenditure, and £4,500,000 is for Iscor, with which I have been dealing. If you add this altogether you get £18,000,000, and if you take that from £67,000,000 you will find that in this year, omitting the extra war expenditure the hon. Minister has spent £49,000,000 from loan funds. He told the country at the beginning of the year he was going to spend £52,250,000, so that all these hair-raising speeches of my hon. friend really mean very little. One hundred and sixty million pounds is a very large sum of money; no amount of talk on my part can get away from that, or dissolve the fact that £160,000,000 to be spent by this country has got to be found in some way or other, but when you consider that in relation to what is spent by other belligerent countries, it is a very small sum of money.

And even by neutrals.

Yes, as my hon. friend the Minister of Native Affairs reminds me, even by neutrals. I saw some figures the other day; I have not them in my head, but I can tell the hon. member that neutral Sweden, which is still neutral, since the war commenced has spent more on this war than belligerent South Africa.

The misfortune of the hon. member who has just sat down is that he can never regard any matter affecting the war objectively. With him there is only one yardstick in connection with everything that goes on in South Africa, and that is how things are going in one of the other belligerent countries. The usual argument is that in England the people are more heavily taxed than we here in South Africa; in New Zealand and in Australia the pressure is heavier on the people than in South Africa, and why should we in South Africa make any complaint against additional taxes? The hon. member did make one notable remark to justify the taxes and the war expenditure. He said: He does not know whether anyone is a penny worse off. And to that he added that the people are living more than ever before in luxury. The hon. member asserts that, in spite of the war and all the burdens which press on the population, the people are living still better than in the past, and they are living even in luxury. But what is the position now? I want to remind the hon. member of what the Mayor of Johannesburg said a few months ago. He ought at least to know whether the population of South Africa is living in luxury, as the hon. member makes out. On October 14th of last year he said that 40 per cent. of South Africa’s boys and 30 per cent. of South Africa’s girls were underfed and needed special treatment. In spite of the luxurious way of life in war time, there were 88,000 out of 220,000 of our boys, and 69,000 out of 210,000 of our girls who definitely suffered from one or other form of underfeeding. On this occasion he also stated that half the European population in South Africa were too poor to feed and clothe themselves properly. But now the hon. member says that we in South Africa are living in great luxury as a result of the war. He says that money is plentiful and the people are not a penny worse off as a result of the war. He comes back to the old argument that as long as we are not taxed as heavily as the people in England are taxed, everything is necessarily going well. On Vote No. 4 there is an item of £250 in connection with the expenditure of the Committee on social security. It is the first time that this amount appears on the vote. This is a Committee which is busy investigating the luxurious way of life of the population, of which the hon. member spoke, apparently to make it more luxurious. On January 7th the Prime Minister appointed this Committee, with the following members: Dr. van Eck as chairman, and then the following members: Professor Burroughs, Dr. Allan, Mr. Kuschke, Dr. Pirie, Mr. Meers, and Senator Briggs. The instruction to the Committee was the following—

The Committee was appointed; provision is made for the Committee on the Estimates, and in connection with this expenditure we are involuntarily confronted with the question: Is this Government really in earnest about making provision for social security for the population of the country? The question arises: Are they really in earnest? Do the Government really intend, after a thorough investigation has been instituted, really to create a social security code for South Africa? Do they intend to do something in this connection, or is it but a Committee which is appointed to satisfy certain parties, or to reassure a certain section of the population? The question arises for us: What is the purpose of the Government in the appointment of this Committee? And then the question also arises: If this Committee reports, and that report recommends that a social security code should be created, will the Government then act on the basis of that report, or will the Government put away that report indefinitely? That is the question which we must ask ourselves in this House before we vote this amount; we must put to the test whether the Government is serious in the appointment of this Committee. It is noteworthy that on January 3 on the occasion of the Labour Party Congress, certain decisions were adopted, and one of those decisions was namely this, that the future co-operation of the Labour Party with the Government would only be carried out subject to certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the Government should take over and apply the proposals of the Labour Party in connection with social security. That was one of the conditions which were laid down by that congress, on which further co-operation with the Government would be based. As I said, that congress took place on January 3. On January 7, four days after the congress and three days after the revelation of the demands of the Labour Party and its conditions, we see an announcement in the newspaper that the Prime Minister has immediately appointed this Committee. Now I ask again: Can we be taken amiss if we ask whether the Prime Minister is really serious, and whether the appointment of the Committee was but a concession to the Labour Party to soothe them until after the war, and then after the war, when they are no longer dependent on the support of the Labour Party, will he simply forget these things again? On a previous occasion I quoted what the Labour Party members themselves think of the intention of the Government in connection with this matter. I indicated that the members of the Labour Party especially the Minister of Labour, have very little faith in the carrying out of the promises of the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, they are now a little soothed. The four members of the Labour Party had negotiations with the Prime Minister. Two additional seats were granted them on the Witwatersrand, this Committee was appointed, and they now support the Government again. But we asked if the Government was really serious in the appointment of this Committee. In September’ of last year, a conference on social security was held in Durban. The Prime Minister sent a message to that congress. In that message that he sent to the congress, he said, inter alia—I quote from the “Star” in which the message appeared; I have the cutting here, and I can give it to the Prime Minister—

In September of last year, the Prime Minister did not yet regard it as a practical matter to establish a social security code. He thought then that it was only an educational campaign in the direction of a social ideal. That was three months before the appointment of this Committee. Then the Prime Minister was not so much concerned about the importance and necessity of the establishment of a social security code; he still thought about an educational campaign in that direction. He sent his message to the congress and it is clear that three months before the appointment of this notorious Committee, the Prime Minister still thought about an educational campaign, and that perhaps in the distant future there would be a realisation of this social ideal. Can we then be taken amiss if we ask the question whether the Prime Minister and his Government is really serious, and whether they created this Committee for other reasons. I go still further. A few days ago there was a significant statement in the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance. He told the House with gravity and emphasis: That the House must remember, and the country must remember, that for every million pounds borrowed and spent on the war, there will after the war be £30,000 less social security for the population. That was a statement by the Minister of Finance. For every million pounds borrowed now, it means that there will be £30,000 less for social security after the war. I have not got the figures for the amount that has already been borrowed, but I think it is about £187,000,000. We assume that £200,000,000 will probably be borrowed before the war ends. If we take the matter on the basis of the £187,000,000 already borrowed, and we multiply by £30,000, then it means that there will be something like £5,000,000 less for social security after the war. If we assume that £200,000,000 will still be borrowed before the war is over, then it means that there will be £11,000,000 less social security after the war.

But what security would there be if Germany wins?

That hon. member usually makes the most stupid remarks, and that is his only contribution to the debate. I do not want hon. members to judge by what I am saying, but by what the Minister of Finance himself has said. He said clearly to us here that £30,000 less social security work would be done after the war for every million pounds that is borrowed now. It is the Minister of Finance who says that, and calculated on the basis of that statement, I say that it is going to mean that after this war there will be £11,000,000 less social security for the people. In addition, we must remember that the Planning Council has stated that, apart from social security, there will be more than 230,000 unemployed after the war. Let us now take the two together. On the one side £11,000,000 less social security, and on the other more than 230,000 unemployed. Now, I ask hon. members on the other side: Do they think that the Prime Minister and his Government meant it seriously when they appointed a Committee of this kind?

Where do you get the figure of eleven million pounds?

The Minister said that for every million pounds borrowed now, there would be £30,000 less social security after the war. Assume that approximately £187,000,000 have already been borrowed. If we multiply 187 by 30,000, then we already get more than £5,000,000. I assume that before the war ends, at least another £200,000,000 will be borrowed. We will therefore then have borrowed approximately £400,000,000 before the war is over, and when calculated on the basis indicated by the Minister, it means that approximately £12,000,000 will not be available for social security after the war. I did not multiply it myself, but I think that that is the figure, more or less. In the light of these figures, I ask how much weight can one attach to the appointment of a Committee of this nature to investigate social security, when we have such a statement from the Minister of Finance? Let us now examine what is really meant by this instruction in connection with social security. Let us take what the Labour Party usually means by the term “social security”. In the first place, there must be proper provision for the aged. There I agree. It does not appear in the instruction, and it also does not require investigation. Today, the aged must manage on a pension that is granted and which is absolutely inadequate. Then there must be provision for widows and orphans; proper provision for the unemployed, and also provision for the physically unfit, who are unable to work. That in the main is a summary of what is included in the broad term of social security. It is also sometimes expressed in another way—provision must be made for every contingency from birth to death. The purpose is to provide for those members of the community who cannot provide for themselves. Taxation is imposed and provision is made for those members of the community who cannot provide for themselves. Usually the scheme in New Zealand is held up to us. The desire of the Labour Party is that this scheme should be adopted in toto in South Africa. That is the peak of the ambitions of those hon. members, and that is what they had in view, when they suggested that the Prime Minister should appoint this Committee. Let us now analyse the position a little further. That is the only thing one hears—that there must be social security, and that provision must be made for those persons in society, who for one reason or another, cannot provide for themselves. Now I ask hon. members: They want social security; they visualise an increase in pensions for the aged. As I have said, I agree with that. But now I ask them this: Is this the Committee they suggested, and is this what they wanted the Prime Minister to investigate? What provision is included for all those thousands of workers who do not get a wage sufficient to provide for their old age, but who, when those days come will at any rate not die of poverty; they will be in such a condition that they will be able more or less to live, but will not be able to live properly at all, they cannot maintain a proper living standard, and what provision is made for them? What social security will there be for them? We are told that social security is going to bring about a new Heaven in South Africa. That is being said; but will social security eliminate all poverty in South Africa? I have quoted what the Mayor of Johannesburg said recently. He told us that more than half of the European population do not get a wage sufficient to buy proper food and clothing. Is social security going to eliminate that poverty? No, it will do nothing to it. These thousands and thousands of children who do not get sufficient to eat, to fill their stomachs, will this social security see to it that those children get sufficient food in their stomachs and that they are properly clothed? The Minister of Finance said with great gusto in his Budget speech that every school child would be provided with one meal a day. Of what use is it if their parents are receiving a wage with which they cannot properly maintain the family? Is that the provision that they are making for the people, to assure every school child with one meal a day, while the parents receive wages on which they cannot exist? No, it shows very clearly in the first instance that the scheme of the Labour Party means nothing. They are, it is true, anxious to make provision, but they make provision for only a section of the people in certain circumstances. On the other hand it shows very clearly that the Government is not in earnest, and that the Government has not the least intention to bring about real social security in South Africa. If the Government was in earnest in the appointment of this Committee, then it would have taken the opportunity now to do something in advance. It would have taken the opportunity not to leave those unfortunate people who are unable to work, and who are unfortunately in a position where they cannot do any work, with £1 10s. a month, but the Government would have made an improvement for them, and it would not have appointed a Committee to report in five or ten year’s time. What has the Government done in this connection? Instead of that we find in the case of thousands of physically unfit, that the Government usually waits until the people are almost 90 per cent. unfit or until they are quite dead but not yet buried, before they assist the people. It is not necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to tell us that there are children who are underfed and who have no clothes to wear. It is not necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to tell us what the minimum demands are for a minimum standard. No, as they say in English, the appointment of such a committee “is so much eyewash.” The Government has not the least intention of doing anything, otherwise it would already have introduced these absolutely essential rules. There are people who suffer hunger in the country. But the hon. member for Kensigton (Mr. Blackwell) says that the people are living in luxury. We know who the people are who are living in luxury. It is the war agitators and the parasites who sit on the home front. We hear today of social security. We hear in every town and in every city in the Union of social security. Here exactly the same thing will happen as has happened in England. There they had the Beveridge plan that was applauded by everybody as a new future for the poor man in Britain. But what happened when the Government got hold of that plan and when it laid it before Parliament? It mutilated the plan so that it no longer had any meaning. Well, in Britain the Labour Party had the courage of its convictions and they voted against the mutilated plan. They voted against the Government. But what do we find here? Our Labour Party votes against the Government on one day on the question of Socialism, and ten minutes later it votes with the Government because they are quite satisfied with everything that the Government has done. In England the people still stand for principles. Here the Government on the other side will no more introduce social security than I can fly to the moon, and if the people remain patient, then they will have to wait a very long time for something which they will never get from that Government.

I want to say a few words to support the hon. member who has just sat down, in connection with the attitude of the Government towards what is described as social security. When we discuss this matter in the House, it becomes very clear that the promises of the Government in that connection are nothing but political deceit. It is something which is used in time of war in order to get the necessary support. The support of the poorer sections of the community must be obtained. They must go to the front; they must sacrifice themselves, and now the Government makes all sorts of vague promises with regard to the future. But those promises are so transparent that one can see that the only object is to create the impression that something will be done, and in actual fact nothing will be done. If the Minister of Finance and the Government honestly intend doing something in the direction of social security in South Africa, they should start with it now. We have the old people who receive old age pensions. We have the “Oudstryders” of the Second War of Independence, who receive a small sum; what has been done for those people? Very little. Here we have a type of person who is in need, people who are dependent on the small sum which they receive from the Government. The Government fixes their standard of living at £6 per month, and expects those people to live on £6 per month, and then the Government talks about social security. I say it is nothing but political deceit to talk about social security, while, on the one hand, Europeans are compelled to live on £6 per month. If the Government is in earnest, let it then assist the less privileged classes; let it give them better pensions in order to enable them to live better, and then we shall believe in the social security which it preaches. But while we have this state of affairs, and while the Government makes only vague promises in order to give these people the impression that after the war they will get all those things, we cannot believe in those promises. We see what colossal sums the Government is spending. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has already drawn attention to that. An enormous sum is spent on motor-cars. Here is an additional sum of £250,000. We are living in times when everyone has to make sacrifices, and when costs of living are rising. But, on the other hand, we find that the Government’s expenditure on motor-cars is doubling. The Government is spending money on a large scale on motor-cars, and it is disgraceful towards the other section of the population, especially towards those classes who are struggling to earn something in order to make a decent living. To those people the Government does not want to give a single penny in extra pensions. They must make ends meet on the meagre income which they receive. But the Government spends millions and millions of pounds on motor-cars and other things.

Millions of pounds on motor-cars?

On motor-cars and other things. Here we have the Second Additional Estimates which amount to a few million pounds more than the sum for which the Minister originally estimated. One would expect, since there is a shortage of petrol today, that the Government would see to it that its motor-cars are used as little as possible and that petrol is saved. What is the real reason for the increase to this colossal sum? This is the reason. The Ministers get as much petrol as they want, and the country is expected to pay for it. If the Government did something for people like the “Oudstryders” who are less privileged then I would have no objection, but the Government is not giving anything to those people, while they themselves are extremely generous with their expenditure in other spheres. There are a number of items which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, but I shall wait until we reach the Committee stage.

When I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) I could not help my mind going back a year or two ago when the hon. member addressed a meeting and expressed the hope that Germany would be victorious. Now, one hears this hon. member wanting to put up a fresh security code in South Africa—I suppose on the German lines. I wonder how he can make his expressions of today fit in with the type of security which these people whom he wanted to be victorious imposed on the Norwegians and these other people whom they had been executing in masses.

That is unfair.

Does he imagine that if the Germans were victorious they would improve the position in this country? Does he imagine that he and his Party would be given the opportunity of giving the country a security code? When one hears of the things which are happening in Russia, at Rostov and other places,—the things which happened before the Russians got back, it makes one shudder. Thousands of people were mowed down. We hear of children and others being gathered in a sports arena and large numbers of old men and women being put in the centre of the arena and shot down by rifle fire. Is that the sort of social security which the hon. member wants? Is that the sort of thing the hon. member is aiming at for South Africa?

What sort of propaganda have you been reading?

I think the hon. member had better come back to the subject before the House.

Yes, well, I was going to deal with this question of feeding the children. The hon. member for Fordsburg wanted to know what steps had evere been taken by the Government in the way of feeding the children. I say that what the Government has done is a tremendous step forward. A prominent member of the School Board told me the other day that in the Cape Peninsula alone under the new scheme they would have to feed every day 80,000 children. What does that mean?

But the Government is only appointing a Committee.

The Minister of Finance has opened the door wide to social work, and that is the first step to social security. We are not only going to feed these children in school time only but at holiday times too, we shall have to get kitchens and kitchen staffs, and in addition to that we shall also have to provide the food for these children, and that food has to be grown here. The programme is going to be a very far-reaching one. I understand that plans are now in progress to bring the Orange River through a large portion of the Karroo by which means that part of the country will be made fertile. We shall even be able to create a system of farms ….

I am afraid the hon. member is wandering very far from the question before the House.

I am pointing out that all kinds of other forms of social progress will have to be put into force as a result of which it will be possible to feed the children. I am trying to point out that all sorts of other things will have to be done, from which the country and the people of the country will benefit. And what is more, the children of today, many of whom are almost destitute, will be sure of getting at least one decent meal per day, and giving them that one decent meal in addition to other things will go a long way towards not only improving the health of these children but also their minds. The child who is properly fed, who is physically fit, and who in consequence will become mentally fit, will be able to take his place in the class. Today, because of their physical unfitness their minds are not fit, their bodies and their minds are weakened; under the new plan of the Minister this will be remedied. One cannot help feeling that the effect is going to be a most beneficial one and that many of these children who today leave school after standard II or III will go right up to matric. The outcome will be that you will have a population which will be physically and mentally fit. That is why I cannot help replying to the hon. member for Fordsburg when he twits and jeers at the Government for doing what I regard as one of the most progressive things ever undertaken in this country. I hope we shall live to see this Budget put into effect.

I am afraid the hon. member is again wandering very far afield. There is provision on the estimates for £250 for the appointment of a Committee. That is the only subject which is mentioned here in connection with social security.

I shall conclude by saying this, that if the hopes of the hon. member for a German victory had come through there would have been no social or other security at all.

I hope this debate will not immediately change into a thanksgiving service. We usually have it on the general Budget, and we have it every year in this House. I hope therefore that hon. members will not take up the time of the House with a thanksgiving service. Hon. members who have got up, including the hon. member who has just sat down, expressed their thanks to the Minister. He definitely needs sympathy. The appointment of this Committee shows that the Government is eventually regarding it as essential to bring about a feeling of social security. It does not therefore become hon. members on the other side to get up and to give the old time-worn reply, as soon as there is a large sum on the estimates, that it is justified because this is war time. Social security also implies that we must look after the income of the State. I do not think the argument can be advancd that social security means that we can spend the taxpayer’s money in a reckless manner and then say that it is justified because it is for war purposes. On the other side of the House it has already become a monotonous refrain that all expenditure is justified because this is war time. I think the nation is gradually becoming tired of that argument. You must advance better arguments than these as far as the people are concerned. The nation is no longer satisfied with the explanation that it is war time. That excuse will no longer hold. The people want social security, and they want social security measures during this war period. It is for that reason that this poor effort which is made by appointing a Committee is welcomed. We only hope that it will not remain there. It has been said here that the Government can be congratulated on the steps it took in connection with the feeding of children. I should like to say this, that social security does not consist of one meal per day to a number of children. If this Government interprets social security as such, I am afraid that the people cannot expect much from this Government. It is of no avail giving a child one hot meal per day, if he has to live in a hovel or a galvinised iron pondokkie. I expected that the Government would place a housing scheme in the various large centres of the country in the forefront of social security. I am sorry that it appears at the bottom of the list. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition so strikingly put it on another occasion: “It will not avail us to dry the floor if we do not close the tap.” One hot meal per day will not be of much assistance if the poor child has to return to his hovel. That is not social security. He will be grateful for the hot meal, but in giving one hot meal per day we are not yet touching the fringe of the trouble. I want to level this accusation against the Minister, that they are so taken up with the war effort today they are not able to appreciate the great problem in our cities. That is a shortcoming on the part of this Government. It is yet another shortcoming which must be added to the list of the Government and that list is indeed a long one. My accusation against the Minister of Finance is this, that in trying to make the country believe that this Government aims at social security, he is not representing the true facts. I want to say this to the Minister: “You have not taken into account the circumstances connected with this war. Large numbers of people have been drawn to the cities as a result of the war. Europeans have been drawn to the cities in large numbers. You have not only drawn Europeans to the cities, but you have also drawn coloured people and natives to the cities. As a result of recruitment, you have drawn large numbers of natives and coloured people to the cities. The men enlisted, and their families came to live in the cities. The coloured people and natives felt themselves drawn to the cities. The natives flocked to the cities in even greater numbers than was assumed to be the case. There are more natives today in the Cape Peninsula and in the Johannesburg Municipality than the Government can account for, because you do not know what the numbers are, because there is no control.” The Government has abolished the pass system, in so far as the natives are concerned, or at any rate it has so curtailed it that this Government does not know how many natives have penetrated into the urban areas. This is a problem which has been created. The Municipality is at its wits’ end as far as housing is concerned. Europeans cannot get houses; the coloured people cannot get houses, and the natives are living on the outskirts of the municipalities. My accusation against this Government is that it has not kept pace with these problems which the war has created. It is of no avail giving one hot meal per day to the children if they have to go back to their hovels and galvanised iron pondokkies. It is of no avail giving the child a hot meal if he has to go back to District Six and live there in one tiny room, together with six or seven others. These are circumstances which the Government will have to investigate. I do not know what is happening in Johannesburg, but I do know what is happening in Cape Town. If one coolie can let a house and put forty or fifty people into it, and an inspector visits the place, and that state of affairs is allowed to continue, then there is something wrong with the Municipality or with the inspector, and I think there is something wrong with the inspectors. I have been told that there are inspectors in Cape Town who are satisfied with houses when they have no right to be satisfied, when the conditions are such that they dare not be satisfied. And I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he will not instruct the Committee to investigate this matter as well. I want to ask him what provision he has made in the large cities in respect of housing for Europeans, and what provision is made for the natives and coloureds who are flocking to the cities. It is of no avail giving people one hot meal per day if at the same time we do not provide them with proper housing facilities. The Government must not say to the people that it has given them one hot meal per day, and that therefore they must vote for the Government. I want to put this question to the Minister: This war has created big problems in the country; what has the Government done with a view to solving those problems? The reply is that the Government has done nothing. We have followed a criminal policy with regard to the aged people by giving them a pension of £2 or £3 per month. They have given up their houses in order to come to the cities. On this sum of £2 or £3 which they receive, they are not in a position to live in one of the smart suburbs. All they can afford on that money is to find shelter in the hovels and galvanised iron buildings in the slums of the city. There is no other alternative for them. The Government must not always tell us, when we introduce motions, that we are doing so for election purposes; but when they come forward with motions it is with a view to establishing social security. It is of no avail giving one meal per day; let us go to the root of the evil. This motion on the part of the Government is superficial; as one member has put it, it is “eye-wash”. The Government is only touching the fringe here, and not the principle. I want to refer the House to the motion which was introduced by this side of the House. This side of the House said that we wanted to regard housing as a national matter. We do not want to solve it piecemeal. We want to regard it as a national matter, and we want to remove the chaos which exists with regard to Europeans and non-Europeans. If we want to tackle housing as a national problem, our first task must be to remove the slum conditions. What has the Government so far placed on the Estimates with a view to solving slum conditions? Will one hot meal per day for the children solve the slum conditions? No, it cannot solve this problem. It is true, it will assist to some extent, but that is no solution. We do not only want the nation to be elevated economically. There are more important things than that, and that is why our Leader pertinently brought this question to the notice of the House. We must not only look after the nation’s stomach. The nation also has a soul. The stomach is now being cared for partially, but when I take into consideration the conditions in the slum areas, I can only come to the conclusion that nothing is being done for the nation’s soul. We in this country are the guardians of the coloured people. Hon. members on the other side, just as hon. members on this side of the House, will admit that we cannot educate Europeans and non-Europeans on the same basis or in the same house. There is no member in this House who would want his children to grow up in a native or coloured neighbourhood; if it is not good enough for your own children, it is not good enough for the rest of the population. My plea to the Government is this: Tackle this matter now; give special instructions to the Committee to destroy this evil which gnaws at our national welfare like cancer, namely the chaotic housing conditions which exist; once you do that, you will be making a start with social security. Social security does not consist of one hot meal per day; social security means that you create security for the whole population on the basis of the European civilisation in South Africa. By letting your children grow up in galvanised iron hovels and native quarters, you will most decidedly not be able to effect social security in South Africa. What is happening today in the Cape Peninsula? The coloured people are allowed to do as they please. They select a European neighbourhood and buy a house there; they then fill the house to capacity with coloured people, with the inevitable result that the Europeans have to leave that neighbourhood. That sort of thing happens repeatedly. Today there is a housing speculation in progress on an outrageous scale in connection with this matter. Today it is the policy to buy an expensive house in a European locality, to fill it to capacity with coloured people, and then the Europeans leave. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he is aware of this? When you ride in your big shining motor car—I do not mean the Minister personalily—when you ride in your big shining motor car from your house to the House of Parliament, you cannot discover what the conditions are; you cannot appreciate how one portion of your ship is begin kept afloat while the other portion is sinking. No, I hope that when the Minister introduces his main budget, he will still make a few promises to this House; I hope he will promise the country that this critical state of affairs in connection with housing will receive attention at an early date.

I just want to raise one matter which I shall not be able to deal with in the Committee stage within the time at my disposal. I should like to refer to the industrial schools and reformatories. I recently inspected the reformatory at Tokai, and there I got into touch with the people, and the general complaint was that the reformatory—although the idea was, not to put the children who were criminals in gaol, but to keep them separately—the complaint was that the reformatory was not serving its purpose. I am not referring to Tokai only; what I am saying here applies to all other reformatories. It seems to me that the circumstances of the children who are sent to the reformatories are not sufficiently investigated. All classes and types are put together. Some children who are born criminals and who will be criminals throughout their lives, are put in the same place as boys who are of good character but who got into trouble owing to the fact that they grew up in the wrong neighbourhood. Take the European child who grew up amongst the coloured people. When he reaches the age of 14 or 15 years, he commits crimes which he would never have committed but for the fact that he grew up in the wrong neighbourhood. Eventually that child finds himself in the reformatory together with children who grew up as criminals and who will be criminals all their lives.

The hon. member cannot discuss questions of policy at this stage; he can only discuss the reasons for the increase in the Vote.

That is precisely what I am doing. I am discussing the increase and not the general policy. A certain sum of money is voted here for reformatories.

There is nothing here in respect of reformatories.

But surely this falls under Vote No. 19.

There is nothing on this Vote in respect of reformatories.

It says here “Industrial Schools and Reformatories”.

That is only the title; there is nothing under this vote for reformatories, and there will be a further opportunity to discuss this subject.

In any event, what I want to emphasise is that these children get into trouble because they do not grow up in a decent locality. I shall go into this matter further at the general discussion.

The hon. member will get an opportunity at a later stage to discuss this.

I just want to say that this is a serious matter. The people who live in the Cape Flats cannot obtain medical treatment because they live in circumstances where treatment at their homes is out of the question. They live in poor circumstances, and their wages are so low that they cannot afford medical attention. Even Europeans live there in such circumstances that one is ashamed to admit that in a civilised country such as this people have to live in these circumstances. The war has brought about a lower standard in the moral lives of these people. As a result of the war certain diseases have spread amongst the people, and I have been told that one-half or three-quarters of those people are today suffering from diseases which they would not have contracted if it were not for the fact that the war has had the effect of lowering their moral standards. It seems to me that nothing is being done for these people. The little that is done is only patchwork. It is proposed this year to give one hot meal per day to the children. The hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) says that that is such a wonderful thing, but in my district the children have been getting one meal per day for the past ten years. This is not something new at all. But what is the use of one meal? The standard of living of these people is so low that if we want to help them we must go to the root of the evil and see to it that the fathers and mothers can make a decent living, and that they are able to rear their children. I go so far as to say that a man who has no children should pay for the children of other families. The State should support the children when there is a family with more than two children. Today we find this state of affairs even amongst the well-to-do people in the cities, that they cannot get a decent house, that they have to live in all sorts of odd places with their children, and the result is that they do not want to have any more children. We are now importing Lithuanians and Jews to reinforce the European population, while our own people dare not have children because they cannot exist. People talk about increasing our rural population. We have enough people in this country to bring about an increase in the European population, if the State takes proper care of these people, so that they are able to rear their children decently. I have no great confidence in all this talk about social security. The Minister of Finance himself said the other day: “You talk about social security. That requires money, and you must remember that all our resources are being pledged for the prosecution of the war, and once we have seen the war through, I do not know whether we shall have a farthing left.” We are waging this war to give freedom to people who will not be able to enjoy that freedom, because there will be no money. No, that type of talk is only used for election purposes. The hon. member who spoke just now, talked as if he was addressing a number of voters. He enlarged on the question of farms which will be given to returned soldiers. The Minister will remember that after the last war farms were also given to returned soldiers. How long did they remain there? Take care of the farmers who are on the land, and keep them there. Do not put people on the farms who understand nothing at all about farming.

To a certain degree this debate has developed into a forerunner of the budget debate. I do not intend here this afternoon to deal with matters such as social security, and the Government’s budget proposal in connection with a meal for school-children. In any case, as hon. members know, it is my custom on occasions such as this to confine myself to financial matters, and I am therefore not going into what has been said in connection with other matters, and also not into what has been said in connection with other votes that do not fall under me. I have to do principally with what has been said by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), but perhaps it is not even necessary to say much on that, because I find myself in the usual position that when the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is finished with the hon. member for George, then there is not much left over for me to say. As usual he made considerable noise and was exuberant, but after it was analysed very little wool remained.

Then you must make the hon. member for Kensington Minister.

Who knows? The hon. member for George raised two points in particular. The one is that we are asking £24,000,000 extra by way of additional estimates, while the administrative costs of the country were only £27,000,000 ten years ago. But the hon. member compares two things that do not stand on the same footing. The £24,000,000 falls on the estimates of income as well as on the Loan Account, but the £27,000,000 of ten years ago was only on the Revenue Account. If one argues in that way, one could prove anything. If one compares Revenue Account with Loan Account, however, then one finds that it was £27,000,000 ten years ago, whilst the additional amount on the two Additional Estimates was £6.3 million, of which £3,500,000 was for Defence. The hon. member’s second allegation was that the fact that we have requested £24,000,000 extra, is a proof either of very bad budgeting, or of a camouflage of the position. Let us analyse the £24,000,000. In the first place £16,000,000 of the £24,000,000 is additional war expenditure. The hon. member knows as well as I do the difficulties that exist in connection with the estimation of war expenditure. Last year we were correct. This year, in view of circumstances already discussed here, and which I have explained, we could not be correct. But it is certainly not a proof of very bad budgeting or of camouflage. We thus have £16,000,000 for Defence, then £4,400,000 for Iscor. We could not have foreseen this a year ago. Then there is £250,000 for the Industrial Corporation. Last year the Industrial Corporation asked for £1,000,000. We said that it had not been proved that they would need so much. We gave them £500,000 and would give whatever was needed in addition. What was needed in addition appeared to be £250,000. We could not have foreseen the £580,000 in connection with the fixation of the price of bread. Could we have foreseen at the time that £400,000 would be necessary for the National Board as a result of the reduced income from petrol? We could not have foreseen it. Then there is £780,000 in consequence of additional expenditure on pensions, and partly cost of living allowances, and partly as a result of the adoption of the War Pensions Act. And then, as I have explained, there is an increase in the salary item on all the votes, as a result of increased cost of living allowances. In connection therewith, must also be mentioned the increase of Government garages, in respect of which the hon. member had a lot to say. It is not so much a matter of additional staff, but of increased cost of living allowances. That you will find on all votes.

Why does one find “Cost of Living Allowances” on one vote, and not on another?

I do not know what the hon. member is referring to, but in any case there are increased cost of living alowances on the salary votes. The increase on the salary votes is due largely to increased cost of living allowances. If you calculate it, then £500,000 is added to it. If we add the items mentioned, then we get £23,000,000 out of the £24,000,000. Only £1,000,000 remains. That is all that remains as a basis for the hon. member’s wild and loose allegation here this afternoon, and it is typical of the manner in which the hon. member conducts his criticism. Now something in connection with what the hon. member said about my own vote. He referred to the Education Vote, and practically wanted to give the idea that we had altered the law.

The policy.

The hon. member first spoke of the law.

I do not know.

There are many things the hon. member does not know.

Just like you.

Just as we all, but then we do not all talk with such a mighty gesture as the hon. member. The law stipulates that it rests with the Minister to fix the university grants and according to the scale laid down, we have a maximum grant of £100,000 for the universities. The hon. member asks why in the case of the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand, £3,000 extra is being asked. Not because we have changed the basis as regards the calculation of the grant. We still apply precisely the same formula, but in the case of these two universities, which reached the maximum, we had to keep account of the fact that compulsory additional cost of living allowances have been laid on the universities by the Government, and in that respect we must meet them. The other universities still get their grants on the basis of their additional revenue, but as regards these universities, we can only meet them in this manner, in view of the Government’s action by way of war measures that have laid obligations on these universities amounting to between £4,000 and £6,000, and we considered that it was fair to help them in connection with the additional expenditure. That is the reason. Then the hon. member wants to know what the reason is for the increase in the “Incidental Expenses” on the Treasury Vote of £4,175. There are two reasons for this, the one is that the Committee which we appointed some time ago in connection with the provinces remained in session longer than we expected, and this meant additional expenditure. The second reason is connected with the expenditure on the cost-plus investigation. The hon. member has said that there are hidden sins here. I do not know whether the hon. member is also a party to the sins as a member of the Cost-Plus Committee, but I trust that the House will agree with this additional expenditure, otherwise the hon. member may possibly have to pay back a few pounds.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has already referred in his speech to the fact that the item “Incidental Expenses” appears on various votes. In connection with the item “Incidental Expenses” on the vote “External Affairs” I also want to refer to the item A (3), where we find that where originally £3,120 was asked there under the new revised estimate, £10,000 is now asked. Incidentally, this is a matter in connection with which I also raised objection last year. Last year there was a similar increase on the previous year’s item for “Incidental Expenses”. Now we have here an increase not of a few per cent., but of more than three times the amount that was asked in the original estimates. Generally, under this item “Incidental Expenses”, fall telegram costs, cable costs, writing material and similar things, and as regards the costs, the amount in the past was a comparatively small sum. Now we get the terrible increase of more than three times the original amount, and I am inclined to share the view of the hon. member for George, or rather to put the question as to why the additional sum is so terribly big. No particulars are given. Generally, in such cases, particulars are given of the increase at the end, but in this case there is no note of such a nature, notwithstanding the terribly large increase. One is inclined to put the question whether use is not being made of the additional items in order to cover all sorts of things under them, in the hope that they will go through in this way without any criticism. I hope the Prime Minister is in a position to tell us why the amount of £3,120 has been increased to £10,000. Then there is another item in connection with the representation in the United States of America. We find that in respect of Washington alone there is an amount of £26,500 that is being asked, and there we have “Incidental Expenses” of not less than £3,680, bringing the total amount to £12,300. The “Incidental Expenses” of embassies overseas were, according to my experience, always in the neighbourhood of £500. £600, sometimes £700, but here £12,300 is being asked for incidental expenses. That is more than a whole embassy cost in the past. The embassies in Washington, France and elsewhere, cost only in the neighbourhood of £10,000 and £12,000, but here £12,300 is asked for incidental expenses alone. I want to put it thus: That a wrong practice involves an amount of £12,300 under the cloak of “Incidental Expenses”. In such a case the House has the right to obtain much more information. As regards D (1), “Salaries, Wages and Allowances”, an amount of £26,000 is asked, as regards Washington alone, in the revised Estimates. Last year I spoke about the same vote. Then there was an increase on the previous year. It seems to me that the longer the war lasts the greater become the expenses in connection with the respective embassies. It is true that a Purchasing Commission has been appointed, but we also had it last year, and we would like to know why the terrible sum of £26,500 must be voted solely in connection with salaries and allowances for the Embassy in Washington. I am the last person, particularly with my experience of the past, to exercise criticism where the necessary expansion ought to take place, that naturally involves additional expenses, but when it reaches this level, and when there is such a tremendous increase every year, we have the right to ask if the time has not come to call a halt. I hope the Prime Minister will be in a position to give us the necessary information. I want to point out that quite apart from the expenses in connection with Washington, there is another office in New York, where the Consul-General is, and where a considerable amount is also necessary. As regards Washington, we have reason to say that the expenses are becoming disquietingly large, and I would like the Prime Minister to give us more information.

I would like to give the information to the hon. member. The incidental expenses under A. (3) include provision that must be made for certain unforeseen payment of remuneration to officials overseas, who have suffered losses to property in their flight from the Continent of Europe, principally in the case of the late Capt. Bain-Marais, who was Envoy Extraordinary in Paris. Then it also includes expenditure on overseas telegrams, which has increased considerably as a result of the delay and irregularity in connection with the overseas letter post. A large number of telegrams are sent overseas on behalf of other departments. The hon. member and the Committee will understand that owing to the delay of the post and the irregular marine transport, the telegraphic service has expanded surprisingly, and that we and other departments must send many telegrams to the various Governments and Embassies in Europe. Those are the two reasons for the increase. These are of course both exceptional votes. The hon. member speaks of the tremendous rise in the expenditure, but in both cases it is compensations under exceptional circumstances and additional telegraph expenses arising from these circumstances. Then as regards D. (1), “Salaries, Wages and Allowances”, the increase is due to the appointment of a Press official, and the employment of additional temporary staff, as also a change in the salary scale of shorthand writers and typists, and an increase in the cost of living allowances from 1st January, 1942, and a further increase from June. This is exceptional expenditure originating from the circumstances which have arisen. We have been advised from Washington that it is necessary in our interests to have a Press official there, and Mr. Moolman was then transferred from London to Washington, where he renders outstanding service in the interest of national publicity and advertising work. That, of course, involves additional expenditure. Then there is D. (3) “Incidental Expenses”, which must be ascribed largely to the increase in the overseas telegrams which have become necessary owing to the delay in the usual letter post. The Embassy in Washington reports that the expenditure is also due in a large measure to the telegrams despatched in respect of the recently established Purchasing Commission. During the last three months for which accounts are available, the provision under the sub-head was an average of about £1,000 per month. It is conceivable that where we are in a large measure dependent on supplies from the United States of America, and where we have special agencies there, such as the Purchasing-Commission, to make provision for our supplies, that the telegraph service will cost much more. That explains the increased expenditure under D. (3). As regards all the other items, it is due to abnormal circumstances.

As regards the explanation of the Prime Minister that much of the money goes towards the compensation of officials, I just want to recall that we dealt with the matter last year. Last year there was also a considerable amount for it on the Estimates, and I thought that the case of the late Mr. Bain-Marais was also concluded thereunder. The Minister cannot blame us if we are a little suspicious in connection with the compensation of officials, in view of what has emerged as a result of the investigation of the Auditor-General in respect of the compensation to Dr. Van Broekhuizen. This came up specially before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Mr. Bain-Marais is dead, and one does not want to say too much about it, but I hope that in this respect a little more care has been exercised than in the case of Dr. van Broekhuizen. A sum of £1,000 per month for telegrams alone in Washington is also a terribly large amount, and I hope that a little care will be exercised, for this is quite apart from all the telegrams that go to London. I just want to say a word about the appointment of a Press Relations Officer. The Prime Minister has spoken of advertising work. In the previous Estimates there was also such an item in connection with external affairs, and on investigation it appeared to be an amount for a display at a certain exhibition.

That was under Internal Affairs.

Then the reason was also given that the amount stood in connection with advertising work, to develop our trade, etc. The Minister of the Interior admitted later, however, that the amount there was not in connection with trade, but merely in connection with publicity regarding what is called “South Africa’s war effort”. Now, I would like to know, in view of the admission that we got from the Minister of the Interior, whether we have not to do with something similar here? There are the necessary commercial officials, both in New York and in Washington, to deal with publicity. There is a Board of Trade and a Commercial Attache who must look after this. As regards railway publicity, this is not necessary under the existing circumstances, but if it is deemed necessary with an eye to the future, then there are also officials to see to it. I am afraid that the hon. the Minister has not received the correct information. Mr. Moolman is not there to publicise our products and tourists. I am convinced that he is there for one object alone, and that is to tell America about South Africa’s war effort. It may be very interesting. The Prime Minister may feel that in view of the propaganda conducted by America here, the beautiful coloured booklets that cost a great deal of money, we should also conduct propaganda in connection with our war effort. One can put the question as to why America takes such a great interest in our country at the moment and makes such powerful propaganda here. But I feel that in view of the large sum of money that we already spend for propaganda purposes it is not further necessary to send a special man there to tell America what we are doing in connection with the war effort. It is unnecessary expense. We have people there anyway. When I was there I travelled through the country from North to South and East to West to publicise South Africa. I addressed meetings, I addressed clubs, I addressed chambers of commerce, and so forth. We have a Minister in America, and what does he do there? Is he not good enough to enlighten America about South Africa’s war effort? Why must another man be sent over to do this? If this is difficult for him with his mounting years, then there is still the Ambassadorial Secretary and other members of the staff, and are they not in a position to give the necessary enlightenment, and why must a person with a high title of a Press Relations Officer be appointed? I feel it is unnecessary expenditure, and that the explanation of the Hon. the Minister is not a satisfactory explanation. We have a man there to tell America about our war effort if it is necessary. That man is Mr. Close, and it is unnecessary to send another man there.

The hon. the Prime Minister will perhaps be able to give this Committee information in connection with the committee he appointed to investigate social security. Part of that instruction sounds a little queer. One finds it difficult to understand what the instruction given to the committee really is, what is expected of them, what the nature of the investigation must be, and what the recommendations may be. I have the terms of reference of the committee here before me. The first part reads as follows—

That is clear. The committee must in the first place investigate and report upon existing social services and social security measures, and then comes the second part of the instruction—

They must conduct an investigation and then they must draft schemes for the expansion of existing social services and social security measures. Then it states further that they must also make recommendations—

So far as that instruction is concerned it is quite clear. Everyone can immediately conceive what the object is, what is expected of them, and what they must investigate. But now I come to this part of the instruction, that I at any rate find a little difficult io understand. It says here further—

They have already received their instruction to institute an investigation, and what must they do after that? After they have conducted their investigation, and when they draft their report with their recommendations, then they must take into consideration—

That is the first qualification that is laid down, and that must be taken into consideration when the committee drafts its report. They say nothing about what must happen when the committee finds that instead of a possible expansion there is a possible shrinkage. Must they in that event suspend their report immediately and also their recommendations, or must they recommend that no clarification can be brought about? It says very clearly that they must take into consideration the possible expansion of the productive capacity of the Union. As we know a considerable difference of opinion exists in connection with this. We have it from various sources that there will be a possible shrinkage in the possible production capacity of the Union after the war. It is generally accepted that this is most probable. Immediately after the war a curtailment of secondary industry will take place. Those industries will have to transform to industries manufacturing local domestic commodities, and it will take some time before they are equipped for this. It is clear that immediately after the war there will be no increase of our production capacity, but a reduction in the production capacity of the Union. Now I would like to know, since these qualifications are laid down for the action of the committee, what will be expected of it if it has to do with a decrease of production capacity? Must the committee in consequence thereof recommend a development of the existing services and an improvement of the existing rules, or may it not do that? In the second place, rhe committee must take into consideration—

When the committee drafts its report must it perpetually bear in mind that there are already facilities in connection with curative work and preventive work in the Union? Firstly, the committee gets an instruction to conduct a fairly comprehensive investigation and to make recommendations for the expansion of existing services, and for new services. Then they are told that they must take into consideration the production capacity of the Union and the existing facilities for preventive and curative work. And now we come to the following qualification, and that is perhaps the most important. The instruction reads further that when they draft their report they must take into consideration—

Let us now analyse what is meant by this. This committee must recommend new schemes that will ensure social security to the poorer section of the population. They are expected to come to light with something radical. That is the feeling that exists among the people. But now the Prime Minister says in the instruction, apart from the two qualifications I have read out, that when they draft those schemes they must take into consideration the necessary safeguards to retain personal responsibility, initiative and thrift. Take personal responsibility. One of the most important parts of social security is to make thorough provision for unemployment, and when there are members of the community who have no work, then thorough, effective and adequate provision must be made for them; and what then is the position in connection with those persons’s personal responsibility? How are we going to apply those words to a scheme in which national provision is made for unemployment. It also says here that the initiative of the individual must be borne in mind. Can it now be said that the man who has worked as a carpenter for 25s. per day and who becomes unemployed must go and work for 3s. per day as an ordinary labourer, and that if he does not go to work for that, then he has no personal initiative? Then we come to the question of thrift. An allowance is paid to people who are physically unfit. They are examined by medical officers, and when it is found that these persons are totally unfit for any work, then they get an allowance. Now, one of the greatest safeguards that must be taken into consideration when any improvement in this connection is considered, is the question of thrift, and if this committee must take into consideration all the qualifications for the drafting of an effective scheme, then it will apparently be able to do nothing, because everything they might want to recommend would be vitiated by the second part of the instruction. I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will inform us what he personally expects from this committee, and also what will be done if they submit a, report in which radical changes appear.

I should have thought that the instruction to which the hon. members referred is clear and obvious. The instruction is a synopsis of the recommendation of the Planning Council itself. The Planning Council had a long page on it. We could not accept it as an instruction to the committee. This instruction is a brief synopsis of what is given therein. The instruction says that the committee must institute an investigation into security measures, unemployment, and all the other disabilities from which the community suffers, and when the committee does this it must bear in mind, for instance, the carrying capacity of the country, the production potentialities of the country. The hon. member thinks of the time immediately after the war, when there may be a deterioration of our carrying capacity. But the scheme which this committee is going to draft will envisage not only the few years after the war, but also the future and the increased carrying capacity of the country, and improve the circumstances which will strengthen the carrying capacity of the country, so that the country will be able to carry such a social scheme. They will also have to bear in mind the existing measures which have already been taken, for instance, in connection with preventive and curative facilities which exist. That follows. What already exists must be taken into account. We have already gone fairly far. We have taken an interest in these matters for the past ten or twenty years, and quite a lot has been done. Our object is not to break down, but the object is that the committee shall continue to build up, add and expand. All this is now included in the instruction to the committee. It is also finally stated that they must keep in view the great importance of a spirit of responsibility and individual initiative and a spirit of thrft among the people. I would have thought that this instruction speaks for itself, and that it is in the interests of the people in general not to undermine, through any security system which may be called into being, the feeling of thrift, initiative and responsibility among our people. It is obvious that these are considerations which the committee must bear in mind. The instruction was suggested by the Planning Council itself. We in turn gave the instruction to the committee, and I do not think that it will cause any difficulty in connection with any eventual scheme recommended by the committee. It is advisable for the committee to keep those considerations in view, and for that reason we have mentioned them.

I would just like to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think that this is the appointed place to take Parliament and the country outside into his confidence in connection with the National Supplies Council, which the Prime Minister created by a proclamation in the Government Gazette on the 23rd December of last year. This is the first time that this vote appears on the estimates. The sum for which he is asking, is the sum of £200. In terms of the proclamation of December of last year, a National Supplies Council was created, consisting of three members: the Prime Minister as Chairman, the Minister of Railways and Harbours as Vice-Chairman. I understand that an alteration has now come about, and that the present Minister of Commerce and Industries is the Vice-Chairman. Then there is the Director-General, and then such other persons as the Governor General may appoint. Then comes this provision—

They are not appointed for a definite time. It is in the discretion of the Prime Minister to appoint whom he likes, and to alter the staff of the Council tomorrow, with the exception of two persons, i.e. the Prime Minister himself and the Director-General of War Supplies. The Prime Minister may change the other minister arbitrarily. He has now appointed the Minister of Commerce and Industries. If he is not to the Prime Minister’s liking, then the Prime Minister can nominate another Minister in his place tomorrow. Only two persons must remain, i.e. the Prime Minister and the Director-General of Supplies. The other members sit there at the grace of the Prime Minister. Then we read that the Director-General has enormous powers. I think there are only two dictators in South Africa at present, the first is the Prime Minister himself, and the second is Dr. H. J. van der Byl. He has more power than the rest of the Cabinet combined. I must say that the Prime Minister is sometimes very unfortunate in the choice of persons to help him. But there he has made a good choice; it is possibly one of the good selections he has made, so far as I can judge. This Director-General has enormous powers. The National Supplies Council has extended powers. They control the acquisition, production and the distribution of all controlled material. They control the acquisition and production of all war supplies, and all the material necessary for the manufacture and production of war supplies. They can enter into contracts for the purchase of products, and of any controlled material, and they can declare any material as controlled material. They obtain control over factories, works and buildings, which they may deem necessary to give effect to the objects of their regulations. Simultaneously they obtain all power over imports and exports. It seems to me that in the person of one man is combined all the powers formerly vested in the Director-General of War Supplies, the powers formerly exercised by the Minister of Commerce and Industries as Controller, and by the Secretary for Commerce and Industries. All this is now combined, and the Prime Minister should tell us Why he made the change. Why was it necessary to take all the imports and exports out of the hands of the Minister of Commerce and Industries and to entrust it to another person? We would like very much to hear something about this. Then I also want the Prime Minister to tell us about all the things controlled by the National Supplies Council. It appears that only one thing is not controlled by him. The Minister of Agriculture, as Food Controller, exercises control over certain things. But it seems that there is only one thing which is not controlled by the National Supplies Council and that is petrol. The Controller in that case is not a Minister, so far as I can understand, and I would like to know from the Prime Minister why petrol is excluded from the control of this Council. I would have thought that petrol is such an important item in time of war, that it should have been under the control of this body. But now we find that the Director-General controls practically everything except petrol. I think the Prime Minister owes the country a statement, and we shall be glad if he will avail himself of this opportunity of telling us something or other.

I am quite prepared to make a statement on this. The National Supplies Board is a logical result of the organisation for war supplies which existed formerly. After the outbreak of war the organisation for war supplies under Dr. van der Bijl was created with the same powers which are now granted to the National Supplies Council. But it appeared in the course of the war that the question of war supplies could not be dealt with apart and by itself. Shortages of supplies in the country are occurring more and more, and civil and military requirements are conflicting with each other more and more; more and more competition for supplies is arising, and it has become clear that unless one organisation is created, to deal with the whole matter regarding imports and exports, regarding provision in civil and in military requirements, absolute chaos and disorder will result. The Minister of Commerce and Industries has himself felt that the position is becoming unbearable, and he himself tells me that we must place the two organisations, viz. imports and exports and control of material, under one organisation, and now the combination has taken place, with the old powers. Those powers are now exercised not only as regards war requirements, but also as regards all civil requirements. I remain Chairman of the organisation. The Minister of Commerce and Industries is my Vice-Chairman, and we expect to build up the new organisation on a broader basis, so that we can eliminate any competition between civil and military requirements.

Is that not precisely the danger, that the military will receive everything and the civil population nothing?

Take the question of medicines, we can mention that as an example. There was a shortage. We saw as far as possible to the military requirements, and we equipped ourselves well in this respect. But when the people feel that the position in the country, I shall not say is dangerous, but may become dangerous, then it becomes necessary to have an organisation to see to both military medicinal requirements and civil medicinal requirements. So it is with practically everything. There is a shortage of practically everything, and unless we have an organisation to deal with this, we may again have the position of competition and of confusion. In these circumstances it was considered absolutely necessary by me and by the Minister of Commerce and Industries that there should be one organisation. We have created this organisation. Only this morning we had a meeting of the Council, which took decisions of the utmost importance in respect of the period which lies before us.

Who are the other members?

I myself am a member. The Minister of Commerce and Industries, Dr. H. J. van der Bijl, Dr. H. J. van Eck, Mr. Smith, Secretary for Commerce and Industries, Mr. MacDonald, the former Food Controller, Mr. Leisk, Mr. De Vries, who was recommended by the Labour organisations, and Dr. Hans Pirow. That is the body. There is no limitation of membership. It may be that we find later that still more persons must serve on the Council. It depends on the work of the members, and on the necessity for looking after certain interests in the country. Our requirements will develop and become greater, and it may be that we shall have to expand the organisation. It became absolutely clear to me, and to my colleagues who are working with me, that unless we create one great organisation to look after the requirements of the country, which today rests mainly on imports, we would face a very serious position in the country. Take the question of ships. We know that this is one of the greatest difficulties with which we have to contend. Ships not only bring our war equipment and war supplies, but also our civil supplies, and you want to eliminate all that competition; you want to look after the civil as well as the military interests, and that can only be done by creating one extensive organisation which looks after everything. The arrangement which we have made, as regards both the staff and the instruction which has been given, is I think the best step we could take to look after the country as a whole, and we hope that the organisation will yield good fruit. This organisation is quite pliable; it can be expanded both as regards the staff and the instruction, and I think we can fit it in with the requirements of the country, according to the development of circumstances in the future.

I think we all feel very dissatisfied with the hon. the Prime Minister’s brief statement in connection with this great National Supplies Council which has been appointed. Here is a matter which touches the people deeply, and I thought that the hon. Minister would take the opportunity of making a comprehensive statement. We have been in a state of war for several years, and the whole population is interested in what we import—how many ships there are which can handle the imports, and other such questions. This is the first occasion on which the hon. Minister has spoken about this matter, and we expected that he would take us into his confidence a little. Indeed, we get little enough information. I think in this war this Parliament is one which gets the least information; it must do without information. The information we get is so meagre that one can hardly go on it. The Prime Minister speaks perpetually of our democratic institutions. But if there was ever contempt for a democratic institution, then it was shown today. Our country is dependant on shipping imports. There are a great many things which we need in this country. The population is going short of a number of things, and the Prime Minister now comes here and makes his first statement about this Council which has been appointed. But he does not tell us a single word; he does not tell us what the requirements of the country are; he does not tell us if there will be shipping provision for those requirements. He tells us nothing about the prospects for the following year. I would like to know if we can expect a statement from him at a later stage. He says that this Council can now control our entire imports. Nothing will be imported into South Africa which does not fall under the control of this Council. The hon. Minister, however, gives us no particulars; the population must do without that. We now sit in the dark, and I now want to ask the Prime Minister whether the population must go by the statement he made here? He has appointed a Council which must control the entire imports of South Africa. That is all the information we are getting, and with that we have to be satisfied. But the people are not satisfied with this. The people want more particulars. The people know that there is a shortage in the country. The people today cannot purchase what they require. They are being neglected in a way which is causing them to ask serious questions. Is it right under these circumstances towards the population of the country, who are taxed so highly, that they should not be able to get information? I think the Prime Minister, without divulging military information to the House, might have given us a little information regarding the functions of this Council. He might have told us what chances there are of supplying the requirements of South Africa. Are there chances that it may be possible that provision will not be made in the requirements of the country? On these and similar questions we would have liked to have received information, but the hon. member gave us no particulars. In “Die Burger” this morning there is an announcement that we can obtain certain requirements from the Argentine. This is the sort of statement that we would like to hear from the Prime Minister. Is there a chance that we may get certain requirements from South America that we cannot get from other parts of the world, and, if so, has the necessary shipping provision been made; and, if not, is the Prime Minister busy obtaining shipping provision for us? I think it is a crime to keep the population in the dark regarding a matter such as this, that is, of the utmost importance to the population.

Do you want that information to be supplied to the enemy?

I think that remark of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) is beneath all dignity. I do not know if we shall again have the opportunity of expressing criticism of importation into the country. We have the opportunity now of criticising the National Supplies Council. I just want to say this, that if the rumours in the country are true, then there is a scandalous state of affairs that should be investigated. Certain firms receive preference in connection with the importation of goods. The position in Cape Town has become so bad that if you cannot get a certain article at one place then they tell you that you can walk to so-and-so and that you will then get what you want in that shop.

That is the position in Durban, Johannesburg and everywhere.

Then it is even worse. If that was not the case there might perhaps have been something in the remark of the hon. member for Caledon. Walk into the shops here in Cape Town. If you seek a certain article that they have not got, then they will say to you: “Just go to so-and-so; you are certain to get it there.” And that is actually the position. These goods are obtainable at the other shop. The accusation has been made here, and this is the place where accusations of this nature must be brought up. It is our duty to do so. Now I want to point to an aspect of commerce of which I know something, and that is the film industry. The position as regards the film industry is scandalous. It is said that if you are a certain firm then you can get Al preference, but if you fall among the other firms then you do not get that preference, and woe to you if you are an Afrikaans firm. I understand that there is a certain firm that makes its buildings available for the war funds, and that that firm enjoys preference. If you ask questions in Parliament, then those facts are established. These firms make the best use of the preference they enjoy. If you can get the Government to allow you to import bioscope films then you ask the Government to raise the tariff so that you can exclude all other firms. The Government then does it. When you have done this—you now have first choice regarding importation—then you eliminate all competition. For the projection of films you need what is called projectors. Now you have a monopoly. Now you refuse to provide the films to those who have another type of projector than you have. Then the whole market is open to you. If I want unexposed films, then I cannot manufacture the films. But if I belong to the firm that is favoured then I can get the films. By if my firm has another name then I cannot import it. Thus it has happened in the country that only certain people in the country can get unexposed films. Only certain people can manufacture films and others cannot. It is these things that make the population fed-up with the Government. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about this position. It appears to me from what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has said, that he does not know what has been going on in this country for a very long time. The position is this. Eighteen months ago suppliers in England and in America asked that we should have a system of priorities in this country, and, Mr. Chairman, that system of priorities has been working for all that period.

Priority of firms.

I am speaking about serious things.

That is what is happening; priority of firms, not priority of goods.

Now we have all these allegations about certain firms being favoured and other firms not being favoured, but actually what often happens is this. We will say War Supplies had priorities No. 1 and No. 2, and it was left to Civilian Supplies to have all the rest; Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and I believe it went up at first to 10. Now the usual importing channels considered that the higher the priority that they got the greater was the chance of their getting their goods quickly, but in the result we found that did not always follow. You constantly hear even today of firms who had only a No. 9 priority getting goods from the other side, while others with a No. 3 priority had not got their goods yet. Now this has nothing to do with South Africa at all, nothing to do with the control in South Africa. On making enquiries we found that very often goods with a No. 8 or 9 priority happened to be ready for shipment, and there happened to be a ship going from a nearby port, and the stuff was sent out to South Africa. Our control in the matter had nothing to do with the business at all, and I can only describe it, Mr. Chairman, as being in the case of many firms, a case of luck and not a case of favours granted or influence used. My friend over there laughs, but he is not in business and I am; I know what I am talking about. Now, sir, as the supply position in the country got more difficult, the Prime Minister decided to set up this body that he has told us about here today. Now, so far as any goods are concerned that we have heard about being delivered in South Africa today, the new Board that the Prime Minister has set up has had nothing to do with those goods. This body was set up only a month or so ago, regulations had to be framed, organisation set up, and this body has not effectually got to work yet. It is only beginning to get to work now. That position I thought should be clearly understood. Mr. Chairman, only this week I know of firms here in Cape Town who have received advice of goods arriving that were ordered 15 months ago, and they were ordered on a very low priority, while goods ordered on a much higher priority, have been heard nothing about. Again I repeat that control in this country has had nothing to do with these shipments being sent before they were due, and when they had not the priority that would have justified one in expecting them to arrive before other goods.

Then why have priority at all?

The reason for priority is this. My hon. friend knows so little about the word “priority” that he gets into trouble. Priority is not given to A or B, C or D; it is given in terms of the necessity which exists in South Africa for certain goods. You may say, for example, that a firm gets priority 3, but you do not get that because your firm is such-and-such a firm; that priority is given because those goods are very short and are considered a necessity in South Africa. It is argued—and we have the facts to prove it—that there is a shortage of certain goods, and priority is given because of that shortage, irrespective of what firm is concerned. Now, sir, before this organisation of the Prime Minister’s was set up, this practice had been employed for 15 or 18 months, and the trouble was that civilian goods became so short that representations were made to the Prime Minister to this effect,—certain civilian requirements it was alleged were more urgent than military requirements. Then you had War Supplies coming in and saying “That was not so.” Civilian Supplies said “it was” and so on, and in these circumstances the Prime Minister of this country very wisely decided to have one body co-ordinating all military and civilian supplies.

Who regulates the shipping on the other side?

That is also done to some extent from this side, but they have got the ships over there, and they know the requirements of shipping in general. In this connection I must pay a tribute to the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he went across to the other side. I understand this was a matter he was specially charged with. At that time we had something like 100,000 tons of goods lying over there waiting for ships, and we could not get the ships to bring the tonnage over. The Minister went over there and he was successful in persuading the powers that be that these goods were so urgently required for civilian and other needs in South Africa, that ships were released to bring those 100,000 tons out here. Now I submit that we should give the Prime Minister’s new committee a chance before we start to criticise it. It has not got to work yet, but I personally believe that the organisation the Prime Minister has set up is a thing that this country needs, and I believe its personnel is such that it commands the respect of the country, and I am sure we are going to get the results that the country expects.

I do admit that the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) knows quite a lot about the shirt trade, but perhaps he did not catch my point. I made a general accusation here that certain firms enjoy priority or privileges. There are, for instance, quite a number of firms in Cape Town requiring cotton thread. It is assumed that cotton thread can receive a certain priority number. That is quite in order, but why should certain firms receive a better priority number for the importation of cotton thread than others? In the second place, I referred to films. Bioscope films are considered as an essential article by the Government, and I think quite rightly so. Their idea is to distract the attention of the people to such an extent that they do not see what is actually going on. I now want to explain to the hon. member the following. There are various kinds of films; there is the 16 mm., the 35 mm., and the 36 mm. film, and so on. The various films have a different priority. I can understand that the 16 mm. film has a priority, but my difficulty is that certain firms receive priority above others in respect of the same type of films. If the hon. member will look at the replies given by the Government itself, and if he looks at the number of firms importing films and others who cannot import, he will see what the position is.

Yes, but these firms contribute to party funds.

I thought to war funds, but then the position is even worse. There are certain firms enjoying a priority in regard to the importation of unexposed films. There are firms which import more unexposed films than others, and there are registered companies which have asked for permission to import unexposed films, and they cannot get it. The reply of the hon. member is therefore not to the point. My accusation against the Government on this point still stands.

I just want to say a few words in connection with this matter as a result of the remark of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), where he branded my interjection as improper. He said it is a crime against the country that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister does not wish to give information to this country. I then said by means of an interjection that it would be a crime against the country to supply this information to the enemy. Does the hon. member at this period want the Prime Minister to stand up and say: We can get this from Australia, we can get this from England, and we can get this from South America, and at this and that time the goods will leave those countries, and at such and such a time they will arrive here? Does the hon. member want this information made known to the enemy?

No one asked for that?

I do not want to confine myself to films and that sort of thing. I am amazed, since the hon. member is so worried about a scarcity of film requisites, that he is not more worried about the farming requisites, of which there is a greater scarcity. There is a scarcity here throughout the world, and if we take everything into consideration, then South Africa is still in a much more favourable position than the rest of the countries in the world. I cannot understand how the hon. member can talk today of preference to certain importers. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) explained that the goods which are imported are divided into different categories, and what is most essential for the needs of the country naturally gets preference. It is not a question of preference to firms. Our farming requisites which we had to import in the past amounted to about 40,000 tons. The Shipping Commission cut them down to 25,000 tons. I am not prepared today to say how much of those 25,000 tons went to the bottom of the sea. You have the position today that you have a ship which is loaded with articles for which there is a great need; it may be loaded with fertilisers or machinery of which there is a scarcity in South Africa. Assume now that one of those ships is torpedoed. It is self-evident that there will then be a scarcity. There may, however, be other firms who have those goods on hand, but the firm for which the goods were destined is short of them as a result of the torpedoing of that ship.

That is not the point.

No, if it had suited you it would indeed have been the point, but if it does not suit you it is not the point. We recently passed a resolution in this city to ask the Government to send someone oversea to use all his powers to obtain shipping space for the importation of agricultural requisites. A Commission was appointed to investigate the matter, and I myself gave evidence before that Commission. The question was put to me: If we have to cut down 15,000 tons, what must we take off in those 15,000 tons that we cannot get in? You can take practically anything as far as farming requisites are concerned; there is a need in every respect. There are certain things such as threshing machines which they thought should be cut out because they take up much space and because they are difficult to import. But threshing machines are certainly as assential as fertilisers. Consequently, my advice was to cut down on a pro rata basis. Take the question of fertilisers. You have today 40 per cent. of the necessary fertilisers available in the country. We know that it is not possible to obtain the sulphur which is used in the preparation of that fertiliser from America. It is difficult to provide for those needs. I personally sometimes feel very worried about the conditions. But when you become intimately associated with these problems and you get into touch with what is being done behind the scenes ….

Tell us what goes on behind the scenes.

… then you realise that the Government ought to be congratulated under the circumstances on having succeeded so well in providing for the needs of the country. They ought to be congratulated on the fact that we are not suffering a greater scarcity today than is the case today.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) has not yet seen what the point in the argument of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) is. This is not a matter here of agricultural or any other goods; the hon. member complains that there is a great shortage in agricultural machinery and that when orders can be executed and there are two firms, the one De Wet & Co., and the other something like Marcovitch & Co., the one firm gets it and not the other one.

I know what the position is.

The hon. member for Caledon is complaining much in regard to agricultural goods and that we are not able to get all we want. I agree with him. Unfortunately the hon. member woke up rather late. We urged this point strongly upon the Minister of Agriculture, and we pointed out that there is a great shortage and that unheard-of prices are being demanded for parts of windmills and other agricultural requirements which are absolutely essential. Then the hon. member was asleep. But let me say here why we reproach the Government. Let me first ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that whereas certain essential things are urgently required for the agricultural industry, large quantities of whisky are still being imported into this country. Didn’t large quantities of whisky still enter the country last year? Why must shipping space be reserved for whisky, whilst there are so many things which are urgently required for agricultural purposes? I understand that the other day a shipload of empty bottles still came in. If they do want to import whisky they could in any case have imported it in those empty bottles, or if they needed the empty bottles, they could have put something else in them. I think that an explanation by the Prime Minister is necessary.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) where he was the other day when we discussed this whole question with the Minister of Agriculture, when it took us hours to bring this matter to the notice of the Government. We pointed out that certain implements were essential and that the farmers could not obtain them. I hope that the hon. member behind the scenes—where he apparently spends to much of his time—has also used his influence to persuade the Government to do what we asked it to do. In the short time at our disposal I cannot repeat all the matters which on that occasion we brought to the notice of the Government. The Government is aware of the problems to which we pointed and that the importation under the control of the Government was a failure. Now the Government has called into being a new board which will have to look after these matters and we hope that the Government will now promise an improvement in view of this new Council having been appointed. The National Supplies Council has been busy for some time already, and I hope that the Minister will get up and will give us more information here, or that otherwise he will take the people, through the Government Gazette or the daily Press, more into his confidence in connection with what is being done to import the articles which we so urgently require. To the ordinary man this is a closed book, and it seems to me that the members who are engaged in commercial activities, are also groping in the dark about the question of how a man should proceed in order to get something imported from abroad. There are certain sections of the population for whom it was rather profitable to receive certain articles directly from abroad.

You better go and fetch it there.

I hope that the hon. member will discontinue this war, then we shall be able to fetch it. The difficulty is that the population is ignorant of these things. I now ask the Prime Minister for further information so that one may know what the chances are of importing goods and how one should proceed in this respect. Is it not a well-known fact in this House and outside, that as far as clothing is concerned, one has to proceed in a certain way in order to get it in from overseas. The people who usually got it, can no longer get it, and others hide behind the convenient word “priority.” In South Africa things are going from bad to worse, or have the difficulties in regard to shipping space increased perhaps? There are certain articles which are urgently required and one can hardly get them now or cannot get them any more. Our impression on this side of the House is that the import policy of the Government up till now has been to make a personal case of every businessman who applied for a permit—if they liked the man’s face he would get priority, but if they did not like his face he got nothing. Is it not possible now to place imports on a national basis once and for all. Is it not possible to determine what South Africa requires for its most urgent needs? Is it not a fact that many things are imported which one knows perfectly well are not essential commodities for the people, whilst other things which especially the poor man requires, are not being imported? What is the reason for it? Surely it cannot be because the commercial people do not want to import. I want to plead with the Government to give attention to what the poor section of the people in particular requires. Many articles are being imported which one could almost call luxuries. If hon. members want to hear it, we can mention scores of instances. But the essential commodities of the people are put in the back-ground. In South Africa we furthermore find something which is nothing short of a scandal and that is that when a poor man enters a shop to buy something, he has to buy other things too in order to obtain the things which be needs for his living. Has not the position been for months that the poor man who perhaps only has a penny to spend, the native and the coloured man and the poor white, if he wanted to buy a box of matches, also had to buy something else, as otherwise he could not get matches? That is a criminal position, which has developed under this Government. There is probably no other country in the world where something of this nature is possible. Only in South Africa is the Government able to abuse its powers in order to create such conditions. This practice was stopped afterwards, but the evil has not yet been completely rooted out. It should never have happened. This Government which pretends that it represents the poor man too, should never have allowed such things. We could enumerate scores of such cases. It was a scandal and I hope that the Prime Minister will now be able to state that the position will be improved.

I want to look at the matter from another angle. I want to know whether the Government cannot devise a scheme which will enable the wine farmers to export their wines. I understand that the orders have been placed, that the demand is there. I also understand that ships are passing here which cannot get the foodstuffs they want to transport to England. Is it not possible to arrange that these ships take our wine, just as we get whisky from England? I do not entirely agree with the hon. member that they should not transport empty bottles to our country. We need them, but we also want to have the opportunity of filling and exporting them. I understand that there are ships which do not travel with a full cargo. We have the permits. England is agreeable to let the wine come in and the only difficulty is that we cannot obtain shipping space, although there are ships which take on board ballast or depart from here partially empty. Is it not possible to create closer contact between the people who do the exporting and the Government so that we will be able to be prepared to send our goods when ships arrive which have some space left. I brought this matter to the notice of the Minister and he said that he would go into it. I want to bring this matter once more to the attention of the Government and ask what can be done.

I should like to refer to one more point in amplification of what was stated by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) that there are still luxury articles being imported, while we cannot obtain commodities which are absolutely essential, especially commodities which the poor man needs. The Prime Minister knows that if you are a rich man then you have an Aga stove or an electric stove in which to have your food prepared; but the poor man, especially where you can no longer obtain the fuel as previously, is dependent on one thing, and that is the primus stove. I can give the Minister the assurance that they are an urgent necessity to the poor people, but they are unobtainable. They require the stove in order to prepare their food. I am of opinion that the primus stove was made in Switzerland in the past, and, having regard to the fact that Switzerland is neutral, I want to ask if there is not a possibility of obtaining those stoves?

I notice an amount of £4,000 here for the relief of distress, that is to say, an additional amount. What is the nature of the relief? Is it for the type of native coming from the Transkei and looking for work here? Is it for the natives who roam about here in the Cape Peninsula, and who in some cases cannot obtain work and who are in the most pitiful circumstances? They cannot return again, and roam about here, become ill and are in a wretched condition.

It is only for unfit or sick or old natives in places such as Louis Trichardt, Potgietersrust, and a few other places; but there is nothing on this vote for Cape Town or Johannesburg.

I should like to know from the Minister why there is now an amount of £5,000 necessary for incidental expenses, whereas the amount on the original vote was only £400?

I have already answered the question. Evidently the hon. member was not here. It is as a result of the expenses of two Commissions, namely, the Provincial Commission of Enquiry which sat considerably longer than we thought; and, secondly, in connection with the “Cost-Plus” Commission, which also sat for some time.

I should like to know why there is an increase here of £244,000 in connection with old age pensions. The amount is too small. I regard the pensions which are given to old people as too small for them to exist on, especially on the platteland, where they receive less than in the cities. I do not now want to discuss the difference which is made between city and platteland, but it is unreasonable. Why cannot they receive an amount on which they can exist? If they do not own their own houses they cannot exist.

I want to remind the hon. member that he can only discuss the reasons for the increase on the vote.

I consider that the amount which is given is too small. Surely I may say that?

The hon. member may not discuss that. It is a matter of policy.

I should like to know why there is an increase here of £14,150 in connection with salaries, wages and allowances. Is that only for cost of living?

Only in connection with the cost of living allowances.

I should like to know from the Minister why in the case of the University of Cape Town and of the University of the Witwatersrand there is now £3,000 more being paid out in subsidy. It was laid down that the subsidy would not exceed the maximum of £100,000 in the case of the two Universities. Has there been a change?

I have already replied to the point when the hon. member was not here. The maximum subsidy which, according to our policy, can be given to the two institutions, is £100,000. In the case of the other Universities and University Colleges the hon. member will see that there an increase in the subsidy took place. In the case of Cape Town and of the Witwatersrand we are not entitled to go higher than £100,000 although, according to the subsidy basis, they would be entitled to approximately £120,000. But during this year, through the Department of Labour, we made it compulsory for the Universities to give a cost of living allowance which weighs heavily then, particularly on the big Universities. Seeing that there is no elasticity in connection with the allowances in respect on the two Universities we gave them this special allowance, bearing in mind the cost of living allowance which they must pay.

I shall like to have a little more information in regard to the salaries and allowances of the temporary staff. Here is an amount of £40,000, and I consider we are entitled to more information.

I should like to ask the Minister what the increase of £100,000 on fishing harbours is for? Then there is also an amount in connection with fish oil investigation, a new amount of £3,300. I trust that the new Minister of Commerce and Industries has, as a new broom, placed the amount there for a thorough investigation. Will the investigation be limited just to fish oil?

The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) asked what the additional salaries under Vote K are. I think the Minister of Finance explained this morning that the additional expenditure on salaries was kept as late as possible in the year to prevent overestimating by the Departments. If the hon. member will look at the large number of Government control bodies which this Vote covers and if he will realise the nature of the work which had to be undertaken he will understand, I am sure, that the amount is not excessive. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) the extra £1,000 for fishing harbours is due to minor repairs which have become necessary at these fishing harbours—at certain of them.

Which fishing harbours are they?

I cannot tell the hon. member exactly which harbours—they are here and there. There are minor works. The amount of £3,300 is in connection with development of utilising fish oils for medicinal and veterinary purposes. The Impala is working on that together with another Cutter let to us by an interested body, and we have had to buy new special nets, and we are proposing to employ an analytical chemist for the purpose of carrying out certain experiments in connection with this oil industry which, as my hon. friend knows, shows promise of developing into a valuable industry.

Is your department investigating it?

Yes.

Here is also an additional amount of £3,000 for “Telegraphs and Telephones.” Is it for lines which have been constructed or for material? It is very difficult to have a telephone installed today. Is this £3,000 intended to provide people who make application with an opportunity of getting a telephone?

I think the details should be supplied under another vote. All my department does is to pay the other Department’s bill for the services rendered, in respect of extra telephones which we have to put in during the year.

I should like to put one or two questions to the Minister. I notice that under B.12 an additional amount of £9,900 is asked for the rinderpest campaign by which the original amount of only £100 is increased to £10,000. Where has rinderpest broken out? We have not heard of it yet. Or is it to carry out investigations in other territories? There is also an increase of £18,000 for the guano islands. Many people have made application for guano but only received one-quarter of what they asked, presumably because less guano is being collected. Why then this additional amount? Are larger salaries being paid to the officials?

Before the Minister of Agriculture replies to the questions put by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) I should like to put a few further questions. I have already in this Session addressed questions to the Minister in connection with Government guano. It is peculiar that the yield of State guano varies so considerably. The yield decreased from 8,265 tons in 1941, to 5.023 tons, a difference of 3,000 tons in the yield. Knowing that there is a great need for guano, especially in the grain-growing portions, and also in other parts of the country, I should like to know what the reason is. Nitrogen is today unobtainable, but Government guano has a high percentage of nitrogen. I understand that some people are of opinion that the decrease in the yield is due to the migration of the birds, that the birds are disturbed and migrate from one place to another. Other people consider that the war has something to do with it. I do not know what the reason is, but I think it is a matter of such importance that the Minister will be justified in going into it thoroughly, and, if necessary, having an investiagtion made as to the reasons, and if there is a reason the Minister will also be justified in removing the reason. It is peculiar that the variation in the yield between one year and another is so great. I shall not be surprised if the Minister can perhaps give other reasons for the decrease in the yield. I do not want to say what my information is, but it appears that there are other reasons which bring about the decrease in the guano yield, and why in some years it is so much lower than in others.

Here is an increase of £18,000 in connection with the guano islands. In the event of this meaning that the farmers will obtain more of this fertiliser and that there will be better facilities for the transport thereof from the guano islands, we will naturally have no objection thereto. Will the Minister not make use of this opportunity to say a word or two about how much bird guano will be made available?

The increase of £18,000 is made up of various amounts which I shall mention to hon. members. I first want to say something in regard to the quantity. I am afraid that I shall not be able to give the Committee complete information why more guano is obtained in a certain year than in other years. By way of question and answer I told the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) what the production had been during the last few years, and I cannot understand what else the hon. member wants to hear from me.

The difference is sometimes as much as £3,000.

The position in regard to bird guano is the same as that in respect of penguin eggs. Last year we had no penguin eggs at all, but this year we have them again. This year we are expecting a yield of 8,000 tons of guano. The Superintendent expects that he will have 8,000 tons available. The distribution will be made amongst the wheat farmers and a small quantity will go to the vegetable farmers. It will depend on the applications and the consumption in previous years.

How does it compare to last year?

It will mean that we shall have more available for the farmers than last year. Last year we had 5,000 tons and this year we have 8,000 tons.

Is the quantity larger than in pre-war years?

Yes, but I have not all the information here to give to the hon. member. In 1942 the quantity was 5,000 tons and this year we expect 8,000 tons.

When will it arrive?

They are now busy collecting it. In 1938 the quantity was 5,000 tons, in 1939 it was 6,000 tons, in 1940 7,500 tons, in 1941 8,200 tons, in 1942 5,000 tons and this year we expect 8,000 tons.

And what are the transport facilities?

I come to that now, but I first want to deal with the question of higher costs. In the first place the expenditure on labour is £650 more. Then there is the additional provision for food and water which amounts to £4,350. Owing to the bad weather special provision has to be made for the people there. Furthermore £3,000 more has been spent on shipping transport than during the pervious year. And finally there is an amount of £6,000 more for bags. The bags are more expensive and we need more of them.

Will that affect the price the farmer has to pay?

Yes, £1 per ton. Last year the price was £7 per ton and that will now be £8, on which the farmer receives £1 in subsidy. Fomerly it used to be £6 per ton. It was then increased to £7 with £1 subsidy and this year the price has been increased with another £1. But if we take into account the price of fertilisers, the wheat farmers are going to get a very excellent manure at a relatively low price. The difficulty is rather that the farmers cannot get as much as they require. If we view the matter from the angle of the prices of fertilisers, then this price compares very favourably.

Will the subsidy he paid again.

Yes. That will mean that the price to the farmer will be £1 more than prior to the war.

Can you, without talking about shipping, tell us how it is to be transported?

We have devised a different scheme in regard to the transport. A contract has been entered into in order to achieve a more regular transport than in the past.

Is it done with our own ships?

That I do not know. A further amount of £4,000 has been provided on the estimates which will be used specially in connection with the hunting of seals. We have asked that more seals should be caught with a view to obtaining more oil.

I hope you keep the skins.

I hope so too. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) put a question to me in connection with rinderpest. On a previous occasion I have already clearly stated that this money is spent on stemming the disease on the border between North Rhodesia and Tanganyika. There was a serious outbreak in Tanganyika, but we assist in preventing the spreading of the disease to the south. Various measures have been taken and during the discussion of my Vote I shall make a full statement. I shall obtain more information in order to be able to do so. Recently a conference was held and I shall also give details in regard to that. The amount of £100 has the following meaning. As the hon. member knows, when it is impossible to determine in advance what amount will be spent, a nominal amount is put on the estimates. The amount of £9,000 is destined to pay half of the expenditure. The Union paid half of the costs and Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia together pay the other half. We make a joint effort to stop the disease there. The amount which was spent was slightly over £20,000, and we pay half of that. I hope to give you a complete report on this point. I just want to say that my information is that there has been a fair improvement and that there are no signs of further outbreaks nearer our borders.

I notice that in the transport and travelling expenses there is an increase of £2,930 in respect of the division live stock and pastoral production. Last year I asked the Minister why the extension officers in the districts do not get allowances for their motor cars. When the farmer needs their services he has to fetch them and he has to bring them back again. I cannot understand that the extension officer does not get a refund of his travelling expenses. He ought to be given the opportunity of travelling through the district so that the farmers can ask him for advice and so that he can tell them what to do, and I think it is possible to make provision that the travelling expenses of the officials are paid. I think this is essential for it will enable the officials to get in touch with the farmers so that they can actually see the problems and difficulties of the farmers. These people all have their own cars but if their travelling expenses are not refunded to them, they will sit in their offices and the farmers will have to fetch them there. They do not establish the contact with the district which they should get. Then I want to tell the Minister this. Guano is scarce; it is scarcer than gold. We have great difficulty getting hold of it, and then we only get very little.

We ration it as best we can.

I do not blame you. But is it not possible to get a larger quantity if they search somewhat further away? Do they remain at the place where they get it usually, and have investigations been made to find out whether it cannot be found in other places also? We cannot get fertilisers, and therefore the Minister must do his best to get hold of more bird guano. If we want to get Karoo manure, we experience great difficulty with the railway trucks, and I therefore want to ask the Minister to give particular attention to this matter.

The other day I told the House of the poor wheat crop in my constituency. I am not allowed to discuss that now, but I want to ask the Minister the following: Whether, in view of those facts which apply to Paarl and also to other parts of the Western Province, he cannot give the farmer who hardly knows how to save himself from ruin, this guano at the same price as last year. I admit that certain increases in the costs of collecting the guano have occurred. But on the other hand the quantity is better than last year, and in view of that and in view of the position of the farmer, I think it is but fair to ask the Minister to see to it that money is not made out of the predicament the farmer is in, but that this guano be made available to the farmer at the same price.

I notice here an item for vaccines and maintenance, where an increase of £4,000 is shown. I shall be glad if the Minister can give us some information about it. I am worried about the possibility that there may be a shortage of the necessary remedies against cattle diseases, both vaccines and medicines, which the farmers always need. Our sheep, for instance, have to be dosed continually against wire worms and nodular worms, and all sorts of other internal parasites. Recently I wrote to Onderstepoort for such remedies, but they could not supply me.

Move to the North-West, and you won’t need such remedies.

The hon. member says that I should migrate to the North-West, and that my sheep would not have any parasites there. But I am afraid that my sheep will then die owing to the drought, and I shall therefore rather stay where I am, and where I have to work continually with the dosing spoon. In order to reassure the sheep farmers, I want to ask the Minister to get up and tell us whether the shortage of such remedies was only a temporary one owing to war conditions, and I also want to ask him whether, if there is such a shortage of these remedies, the veterinary surgeons cannot be put to work to find something else which the farmers can dose their sheep with? Our farmers have now started dosing with the old-fashioned remedy, Cooper’s Dip. Well, Cooper’s Dip is a good dipping material, but it is not good for internal use. Its composition is unbalanced, with the result that the farmers often suffer damage. The arsenic deposits on the bottom, and the farmer can suffer tremendous damage. I hope that the Minister will make a statement to the effect that Onderstepoort will be able to assist us and to supply us with the necessary remedies against parasites in sheep.

I understand that the distribution of Government guano will so take place that it will be available towards the end of March. I should very much like to ask the Minister to try and have the distribution take place as soon as possible. I know that many difficulties crop up during the gathering, the distribution, etc., before the guano can reach the farmers. Allow me, however, to draw the Minister’s attention to the following aspect of the matter. Even up till the present, under war conditions, and during other years under normal conditions we could buy other mixtures which contained the components we get in Government guano, especially nitrogen, which is most essential. We could then obtain it in other mixtures, but these are today practically unobtainable. We can only get supers and other mixtures on a very small scale. Government guano is needed for mixing with supers. If the distribution is to take place at the end of March, the farmers will not get their guano before April, when they have already been sowing for some time. To give the soil supers only is very bad for the wheat, and if we have a small quantity of Government guano, it goes a long way, by mixing it with other fertilisers. When the farmers get their Government guano in time, seeing that they are not able to get hold of nitrates, it will be of great benefit to them, if the Minister can make it possible. I know that Government guano is not worth £6, £7 or £8. It is worth £25 and £30 per ton, if not more, if we consider all the nitrogen and other components which are hardly procurable today. But I want to express my agreement with the point of view that because Government guano as a fertiliser is so valuable, we should not make use of that fact to bring up the price. We have to attain production. The Minister realises that he is not going to get the production this year owing to the shortage in fertilisers. He can render the farmers a service by letting them have the Government guano this year at the same price as before. They are not expecting a higher price. When the price should be increased in the future, there may be good reasons for it. Under the present circumstances they are not prepared for a higher price, and I should like to ask the Minister to let the farmers get their Government guano still at the same price this year.

Money is being asked here for the subsidy on fertilisers. The Government paid a £1 subsidy, but the price of the fertiliser has increased by £1. Karoo manure and kraal manure are now being used extensively. The Department states that kraal manure is not good as it does not help at all.

There is nothing here in the vote in regard to Karoo manure.

Here is an amount of £30,000 for subsidies on fertilisers. I want to know whether the Miniser is prepared to grant it also on kraal manure.

The hon. member is now discussing the next vote.

By way of interjection I asked the Minister when the guano would be available. The Minister should hurry up a bit. As he knows the labour question today is a very difficult problem and the wheat farmers are beginning to put in their fertilisers in the middel of March. This is the custom on this side of the mountains. I do not know what the usage in Caledon is. They have no guano when they now begin to apply their fertilisers. The best way of applying guano is to mix it with supers and other fetrilisers. I should like to ask the Minister to have the distribution made as soon as possible so that the farmers may know what they will have at their disposal, and can thereupon make their dispositions. They must get the guano as soon as possible. It is of the utmost importance. Last year they received it only in the middle of April. Furthermore I want to express my agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) who asked the Minister not to increase the price by £1. The Minister knows just as well as I do that the wheat crop was really very poor this season in the Western Province. I was glad to hear from the Minister that they gathered a good quantity of guano. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister whether they are making any profit on the guano. If they do make a profit, they should not do so at this stage. If they increase the price in spite of an additional production of 3,000 tons, there must be something wrong with the administration if no extra profits are made. The yield this year will be 8,000 tons whereas it was 5,000 tons last year and this should enable them to supply the guano at least £1 less than last year. If a wheat farmer harvests 1,800 bags instead of 1,000 bags, then he can sell at a much reduced price. The Government obtained 8,000 tons instead of 5,000 tons, and I feel that we are now having a very good case when asking that the price should at least not be increased. Many of the vegetable farmers are farmers on a small scale. They have not got high revenue, and as the cost of living has gone up, I think that the Minister should give consideration to not increasing the price in the interest of the wheat and vegetable farmers. I want to appeal to the Minister to consider the matter seriously. Even though he cannot tell us this afternoon that the price will not be increased. I do hope that he will consider the question, and that he will be able to inform us later.

No, the reply is in the negative. The hon. member himself will realise that I have just explained that the production costs increased by £18,000. The production is 8,000 tons, and that is a sufficient reply, for that shows that the production cost has increased with more than £2 per ton.

That may be due to bad administration?

No, I explained the position.

What about a subsidy?

I do not think that the Government will be inclined to consider paying a higher subsidy.

But you want the people to produce.

We went into the matter at the time, and we then found that it would be better to give a subsidy of £1 per ton to all and sundry and on all fertilisers.

But now conditions are abnormal.

I really do not think that the complaint is that the price is too high. The complaint is that the people should like to get twice as much in quantity as they can get.

They are very anxious to get it.

I am not prepared to promise that the price will remain the same. It is possible that next year the price will go up. The farmer, after all, receives a fertiliser which is worth from £15 to £18 per ton. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) asked me a question about the increase in travelling costs. This apropos the food control. The Government pays the officials who have to travel around in connection with this matter for their additional expenditure. This is special expenditure. I may tell the hon. member that we expect that the guano will be allotted almost immediately. Everything possible is being done to speed up the delivery, to work out the quota and to get it ready for the farmers. I can assure the hon. member that we speed up the matter as much as possible. We know that the matter is urgent, and the Department does its utmost to get the guano to the farmer as soon as possible. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) asked me about vaccines and medicines. The increase in expenditure was brought about by the material, the raw material which has to be obtained, and which is much more expensive now. I can assure him that we hope to take care that there will not be a shortage of medicines. I understand that in regard to the nodular worm remedy, there was a temporary shortage. The general practice is that when farmers cannot get the remedies and it is reported to us, we try, wherever possible, to give them other remedies, and that will always happen. I can assure the hon. member that we do everything in our power to make provision for all farmers and to keep the price as low as possible. We have lowered the price of some remedies, but I do not know what my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance will say about it.

I should like to hear from the Minister whether it will not be possible to erect the vaccine factory at Swellendam. At the moment the vaccines are made in George. I have no objection to that, but I understand that the vaccine can be used for a period of 24 hours only. The Minister assisted me in getting the vaccines from Pretoria by aeroplane, but that entailed a large expenditure. It had, however, a good effect. Swellendam is the centre of the area where red-water breaks out practically every year.

Why not Bloemfontein? That is more centrally situated.

The point is that the people in our area maintain that they can make the vaccine against red-water there. It can be made at little expense and then it will not be necessary to bring it by aeroplane from Pretoria. It seems peculiar to have to bring it from Pretoria by aeroplane when it can be manufactured locally.

Here an additional amount of £30,000 for a subsidy on fertilisers is asked for. We are glad that the Government is assisting on the £ for £ system, but it does not mean much when no fertiliser is to be had. Apart from that, there are many complaints about the Karoo manure which is not satsifactory.

The hon. member can only discuss the reasons for the increase of the vote.

I do not know whether I shall be ruled out of order, but in connection with the subsidy on fertilisers I should like to know whether the Minister’s intention is to encourage production in that way. I should like to ask him not to forget those who are specially in need of assistance, the small farmers, the bywoners. They are in a terrible difficulty. They cannot buy tons of manure …

I am sorry, but I cannot allow a discussion on this matter. The hon. member may put a question to the Minister.

I should like to explain my question somewhat, so that the Minister shall know what I want. Is it the intention of the Minister to use the money in such a way that he will assist the type of small farmer who otherwise would not be given consideration in regard to fertilisers?

I am sorry, but that is entirely out of order.

I should like to know from the Minister what is the position of the subsidy in regard to Railway tariffs. The Minister now tells us that it is not being used for the Railways at all?

Not the additional amount. This is “For general assistance to agricultural producers”.

Then I want to ask whether some scheme cannot be devised to test the quality of the manure. As soon as the Government starts giving subsidies, the speculators and the Jews come along and buy the manure as it is in the kraal. They thereafter sell it again to farmers. A large quantity of the manure is worth nothing, is not even worth the subsidy.

That does not fall within the increase under this vote.

This is only for the extension of the period.

But what is the £148,000 for? This is a large amount.

For the deciduous fruit industry, under our guarantee.

And this additional amount under “Subsidy on fertilisers”?

That is for the extension of the period of repayment.