I move—

Before we pass this Bill there are just a few matters I wish to raise and I am pleased that the Minister of Finance finds it possible to be present in the House for a short while. The first question I want to put to him is this: During the recess the Minister of Finance went round the country boasting of the correct manner in which he was financing this war. He said that he was doing it on the fifty-fifty basis; fifty per cent. of our expenditure was in cash and only 50 per cent. was being borrowed. Wherever he went he put that forward, and wherever he went he proclaimed what he was doing as a great bit of work in order to prove the country’s buoyancy. In these Estimates now before us that principle is being departed from. Instead of our expenditure being on a fifty-fifty basis, 20 per cent. of the expenditure is covered from revenue and 80 per cent. from loan funds. The Minister is asking for £16,000,000 and of that £16,000,000, £3,500,000 comes from Revenue and £12,500,000 from Loan Funds. The reason the Minister has given for his following that policy is that he estimates that his surplus is going to be £3,500,000, and that is why he is only debiting £3,500,000 against revenue. Now, I wish to put this question to the Minister. Does he really want to tell the House that in view of the country’s position in regard to its revenue he is honestly of the opinion that he is going to close off his financial year with a surplus of only £3,500,000?

That is my estimate today.

If we study the Revenue Returns which are published in December, it would appear from those that the surplus is not going to be £3,500,000 but considerably more than that.

Well, that is the estimate of my department. Mine is lower than that.

To me it appears that the Minister has only put £3,500,000 to Revenue Account simply because he wants in six or seven weeks’ time to be able to get up in this House and say: “Look what a magnificent surplus I have in spite of the fact that there has been a large increase for war purposes.” If the Minister announces a surplus, it means that that surplus is simply a manipulated surplus. I want the country to be aware of that. If there is a surplus then the Minister has only put such an amount of the additional expenditure to Revenue Account with a view to his being able to announce that amount to the country. All I want is that the country should know it. So far all of us have been under the impression that our total expenditure on Defence this year amounted to £96,000,000. That, I think, is the impression which the House has. We voted £80,000,000 on the Main Estimates and now we are asked to vote another £16,000,000 making a total therefore of £96,000,000. I had a little time last night to study the Auditor General’s report and I was surprised to find that the amount which we may possibly be spending this year is going to be far more than £100,000,000—it may even amount to as much as £120,000,000. The War Expenditure Account is in three parts. It is a current account. In the first place it consists of funds carried over from the previous year. Secondly, it consists of money voted by Parliament, money placed into that account, and thirdly, it consists of funds which the Government receives for services rendered to other Governments. We carried £6,800,000 over from last year. So we started this year with £6,800,000 in the Expense Account funds. We further placed an amount of £96,000,000 into that Fund. That already makes the amount available for running the war £102,000,000, or really almost £103,000,000. But now other money can also be credited to that fund, money which we receive from those other Governments for services rendered. I was last night studying the accounts which the Auditor General has placed on the Table of this House, and I found that the amount which we may receive for services rendered by our Government to other Governments runs into £17,000,000. It is possible therefore that in the course of this year we were paid an amount of £17,000,000 by other Governments, and that that money in accordance with the provisions of the law was also credited to the War Expenses Account.

Where do you get this amount of £17,000,000 from?

By putting these two amounts together. I am sorry that I am not able at this juncture to give the hon. member a little lesson and to show him how it is done. We started the year with £6,800,000 in the War Expense Account; then £96,000,000 was put into that Account, making the total almost £103,000,000. Now, an amount of £17,000,000 became due from other Governments. We don’t know how much of that money has been paid, and I think the Minister owes the House that information before we go any further. If the whole amount has been paid then we did not pay £96,000,000 last year, that is to say in the financial year behind us, as the House and the country think, but in actual fact we shall have spent £120,000,000 on the war. I should like the Minister to tell us how much of the £17,000,000 has been paid? That is important not only in view of what I have just said, but also because we should know how the other Governments are paying off the amounts they owe us, and how much of the £17,000,000 has to be paid. Or are we simply going to allow the money to accumulate and accumulate until after the war when perhaps all debts will be written off? I should like the Minister to explain the position and make it entirely clear to us. Then there are one or two matters which I wish to put to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Defence, matters which one really feels worried about, and in connection with which the public are anxious to know what is going on. I feel that if the public really knows what has happened they would agree that there has been something very much in the nature of a scandal. I want to make this charge, that when war broke out on the 4th September, 1939, there were a large number of officers in the Defence Force who had reached the age limit. The first thing those officers did when war broke out was to resign but they resigned well knowing that their services would be indispensable, so that the State would not be able to let them go. What happened then? When they resigned they drew their pensions and capitalised part of their pensions. I know of one officer who got nearly £1000 in cash plus a large pension. He never left his office for one moment, but was immediately reappointed to the same position which he held before, and he was paid the same salary. His service was not broken for a moment. He remained in his office and he simply availed himself of the country’s needs at the moment—he availed himself of the fact that the country needed his services.

Under which item is the hon. member raising that point?

Under “Defence.”

The hon. member can only discuss the reasons for the increase in the amounts voted.

Yes, but here we are dealing with a direct increase of expenditure.

Was not the hon. member discussing matters which happened in September, 1939?

Yes, but last year we experienced the results of what happened then, and today we are still suffering from the consequences. That officer is now drawing his pension plus his salary and as a result we are paying more today than we should pay.

Hon. members must not discuss matters now which they could have discussed when the original vote was before this House.

But extra amounts are being asked for here. These things were perhaps not known at that time, but they are known now, and I am raising this matter in the public interest. This has been happening throughout the service as though it was perfectly in order, and the Department of Defence simply accepted the position, with the result that this particular officer is occupying the same position today, and gets his own salary, plus his pension after he has already capitalised part of his pension. I should like the Minister of Defence to tell us whether he is prepared to lay all the details on the Table of this House. Who are the officers who acted in that way and what is the amount involved? I think it is essential in the public interest that we should know it. Then there is another important matter, and I want to refer to paragraph 4 in the Auditor-General’s report, in regard to the position of the pay returns, in regard to the state of affairs in the Pay Department of the Defence Force. When the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) raised this question a few days ago the Prime Minister got up and said, “Ah, well, the country can be perfectly easy about this matter, everything will be in order.” We have now reached the position that we cannot be satisfied with a mere assurance of that kind. I want to tell the House briefly what the position is which prevails today, and in order to make things clear I shall divide the war period of three and a half years into three periods.—(a) six months from the 1st October, 1939, to the 31st March, 1940; (b) from the end of March, 1940, to December, 1941, and (c) from January, 1942 to date. What happened in regard to the first six months of the war period? The Auditor-General has tried to check up the pay returns for that period. And what did he say in his report? He stated that £99,000 had disappeared for which no vouchers were available. He reported this fact to Parliament. The Select Committee on Public Accounts investigated the matter and we were told that they were trying to get other vouchers, and that in that way they had eventually succeeded in accounting for a major portion of the amount but that there were still a few thousand pounds left—the Auditor-General estimates the amount at £4,000—which could not be accounted for. The amount was £99,000 but they manipulated things in various ways until eventually new vouchers were produced to satisfy the Treasury but an amount of £4,000 was left over for which they could not manage to make up any vouchers in any way whatsoever. The point I emphasise is that this matter has caused a lot of comment throughout the country. There was general talk about £99,000 having disappeared. The Department of Defence got a scare, so what did they do? From 1st February, 1940, they made such a mess of the pay returns, they mixed up things to such an extent that the Auditor-General states that he finds it impossible to go into the position and that he cannot report at all. Imagine! One gets the idea that this mess has been deliberately created so as to make the auditing of the Accounts impossible. It is an easy and convenient way of disguising from the public how much money has been lost. The easiest way of dealing with the position is to make such a mess of things that nobody can make head or tail of it. Then the public does not know whether it is £100,000 or £200,000 or £1,000,000 which cannot be accounted for. The Auditor-General says that from the 1st April, 1940, to the 31st December, 1941, a period of one year and nine months, he was unable to audit the accounts and he was unable to report whether the correct amount was paid or not, and whether any amounts were lost.

But we are winning the war.

I should like the House to realise that an amount of £31,000,000 passes through the Pay Department every year. For the period 1st April, 1940, to the 31st December, 1941, an amount of at least £50,000,000 passed through the pay Department, and we have this position today, that the Department is in such a state of chaos that nobody knows what has been paid and what has not been paid. It is not merely a case of £100, 000 having possibly disappeared but it may run into millions, and we don’t know anything about it. And I think it is my duty to point that out. Last year this matter was brought before the Select Committee on Public Accounts and I should like to tell the House what the Auditor-General reported to us on that occasion:

We raised this matter here and the Prime Minister got up and said that that was a temporary thing, and that he did not have the necessary staff, and that when Parliament met again in a year’s time or so everything would be in order. And what does the Auditor-General say in his report now—

It is just as big a mess up as it used to be, and now that the Auditor-General has reported on this matter for two years and the hon. member for Gordonia raises the question the Prime Minister gets up and says that the country can rest assured that everything is in order, or will be in order. After what I have stated here I feel that the country has the right to be told a little more by the Prime Minister. What does the Auditor-General say? He says that as this matter has been under consideration since 1941 and as strong representations have been made for a decision to be come to, it is unsatisfactory to note that nothing has been done. The Auditor-General says that this unsatisfactory position cannot be tolerated any longer. I agree, and I hope the House will agree. When the question was raised for the first time we were told that there was no staff. On page 161 we notice the way in which the staff of the Pay Department has increased. In December, 1939, the staff consisted of fourteen people, in 1940 it had increased to 270, and in 1941 it had increased to 1,000. 1,000 people are employed and the position is still in a mess. In February, 1942, the staff increased to 1,248. I know that in the meantime the most up-to-date methods of bookkeeping through the introduction of accounting machines from America had been introduced. I have been through the building and I have seen the machinery which works automatically. Yet the chaos is just as great as it was, so much so that 1,248 officials are not able to make it possible for the Auditor-General to see daylight. There is another aspect of this matter which I also want to bring to the notice of the House. The trouble started in the Pay Division because the Secretary for Defence had appointed as Head of that Division a man who had never had anything to do with money or with finance. I raised this question last year. Major Kretzen was appointed. The present Secretary for Defence used to be Secretary for Justice and he had his friends in that department, and when he was placed at the head of the Defence Department he placed at the head of the Pay Division a man who had never had anything to do with money or with finance, namely, Major Kretzen. This question was discussed here last year. The Secretary for Defence used to be Secretary for Justice and he has his pals in the Department, and when he was put in charge of the Department of Defence and needed someone in a key position he took a magistrate who had never had any financial experience, who had never had any bookkeeping experience, and he put him in charge of that division. Now, what did the Prime Minister say when we raised this matter in Parliament? The matter came up before the Select Committee on Public Accounts and I stated that the Secretary for Defence had made the appointment without consulting the Treasury, that he had made the appointment off his own bat, that he had acted entirely irregularly and that he had taken a man who had never had anything to do with financial affairs, and that he had put that man in charge of the Pay Division. After I had made that statement in the House the matter was raised in the Select Committee for Public Accounts, and I thereupon put this question to Brigadier Blaine. I said—

He thereupon tried to bluff me. And what did he reply to my next question? I asked him this:

His reply was as follows:

That is what he said. Immediately he said that I remarked that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission should attend the next meeting of the Select Committee so that we could settle this matter. The Secretary for Defence then got a terrible fright. He did not think that we would call his bluff. What did he do? He immediately partly withdrew what he had said, and remarked that he had not meant it as I had understood it. I then said that it made no difference, that in any case the Chairman of the Public Service Commission should appear before the Select Committee at its next meeting. When he did appear before the Select Committee the Chairman of the Public Service Commission stated that neither the Treasury nor the Public Service Commission had been consulted, that they were indignant at what had happened and that that was the cause of all the trouble in the pay section. They had warned Mr. Blaine and they had told him what would be the result, but when I raised the question in Select Committee he tried to put me off by bluffing me with an untruth. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that a man who can play about with the truth in that way and who can jump about in that way with £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 of public money is worthy of occupying that position any longer. I have raised these few points and I hope the Prime Minister will find the time to reply to them briefly.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has complained this afternoon that in the new additional estimates of expenditure the old balance between Revenue and Loan has not been maintained. He points out rightly that in the estimates as presented last year the Minister of Finance preserved a fairly even balance between revenue and loan. He more or less kept to the 50-50 basis, a basis upon which he was very sincerely congratulated. But my hon. friend says this afternoon that in the additional estimates now presented that basis has been departed from. “You ask,” he says, “only for three and a half million pounds from Revenue, and you have asked for £12,500,000 from loan.” That, of course, is true. But these estimates, sir, are presented at the end of the financial year. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that you can only spend from revenue what you have got in revenue. You can only take from revenue as much as the taxation of the country for that year will allow.

You may show a deficit.

Of course. But the Minister of Finance says, “I estimate that I will have a surplus of £3,500,000.” On that basis I will take that £3,500,000, and for the rest of my expenditure I will have to go to Loan A/c.” What does the hon. member for George suggest? Would he suggest that Parliament should have been called together earlier and that additional taxes, applying to this financial year, the financial year that ends on the 31st March next, should have been imposed, because that would be the only way in which the fifty-fifty basis could have been maintained. If he tells me, speaking as the leader of the Nationalist Party on matters of finance, that he would have preferred Parliament to be called together earlier, and that that additional taxation for the New Year be imposed in order to keep the fifty-fifty basis, then I would welcome such a statement from him as indicating a change of heart in regard to the war policy and also in regard to finance. But short of that I do not really see what we could have done in the circumstances. Once you assume that £6,000,000 of extra money was needed to finance the war up to the 31st March, I do not see what this Minister of Finance, or any other Minister of Finance, can do, but take the three and a half million pounds he found lying there as a surplus, and take the rest from loan. But may I throw out the suggestion to the hon. member that if he feels very strongly on this matter we could regard this £12,500,000 as a loan and impose extra taxation so as to provide another £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 from taxation this year. I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance will try to meet my hon. friend.

I only do not want the Minister of Finance to announce a surplus with a flourish.

The hon. member takes it upon himself to say that the £3,500,000 surplus will really be more. He thinks so. He may be right, but it is only a leap in the dark. He is chancing his arm. I hope he is right, but if the Minister—after all, he knows as the Minister—if the Minister tells us that on the present estimates there is an anticipated surplus of £3,500,000, he gives us that figure on information supplied by his department. The Minister may come later and say: “I told the House that the estimated surplus would be £3,500,000, and I now find it is £5,000,000.” That is possible, but surely the hon. Minister must base his estimates on the figures given to him by his officials and I assume that is exactly what the Minister of Finance has done. The second point my hon. friend laid stress on is one which I find it difficult to understand. I asked him to give me a little enlightenment. Still, I did not get it. He announced to a horrified audience that this year instead of South Africa spending £96,000,000 on defence the true total, he said, was nearly £120,000,000.

I said it may be nearer.

That it may be nearer £120,000,000. And how does he arrive at that figure? By taking into account money which, he says, we have spent on behalf of other Governments. Well, sir, that statement contradicts itself. If we are spending money, as we are doing, in South Africa on behalf of the Imperial Government on, and for the charge of that Government, we will be repaid in due course, every penny of that amount. We are concerned in this House with what we spend out of our own pockets and on our own war effort, and that is £96,000,000. Over and above this we are spending money on behalf of the Imperial Government. We are building camps. We are building Air Schools. We are supplying rations; we are supplying equipment. We are sending goods up North—all of that on repayment. Not a penny of that comes out of the pocket of the Union taxpayer. I do not suppose most of the members have the report of the Auditor-General in front of them. But in that report you will see …

On what page?

The first page. In that report you will see a balance sheet, showing on the one side expenditure and on the other side receipts. Now in the item receipts, you first of all have the surplus brought forward from last year. Then you have the two votes—revenue: £28,000,000, and loan vote: £43,200,000. Then you have a contribution of £250,000 from the South African Railways towards defence, and finally you have this item: “War Expenses Recovery Account, £13,717,000.” My hon. friend, by some feat of arithmetical gymnastics, looks to the expenditure side and there he finds an item: “Disbursements on behalf of other Governments, £3,785,000, and he adds the two together. He takes the item £3,785,000 on the expenditure side and he takes this item of £13,717,000 on the receipt side; he adds the two together and he arrives at a total of £17,000,000 to £18,000,000. He then adds that to the £96,000,000, and then says to his friends that the War Bill of South Africa is not £96,000,000, but nearer £120,000,000.

That is how he used to teach arithmetic in Kroonstad.

I make the hon. member a present of the calculations of the hon. member for George.

Two and two make five.

Now I come to the last item of my hon. friend’s attack this afternoon. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that although we are now considering a Bill to authorise an expenditure of some £21,000,000 of new money to balance our accounts for this Financial Year 1942-43, and although some £16,000,000 of that is the balance of war expenditure, the whole of my hon. friend’s speech related to matters which happened two or three years ago and which were thoroughly considered and canvassed by the Public Accounts Committee last year. I do not know whether you appreciated that fact. If you had you might not have allowed the hon. member to proceed. Having allowed him to do that, I think it is right that I should be allowed to add a word or two to what he said. Perhaps a word or two will correct him. Amid the plaudits of his hon. friends opposite, he painted a horrifying picture of the state of the pay office in Pretoria. My hon. friend has a regrettable habit of stating only half the case. Much as I respect him and friendly as we are, I do know that he has that habit of stating only half the case, and I am afraid he has done that this afternoon. He gave the impression to this House, and his words, if uncorrected will give the impression to the country, that the pay office in Pretoria, despite its growing staff and despite the fact that it now has a staff of between 1,200 and 1,300, is nothing less than an Augean stable, that it is one horrible mess from start to finish. He referred to paragraph 4 of the Auditor’s report, I am speaking about the latest one, the one that my hon. friend and I will have the privilege of considering together in a room upstairs. But he did not read it to the House. This is what the Auditor says—

You will note, Mr. Speaker, that from January 1st, 1942, stabilisation has been effected. The Auditor’s report goes on—

From when is that?

From the 1st January, 1942. That is exactly what the Minister of Defence said to the House last year. He admitted, he had to admit, that there had been an unsatisfactory state of affairs in regard to our pay section, but he said, “I have got the thing in order now, you will have no complaints for the future.” And this is, in fact, what the Auditor-General has reported. Of course there are mistakes, of course there are irregularities, of course you can put your finger here and there on things that are not quite right, but his verdict as a whole is that the system is satisfactory. I feel the speech of the hon. member, perhaps without intention, conveyed a totally opposite impression. I know full well that prior to the 1st January, 1942, there was admittedly an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Worse than that.

Well, paint the picture in whatever language you like to use,—the hon. gentlemen is fond of flowery language and picturesque speech,—but it is common cause between us that the position was unsatisfactory, and required a lot of cleaning up, and even today there has been no satisfactory audit of the accounts as they existed prior to January, 1942.

Read on.

Did my hon. friend read a line of this? If hon. members will turn to the account on the first page they will see that this financial year the salaries paid and allowances totalled £31,000,000.

In this financial year?

I am speaking of this year we are dealing with. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the war started without any army pay office at all, and suddenly, from nothing, you had to bring into being a pay office capable of disbursing £31,000,000, as much indeed as the whole disbursement of all the branches in the public service of the Union three or four years ago. Here you had to improvise from scratch a pay office which disbursed last year £31,000,000, and this year it is probably £40,000,000. At that my hon. friend is astonished, that there are irregularities, that records are not properly kept and that the auditor cannot give a completely satisfactory audit. If he is astonished, I am not. I want very strongly to deprecate the personal attacks that he has made on one of our senior officials, a man whom I respect as much as any other in the public service, Brigadier Blaine, the Secretary for Defence. That gentleman reached retiring age a week ago. If he had not had the confidence of the Government and the Minister of Defence he would have gone when he reached the retiring age. Instead of that I happen to know that the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence asked him to stay on from year to year above the retiring age. I say that in spite of the extremely unpleasant warfare of words between him and the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) I, at any rate, have the utmost confidence in Brigadier Blaine’s integrity. What has been attacked here is not his competence but his integrity.

Quite right.

Right, the hon. gentleman is attacking his integrity. The first suggestion that was made was that Brigadier Blaine, when transferred from Justice to the Defence Department, brought a “pal,” that is the word used, a pal of his from the Department of Justice to the Department of Defence, in order to act as paymaster. Now sir, let me recall to the House that this appointment was made when the Defence Force was in its infancy. I have not got the date, but my hon. friend has prepared himself for this, and perhaps he will give me the date when Major Kretzen was appointed. I think either late in 1939 or the early part of 1940, at any rate long before we had anything like the army that we now have, and when he had control of a staff numbered in dozens and not a staff of 1,200 or 1,300. In any case, I say it is entirely unfair and a gratuitous suggestion to say that it was of 1,200 or 1,300. In any case, I say it was a job for a pal. What right has the hon. member to say that? If I had a pal I wanted to help, the last job in the world I would give him in South Africa is a paymaster’s job. If I had an enemy I would make him paymaster of the Union Forces. I speak now as chairman of the Committee which heard the evidence last year, and speaking without an opportunity of refreshing my memory, I make this statement, that there is not a word in that evidence that we took to support such a statement, and I go further and I say that at no time did my hon. friend the member for George ever even put a question to Brigadier Blaine suggesting that the appointment was a piece of favouritism on his part, a job for a pal. If I am right—this has been sprung on the House this afternoon, and I have had no opportunity of looking at the evidence, but my memory is fairly good—I do not believe that this issue of favouritism in regard to Major Kretzen was ever raised by the hon. member for George in any shape or form. If he can show me I am wrong I will withdraw. My recollection is that it was never raised, and if it was never raised—

He was warned by the Public Service Commission against the appointment.

I will deal with that in a moment, but I am just now on a much more pregnant issue. The hon. gentleman, in what I think is an unfair way, has suggested that this was a job for a pal, a piece of favouritism on the part of Brig. Blaine. Now I am making a statement from my recollection that that issue of favouritism, a job for a pal, was never raised at all. If I am right, Sir, in what light does it show my hon. friend the member for George this afternoon? When he had this official before him last year, and could put that, point to him, he did not do so, but he waitsand comes to the House this afternoon, and with no supporting evidence, without the official in question having a chance to reply,, he makes this suggestion.

May I reply immediately to the question put by the hon. member?

The hon. member has not yet put his question.

If my hon. friend can show me—he has refreshed his memory I have not—if he can show me now that he put this question of a job for a pal to Brig. Blaine, then I have nothing further to say, but if he cannot, then I can only say as one front bencher to another, he should be ashamed of this unworthy attack on the bona fides—I am not speaking of competence—upon the bona fides of one of our senior and most respected and best loved officials.

Now comes the second, the second point will answer your first.

This has been sprung upon me, Sir; if I had known this was going to be raised I would have looked it up, but from my recollection of what took place, I speak subject to my hon. friend’s correction, as far as I know Maj. Kretzen held his appointment for a comparatively short time, a few months; then it was found that the job was one which called for a man with professional paymaster experience. I am speaking from recollection, but I think he was succeeded by somebody else, and finally we got the right man for the job in Col. Kearny, who had been chief paymaster of the Police. Ever since Col. Kearny has taken over the job, it has been done as efficiently as is possible under the circumstances. I believe the hon. member for George gave the impression that Maj. Kretzen was still in the job.

No, he never said that.

I do not think he did, he could not have said that because he knows that is not the case, but the fact is that Maj. Kretzen held office for a comparatively short time, then he was succeeded by somebody whose name I have forgotten, and then the office was taken over by Col. Kearny, who has introduced order out of what was probably chaos before.

He accused me of having made a false statement in the House.

The simple answer to that is that my hon. friend has read extracts from the evidence which I have not had the opportunity of perusing. I cannot be expected—

Why did you reply then?

Must we always give you notice?

You are speaking without your book.

I was perfectly candid, I said the hon. gentleman who was proposing to make that attack, and basing it on what took place at the Public Accounts Committee, did not come to me and say: “I am raising this matter.” I have not had a chance of verifying this reference. I do know this, that there was a considerable amount of unpleasantness last year between the hon. member for George and Brig. Blaine.

He accused me of making a false statement, and he had to apologise and withdraw.

Well, let the hon. gentleman take that unction to his soul if he wants to, and let him stand before a delighted House and say he compelled a senior official to withdraw. I don’t mind. What I object to is the gross unfairness of standing up here and accusing Brig. Blaine not of making a mistake but of gross and improper favouritism, that it what I object to. I have given the hon. member the challenge, and I have asked him to show it to me.

What must I show you?

I will tell you. I cannot address the hon. gentleman directly, Sir, but through you I say he has so far forgotten his position as to stand up this afternoon and make a direct accusation of improper favouritism against Brig. Blaine who, he said, had brought a pal of his from the Department of Justice to fill the office of paymaster, whereas this person was completely incompetent to do so, and that with the knowledge of Brig. Blaine himself. I say, Sir, that is a direct charge not of incompetence, but of impropriety against Brig. Blaine, and if he or any other head of the department acted in that way, he would deserve at once to be thrown out of his office. The question I am asking my hon. friend is to tell me where at any time he put that question to Brig. Blaine and gave him an opportunity of defending himself. That is the plain question, has the hon. member got the answer?

The hon. member has put a question to me. This is my answer, that when I asked the Public Service Commission whether they had had anything to do with the appointment, their reply to me was the statement which I now wish to quote. I had asked that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission should appear before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and I put this question:

The reply was as follows:

That is what I want to say. The appointment was made by Brigadier Blaine in spite of the warning by the Public Service Commission. That is my answer to the hon. member.

That, of course, is not an answer at all. What my hon. friend has read now is this, that Brigadier Blaine proposed the appointment of Major Kretzen as paymaster in November, 1939, and he did that apparently because Major Kretzen had in the previous war acted as paymaster to a certain unit. The Public Service Commission did not think that that fact alone showed that he was the right person to be appointed. Nevertheless, says my hon. friend, Major Kretzen was appointed. That is the sum total of what the hon. member has said. The question of favouritism, the question of a job for a pal, was never raised. There is nothing even to show that Brigadier Blaine knew what Major Kretzen looked like, much less that he was a friend of his. If that is my hon. friend’s evidence, surely he will agree with me—he is a fair-minded man—that if he intended to fling this charge across the floor of the House, he should at least have asked Major Blaine, “Is this man a pal of yours; did you put this man in; was this a piece of favouritism?” He had the opportunity to put these questions if he wished, but apparently he has had this simmering in his mind for the last twelve months, and now he has blurted this out without any evidence. He should be ashamed of making that charge; perhaps in his calmer moments he will withdraw. If his charge is that the wrong man was appointed, I can understand it, but when he goes so far as to impute improper motives, then all I can say is it reflects little credit on him. The next charge he brings against Brigadier Blaine is one of telling deliberate untruths, giving deliberately false information to him and the Committee. Again, sir, I say that is an unworthy and unjustified charge. Are we to assume that if a witness gives an answer which turns out to be incorrect, and which he qualifies the next day, he must be convicted of being a liar?

He was accusing me of telling a lie, that is the point.

Am I to understand that the hon. gentleman, being accused of uttering an untruth, is entitled to turn round and charge Brigadier Blaine with uttering an untruth? I can only say that that explanation should have been left where it was twelve months ago, and the hon. gentleman had no right to come forward this afternoon and raise it again. It had no relevance to the Vote.

If it was not relevant it would not have been allowed.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the question of relevance sometimes lies beneath the Estimates and has to be discovered on the information there supplied. I am not in any sense criticising the Chair, I am merely showing that when the facts become apparent, it is also apparent that this has no relevance to the Additional Estimates.

The hon. member may proceed with his argument, but leave the question of relevancy to the Chair.

The hon. gentleman must have known that he had no right to raise this when he was dragging something out that happened three years ago, and was fully investigated twelve months ago, and therefore he must have known that it had no relevance whatever to this additional sum.

Order. I must ask the hon. member not to continue in that line.

Well, sir, I have made my point. [Interruptions.] We listened with patience and with courtesy and in absolute silence to the hon. member for George making his point. I hope hon. members opposite will listen with equal patience and courtesy to a reply to his criticism. He has thrown down the gage this afternoon by talking in a most unwarranted and unbecoming manner of one of our senior Defence officials, and I felt it my duty to rise as I did to defend that official.

This appears to me to be a very serious matter and as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has made a statement here as to what has happened I want to say that I remember the occasion because I myself was a member of that Committee. The hon. member for Kensington says that it was an ordinary statement. That shows that the matter can only be judged correctly if we know exactly what happened and in order to enable the House to do so you will allow me to read out briefly what did take place. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) put the following question in regard to the appointment of Major Kretzen as supervisory Paymaster—

And then we had the reply from the Secretary for Defence—

And this is what the Secretary of the Public Service Commission wrote to us—

Apparently it does not matter whether a man occupies military rank—the question is whether he is qualified. It is perfectly clear that the Secretary for Defence made a statement that the hon. member for George had made a statement in this House which was untrue. The House can judge for itself after this reply of his. It is not a question of the hon. member having told an untruth, because what happened in connection with the Public Service Commission is perfectly clear. The Public Service Commission did not approve of the appointment of this person. It disapproved of his appointment, yet in spite of that he was appointed. The appointment was made by the Secretary for Defence off his own bat. I think that in view of that the House can judge for itself that no blame attaches to the hon. member for George. Now, I should like to deal with another point on which the hon. member for Kensington tried to take the hon. member for George to task, namely the fifty-fifty basis. We know that at the beginning of the war the Minister of Finance said, “We shall pay as we go.” That was afterwards changed to the fifty-fifty basis. Now, let me assure hon. members of the House that this side of the House does not want to see any more taxation imposed, but one thing is certain, and that is that if the war expenditure has to be put on to Loan Account, if the intention is to borrow’ the money for war purposes, then posterity, generations to come, will have to pay for it. Further, if we want the public to understand the position, if we want the public to realise exactly what is going on, if we Want them to know what this war expenditure means to this country, then we must impose taxes on the public, and we must make the public pay. If we come here and borrow £9,000,000 for the purpose of carrying on the war, then the public do not feel it immediately. The hon. member asked whether we should have called Parliament together earlier so as to impose additional taxation. That is not being done now. The money is borrowed but we know that the taxes will have to come later. The hon. member for Kensigton said that he would approve of that being done with the greatest of pleasure if we would approve of it. He would approve of our additional expenditure being placed on a fifty-fifty basis and he would approve of taxes being imposed next year in order to put the expenditure on a fifty-fifty basis. There can be no doubt that the next year we shall be spending close on £120,000,000 on the war. That means that the hon. member for Kensington would approve of taxes being imposed next year for the purpose of getting in £77,000,000 to be spent on the war. I wonder whether the hon. member for Kensington would approve of that? If we are to impose such taxes on the public, the public will realise how much money we are spending on this war, and they will realise the terrific burdens that are being involved. In that way only £43,000,000 would go on to Loan Account. The hon. member for Kensington also tried to ridicule the statement made by the hon. member for George that it was quite possible that £120,000,000 had been spent on the war, and he asked where he got that figure from. That figure is got simply by putting all the expenditure together—by adding up the expenditure. Parliament met and originally voted £80,000,000 for war expenditure; that was at the start of the financial year. Now we are asked to vote an additional £16,000,000, and now the hon. member for George comes here and tells us that the War Expenditure Recovery Account amounted to £13,000,000. What the hon. member for George meant is as clear as daylight, namely that we had already voted £80,000,000, that a further £16,000,000 was being asked for now, and that if the £13,000,000 were repaid—where are those £13,000,000?

That money according to the provisions of the Act has to be paid into the fund.

It has to be somewhere. If the money has not been repaid, then the amount is only £80,000,000 plus £16,000,000, but if it has been repaid, then it must be somewhere. We did not vote £80,000,00 plus £13,000,00. We also pointed to the danger of writing off, and the hon. member for Kensington admitted that possibility. At the time even hon. members opposite felt that there was a possibility of England losing the war. If England had lost the war, what then would have become of the £13,000,000? Yes, hon. members over there are laughing, but at one stage they were very nervous that England might lose.

On what Vote is the hon. member raising this point?

I am raising it on the extra £13,000,000 in connection with which the hon. member for Kensington states that the hon. member for George has made a miscaluculation.

The hon. member must confine himself to that.

I just want to explain that there is a very grave danger of the £13,000,000 never being repaid. We expect a statement on this point from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I just want to say a little more on another point, namely that the hon. member for Kensington saw fit to quote only a small extract from the Auditor-General’s report. He quoted a small extract—

I did read that.

In other words, there were a large number of irregularities, but although we challenged the hon. member for Kensington also to read the next sentence he failed to do so. I think it is most important to bring the second paragraph to the notice of the public and of this House. The next paragraph goes on to say this—

I did not quote that, but I said it.

The hon. member was very reluctant to read it although we asked him to do so. The Auditor-General here states that it was impossible to audit that section of the accounts. And in regard to the period after the first period of chaos he states that there are very imperfect accounts and a large number of irregularities and mistakes. We are dealing here with public money, and we cannot allow these irregularities. It is always possible that there are dishonest people and the very least we can expect of the Prime Minister is that he will put an end to these irregularities. And he actually promised last year that he would make an attempt to do so. But we can no longer be satisfied with an attempt. We can demand, as in the case of any bookkeeper, that there shall be no irregularities. If there are irregularities, the bookkeeper should be dismissed. Why are these things allowed? We are spending millions of money on the war and surely the public, the taxpayers—even those who are in favour of the war, have the right to expect that their money will be spent honestly on the war effort.

I do not wish to hold up the House for long, but I want to deal very briefly with a question raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). The hon. member made a new attack on the Secretary for Defence on the ground of “jobs for pals.” I want to make it perfectly clear that never at any time in all the strictures, in all the attacks made by the hon. member for George, did he ever at any time raise this question in the manner in which he has now done. All the strictures, all the criticisms he made, were on the point of the unsuitability of the appointment of Major Kretzen for this particular job. Major Kretzen, it has now been stated by the hon. member for George, was placed in this office as a personal friend of the Secretary for Defence. If you turn to page 142 of the Public Accounts Committee report, you will find that this question was asked: “How long was Major Kretzen in charge as paymaster?” The answer was that he was supervising under the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Sloane. The next question was: “For how long?” The reply was: “To the end of February, 1940.” So that the whole charge boiled down to this, that Mr. Kretzen was appointed to this post as a particular mark of favour and friendship, from the time the war began until February, 1940. As a matter of fact, at the time the war began, when the Defence Department was at its wits’ end in endeavouring to find someone to take on the control over the Pay Department, a survey of all the members who were available was made—all the laymen who were offering on the Reserve of, Officers’ list. Mr. Kretzen was found to be the only officer on the list who had had previous experience as a paymaster. It was never suggested that Mr. Kretzen was a heaven-sent genius as a paymaster. He was apparently qualified to fill the post. It is perfectly true, as the hon. member for George has said, that the Public Service Commission stated that in their opinion they did not think that it would be a very suitable appointment. It was found in practice that Mr. Kretzen certainly was not suitable, but the point at issue is that at the time the appointment was made it was made in all good faith. At the time, Mr. Kretzen was the only man who could be found to take on the job, and when the experiment failed—I would suggest to the House that that is not the only military appointment that has not been a success. But never at any time did the hon. member for George attempt to suggest that this appointment was made in order to find a job for a pal or because it was a friend of the Secretary for Defence. I really do think that the hon. member, as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) repeatedly pointed out in this House, is really fair-minded, and I think he would be the first person to admit that he should never have made such a charge. It is true that Brigadier Blaine made a statement which was found to be not correct. He endeavoured to rectify that as soon as be had an opportunity to do so, and I think the hon. member for George has brought forward a perfectly unfounded and untenable charge this afternoon. If the hon. member for George wishes me to agree with him that Mr. Kretzen’s appointment was not a particularly fortunate one from the point of view of the Department, I would be prepared to agree with him. But if he imputes motives to that appointment, then I must take grave exception to the charge he made, which I do not really think is worthy of the hon. member for George.

Hon. members have the right to show reasons why the money proposed to be appropriated in this Bill should not be voted, and statements with regard to the state of the Paymaster’s Office, that there is chaos and incompetence in the Paymaster’s Office, is therefore quite in order. After what the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said, it was in order for the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) to reply thereto. It appears, however, that the question of the appointment of Mr. Kretzen is a matter which has been decided long ago, and I do not think that the matter should be gone into further in this debate. It is in order to discuss the present state of affairs in the Paymaster’s Office.

In view of Mr. Speaker’s ruling, I do not propose dealing with the speeches of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, South (Mr. Hirsch). I have only got up to say very briefly that we on this side of the House are very disappointed at the high-handed manner in which Ministers treat us on this side of the House. Pertinent questions have been put here by the hon. member for George about officers who had reached the age limit, people who knowing that their services would be required, resigned, drew their pensions and were immediately re-appointed—sometimes even without their having left their offices. The hon. member for George asked the Prime Minister to tell us how many of these highly placed officers were still in the service, why they were being kept on, whether there were no other people to take their places, and what was the expense caused to the country as a result? We have asked the Prime Minister to give us details of the £16,000,000 but we are still waiting for those details. We represent the electors of the country, just as much as the Prime Minister and his followers do, and if facts of that kind are asked for then we do not expect the Minister simply to shrug his shoulders and not to take any notice of us. He adopts the attitude of saying: “Yes, talk as much as you like, I have a majority behind me; you can do what you like.” I hope the Prime Minister will deign to reply to the question put by the hon. member for George, so that the public outside can see what the position is. We have people who have returned from up North. There are people who are walking about without work, and yet one gets highly placed officers drawing pensions and who are re-appointed on full salary. That is happening, not only in the Department of Defence but also in other departments. But that is not our only complaint against the Prime Minister—we are not complaining only of the way he is treating us. We are doing our best to help the Government to make progress. We could have protested today against the second and third readings being taken but we do not wish to put any obstacles in the Government’s way, and while doing our duty as an Opposition we want to assist the Government. But then we also expect the Government to be fair to us. We have the Minister of Agriculture here for instance. We put certain pertinent questions to him and we are still waiting for his reply—and we shall probably have to keep on waiting for his reply.

To what do you want a reply for instance?

For instance, we asked how much the Price Controller had spent on the purchase of foodstuffs. We told the Minister that the price of potatoes had been fixed at £1 5s. but that the Government had stepped in, and after having encouraged the public to produce, the Government had competed with the public in the production of potatoes. The Government have entered the market and are competing against the farmers. They are planting thousands of bags of potatoes on the Settlements …. 80,000 bags have been produced on the Pongola Settlement, and part of those potatoes have been sent to Convoys, but another part has been placed on the open market in competition with the farmers. We ask the Minister why that was done. At the Government’s special request the farmers have produced large quantities of potatoes and we have again asked the Government to fix a minimum price so that people would not be forced to put their potatoes on the market and sell them practically for nothing. I am now told that potatoes are being sold in Pretoria—first grade potatoes—at from 2s. to 5s. per bag, while the bag in which the potatoes are sent costs 1s. 3d. How can the farmers be expected to do well, how can the Minister say that they are flourishing and are getting high prices? If that is the way in which they are to be treated, then I think we must criticise the Government more severely. We don’t want to put any obstacles in the Minister’s way, we want to help him, but this high-handed attitude of “You can say what you like but we are not going to reply,” is something we are not going to stand for.

You cannot accuse me of that.

Those questions have been asked and they have not been answered. I again want to ask for information, and I ask the Prime Minister to reply to our questions. I am not saying this because I want to quarrel with him, but I am putting these questions because the public expect us to see to it that things don’t go wrong as is the case now. We are trying to save what can be saved, and that is why we make our request to the Prime Minister. I still hope that he will comply with it.

The hon. member must realise that when a debate is conducted in connection with my Department and several members put questions, and I only have one opportunity to speak, I have to wait a little to hear what points hon. members want to raise, and what points I am expected to reply to. That is why I did not reply at once to these points touched on by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), that is why I waited until all the questions had been put. Now, let me say this: In regard to the total amount of the war expenditure for this year, dealt with by the hon. member for George, that is a matter I do not propose going into. I think the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has dealt with those questions very effectively.

Oh, no.

I don’t think I should waste the time of the House by dealing with that question, because as the accounts stand today the total war expenditure for the current year will amount to £96,000,000 and not the £120,000,000 which the hon. member arrived at by adding up the wrong figures. The next point the hon. member raised was the position of officers who resigned on reaching the age limit and who drew their pensions and who were subsequently re-appointed by me. There are a number of cases of that kind. I have not got the details here, but if the hon. member asks me for a return I shall let him have it. There are a number of cases of that kind, and it was essential for me to take that step. Officers, like officials, have the right to resign at a ’certain age. They resign and they get their pensions, but the House will realise that in the circumstances in which I find myself and in which the country found itself at the outbreak of war, and after that too, it was impossible to do without those officers. We require expert and trained staff, especially in the higher positions. It was necessary to have such staff in order to get matters in regard to the war into swing. The shortage of staff hit all departments. It specially hit me and more particularly so far as the higher positions were concerned, where one can only employ trained and experienced people. And so it happened that a number of people who had reached the age limit, the age of leaving the Service, and who had the right to resign, again had to be re-appointed in the public interest; some of them are still being employed today. I acted in the public interest and with a view to the needs of the circumstances. Then the hon. member also spoke about the condition of the war accounts. He divided the war-time into three periods, and he said that there was a period in regard to which the accounts were still unaudited. That is so. The first period, the first six months of the war, is a period which we discussed last year, and in regard to which the Auditor-General made comments in his report. It appeared last year that there was an amount of nearly £100,000 which had not been accounted for. I admitted at the time that that was so, and my only exuse was that we did not have the necessary staff to do all the work and to put the accounts in order, so that they could be audited, but I said that we would do our best. As evidence of the effort which we made, I can point out that of this amount of £99,000, only a few thousand pounds—the hon. member spoke of £4,000—are still unaccounted for. We are still dealing with that. In regard to those accounts the vouchers have perhaps disappeared, and some of them may deliberately have been made to disappear. I have had to contend with very great difficulties. Some officials were quite incompetent; some were perhaps ill-disposed people who removed documents from their offices and burnt and destroyed them. I had to contend with all these things, and it was well-nigh impossible to put things in order. I must say that I am surprised that so far as the first period of time is concerned only £4,000 are as yet unaccounted for. We are still struggling with that and we hope that the position will be put right. Last year during the debate on this matter I told the House that I was doing my best to put matters in order, and reasonably speaking, within certain limits, I have carried out my undertaking. From the beginning of last year we took special steps and we appointed people and we imported new machinery for that purpose, and we have achieved this position, that the Auditor-General in his report states that the position is now very much better. There are still mistakes, there are still shortcomings, but it is now possible to audit the accounts. In between the period which he first referred to, and the improvements introduced at the beginning of last year, we still have the period of 1941 in connection with which the Auditor-General reports that the accounts are still in such a state that they cannot be audited. That is so, and it is due to the fact that we were compelled in order to keep the work going, to do the best we could. We simply did not have the staff, and even today we have not got the necessary staff to deal with all the work properly, and at the same time also to deal with the arrears for 1941. We shall dispose of that as soon as we have the necessary staff. But in order to keep the current work in order, last year we were simply compelled to put aside the accounts in regard to the period before 1942. I agree, and I agreed last year, that the position of affairs which existed, was unsound, and I agreed with the remarks made by the Auditor-General. Those remarks to my mind were justified, but I want hon. members to take into account the difficulties of my position. We are dealing here with huge expenditure, and we did not have the necessary machinery at our disposal; we did not have the necessary trained staff, but we had to do the work with young men and young women who, so to say, we had to take off the streets wherever we could get them. We could not do anything else. That is why we had to take that step, so far as this intermediate period is concerned, but we hope still to put the whole position in order. That is the position today and I feel that I am entitled to a certain amount of thanks from this House, that at any rate so far as the year 1942 is concerned the current accounts are in order. The period of disorder still remains, but I hope that that will yet be put right. I don’t want to go into the other personal matter which has been raised here. The hon. member again repeated his attack on Brigadier Blaine. That attack was again uncalled for. He spoke in a way which was unfair to himself. Let me say in reply to him that in spite of what he has said, in spite of the charges which he has made, when Brigadier Blaine’s period of service expired a few weeks ago, I re-appointed him as Secretary for Defence. That goes to prove that in spite of the hon. member’s contentions, and in spite of these matters which were not in order, and which even an angel from Heaven could not have kept in order in the circumstances, I still have full confidence in Brigadier Blaine, because I know that he put himself out and that he has rendered great services to this country in respect of a matter like the Defence Accounts which, at a time like the present, is almost beyond controlling. That is my reply to that personal attack.

I can only say that you pick your people very badly.

Brigadier Blaine and myself tried very hard to obtain the services of Col. Kearny. He was indispensable the in position he occupied, and if the hon. member only knew the trouble we went to to secure his services for the important post he is now occupying with great credit to himself, he would realise that his accusations are unfounded. The hon. member has not only done Brig. Blaine an injustice, he has also done himself an injustice. These, I believe, are the points which I should reply to. With these few words, without any rhetoric,—I am not a master of rhetoric like my hon. friend,—but with this plain and simple statement of fact, I feel that the country and this House have reason to be satisfied to a certain extent with the position of our Public Accounts so far as Defence is concerned. There is a period for which the accounts have not been completed yet, but which we shall still put in order. So far as the current period is concerned, we have mastered that, and I hope that we shall continue to be master of the position until the end of the struggle.

I only want to say a few words. So far we have voted an amount of £220,000,000 for the war, and we are now asked to vote this further amount, running into millions, for the war. And when we are asked to vote this money we are always met with all kinds of excuses if we criticise anything and say that the Defence Department is in a state of chaos and that it is unfair towards that public and the country to allow this condition of affairs to prevail; when we point out that money is being wasted and that things are in a mess and that the public have to pay more and more every year to find the necessary money, the excuse always is that it cannot be helped and that it is impossible to secure the staff required to do all the work. If the necessary staff is not yet available and if, after three years of war, the accounts have not yet been put right, I am afraid we shall reach the end of the war and the public will be asked to find more money although the financial returns will still be in a state of chaos. Surely it is high time that things were put right. We cannot possibly go on and be put off with statements that the position is difficult and even impossible to control. This House is asked to vote millions and millions of money, and every year we are expected to accept the excuse that the staff necessary to put the accounts in good order cannot be obtained. Surely an excuse of that kind is not reasonable so far as the public of this country are concerned. What I want to deal with particularly today is this. I want to emphasise again that this side of the House at this stage of the Bill wants to protest most emphatically against the fact that the consumers of this country are being exploited for the sake of big capitalistic interests, and particularly for the sake of the big millers. We had an instance of that in this House the other day when the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) stood up here practically as the agents or the advocates of the cause of the millers. We on this side of the House say that an injustice is being done to the consumer of this country, especially to those people who have to buy bread. We know that the price of bread has been fixed, and the price today is high for two reasons: (1) Either the price of wheat is so high that the price of bread is justified, or (2) profits are made by the millers and other bakers resulting in the price of bread being kept at an unduly high level in this country. Now, is the price of wheat really so high that the bread price at 6½d. per loaf can be justified? We know that in the last war the price of wheat, as we have repeatedly shown on this side of the House, was 100 per cent. higher and more than it is today. The expenses in connection with the milling and the processing of wheat were the same as they are today, those expenses also existed in those days, and in spite of the fact that the prices of wheat were double what they are today, the price of bread was lower than it is today. I therefore feel that we are fully entitled to point out that the control system prevailing in this country today is entirely wrong. Furthermore it is a well-known fact that there are certain bakeries in the country which are selling bread today at less than 6½d. But those bakeries are threatened with prosecution if they persist in doing so. I have a declaration here to that effect. No doubt the Minister will say that is not so. I hope he will be able to produce evidence to prove that that is not the case. There is a baker like Mr. Fotheringham, for instance, who declares that bread can be sold at 6d. That being the case it is clear to me that the price of wheat is not such as to justify a bread price of 6½d. per loaf. No, tremendous profits are put into the pockets of the millers and it is the consumers who are made to pay for those profits. The man who buys bread has to pay those profits to the millers. We on this side of the House have protested that those Milling Companies have developed into large capitalistic monopolies. We have been bitterly attacked for making such a statement. Well I have here a declaration to the effect that the Premier Milling Company holds a controlling interest in the Union Flour Mills. That self same Premier Milling Company hold a controlling interest in the Vereeniging Milling Company, and the Vereeniging Milling Company has a large number of Mills throughout the country. These large millers hold interests in bakeries. The Premier Milling Company controls three large bakeries and has financial interests in others. It is perfectly, clear to us therefore that this condition of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. We are convinced that this state of affairs has developed to such an extent that it has become a scandal. Even in the ordinary course of events it would have been a scandal, but under present conditions I want to ask how a situation like that can be said to conform with the principles of the much discussed Atlantic Charter in which heaven on earth is promised to humanity and also to this country. I say that looked at from that background it is a bigger scandal than ever. In days like the present when the public have to pay for the Government’s war expenditure, it is a scandal that the consumer should be allowed to be exploited in this fashion and it goes even further than that—not only the person who eats bread is being exploited. I have a letter here in which it is asserted—and the Department has also taken notice of this—that the millers in the country districts deduct as much as thirty lbs. from a bag of wheat if the consumer takes the wheat to the mill to have it milled there. Under the conditions prevailing today when no bran is taken out and the whole bag of wheat is milled, it is not fair for such a large quantity of wheat to be deducted. Every right-minded individual will have to admit that here too the millers make huge profits out of the consumer or out of the people who get their own wheat milled. Is it not possible for the Government to interfere at this stage? Is it necessary to allow the millers to deduct 30 lbs. per bag under prevailing conditions for every bag of wheat they mill? They are paid for milling the wheat and yet they appropriate this quantity of wheat. I know that there is a certain quantity of husk in wheat, but 30 lbs. is out of all proportion and I can prove that the millers themselves admit that it is an exorbitant amount and if they admit it themselves, why then should they be allowed to continue deducting such large quantities. No, I think that this business has been going on long enough and if the Government wish us to protect the consumer, then it is high time to make an effort to restrict the capitalistic interests and to keep the capitalists within certain limits. The position has now become impossible. The large combine constituted by the millers is not only exploiting the consumers and making-large profits, but in addition they are busy wiping out and destroying the small millers. If we allow this sort of thing to go on, we are going to get a large capitalistic combine which will control the whole bread position in South Africa, not for the benefit of the consumer, and not for the benefit of the producer, but certainly for the benefit of this capitalistic organisation.

I think we have talked quite enough about the price of bread now and I feel that for the time being we can leave this matter alone. There is another very important subject which we have to look into and that is the meat question. If ever there has been a scandal in this country it is, that in connection with the marketing of meat in South Africa. I have been talking to people who have recently come from Durban and they tell me that the best beef is sold there for 2s. per lb. Why should we have such a chaotic condition, causing the members of the public to suffer? What has the Minister done to put this whole meat question on a proper basis? Some seven years ago a deputation went to Australia to investigate matters and that Deputation reported on the meat marketing question. Before that time we had the Schutte Report. That Report was shelved—I believe it was shelved because Schutte put forward the right suggestion as to how we should market our meat. The Meat Control Board is nothing but a farce. I have spoken to several members of the Meat Board and I have asked them what powers they really have. They admitted that they had no powers left and that the Food Controller goes over their heads and does exactly as he pleases. On a previous occasion in this House I criticised the Controller, but the Controller then was not the Minister of Agriculture. I had hoped, that now the Minister of Agriculture was occupying that position, he would surely be getting sound advice from practical farmers, from men with many years experience, and that he would also accept the advice of the people who had been sent Overseas to investigate this matter, who had looked into the question of the marketing of our meat. But as I have said, the Minister’s Board has also become a farce—exactly the same as other Boards. The only thing the Government wants to do is to play up to the farmers and to make them believe that they control their own product. I am a Member of a Board myself and I know what a farce it has become. The farmer sells the best meat for 60s. and 70s. per 100 lbs. Out of that he has to pay all his expenses; why then should that meat be sold for 2s. per lb? The whole thing is a farce and that does not apply to meat only, it also applies to other things. Take wool for instance. What does the Minister of Agriculture propose doing after the war about the marketing of our wool? I notice that in Australia the Minister concerned has already made a statement on that subject.

These Votes on these estimates do not deal with wool at all.

All these points come under marketing. I want to know whether the Minister has made any statements? I also want to ask him to make a statement so as to assure the farmers in South Africa on the question of how their wool will be marketed after the war?

Wait until we get to wool.

More than twenty-two thousand farmers have asked the Minister to introduce Legislation on the subject of the marketing of wool and what has the Minister done? He has turned down the request of those twenty-two thousand farmers. A few agitators in Cape Town and Durban have stampeded him and he is now busy with another scheme. The members of all these Boards have to go travelling through the country today to protect the Minister from the farmers, but when the farmers have to be protected by the Minister they are simply left in the lurch. Now that the farmers ask the Minister to devise a scheme in regard to the post-war marketing of wool, we find that brokers and others agitate against such a scheme and I want to ask the Minister to get up here and to give the farmers an assurance that he will definitely protect them and that he will not allow agitation from outside—initiated to a large extent by the brokers—to influence him. I ask him as Minister of Agriculture to give us a lead. Our whole trouble is that we have never had a lead from the Minister yet. We ask him to get up in this House and to make a statement that he will support the whole Council and if he does so there will be no agitation from outside. I ask him to make such a statement and thus to save the wool farmers from the chaos which will be created from outside and from the agitation which is being carried on for political purposes. There is one other point which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice, and I want to ask him to give it his serious attention. I am referring to the position of the Dairy Farmers. The Hon. Member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) asked yesterday what the Minister was going to do to assist the farmers who had stud cattle and other high quality stock.

I want to point out to the Hon. Member that he can only discuss the items appearing on the Additional Estimates. The Dairy Industry is not mentioned here. Nor is wool mentioned. I have allowed the Hon. Member to a put a question in regard to wool.

I want to put a further question to the Minister.

There is no provision here for the Dairy Industry.

I only want to put a question to the Minister.

The Hon. Member can put a question but he must not elaborate on the subject.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture what he is going to do to protect farmers who have stud stock, what he is going to do for them from February until the new crop comes in? Some farmers have invested hundreds and thousands of pounds in their business. The Agricultural Shows will be coming on shortly and farmers are anxious to keep their stock in good condition and I hope the Minister will see to it that the people who own stud cattle will be properly considered. I only want to say this to the Minister, that there are rumours all over the country that his Department is in a state of chaps. The public are saying straight out that they don’t like the Minister any more. I don’t want to go as far as some of those people in the country who say “Collins must go.” I want to ask the Minister to heed the advice of the practical farmers and of the organised farmers, and if he does so he will no longer hear the cry “Collins must go.” I don’t want him to go while the present Government is in power because if he should go, we might get a worse Minister. At the same time I want to tell him that if this Government is defeated soon it will be due to its Minister of Agriculture.

Not long after the war commenced, the Department of Agriculture, with the assistance of its officials, held meetings for the purpose of encouraging the farmers to produce. I had the privilege to be present at a meeting in Paarl when Dr. Marais addressed the farmers. He advocated that we should produce, and he said, inter alia, that there was scarcely a single article of which there would not be a shortage in South Africa within the near future. After he had finished, I said this on behalf of the farming community of my constituency, that however much we may differ in regard to the war, we want to make an effort at least to produce the necessary food not only for the people of our country but also for the animals of our country. We did our best, and we produced. And then we had the unpleasant privilege last Tuesday, as you have already learnt from the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser), who is seated next to me, not only of seeing the potatoes on the local market, but also of smelling them. We got into touch with the Secretary for Agriculture, and he promised to go and see for himself. We also learnt that he had been there, but we have heard nothing further of the result of his investigations. We can say this, in sympathy with the potato farmers, that if we can do nothing more we can at least bring this matter to the notice of the Minister with the greatest emphasis. There seems to be such a natural solution to the problem, since we have a surplus of this commodity at the moment, whilst there is definitely a shortage of mealies on the other hand. Cannot the Minister f Agriculture bring about an exchange? Can he not give those people potatoes to live on instead of mealies? Even if this cannot be done throughout the country, then it can at least be done in parts, and in that way we can release the mealies to keep our animals alive. The Department will know what objections there are to this. It seems to me to be a practical and practicable solution, and I hope that the Minister will give his attention to it. I hope that the Department of Agriculture and the Minister will favourably consider this suggestion, and take into consideration the position of the potato farmers.

In connection with the potato question, which was referred to by my hon. friend who has just sat down, I should like to ask the Minister whether he realises that there is a terrific amount of confusion in connection with the potato market. The day before yesterday an item appeared in the local Press stating that potatoes were being sent from the Western Province to Johannesburg. Yesterday a notification appeared that potatoes from the Transvaal were flooding the Cape Town market. This is a sad state of affairs, and it applies equally to fruit. Fruit is sent from these parts to Johannesburg, and it floods the market there. Then we find again that fruit is sent from the Transvaal to Cape Town. Is it not possible to bring about a change in that respect? Then there is another matter, and that is in connection with the position of the poultry farmers. The Minister knows that last month the poultry farmers received only a certain quantity of mealies. This month that quantity has been reduced by half, and the poultry farmers were told that they cannot expect anything at all next month.

As from March.

What is now going to be the position of those people? The Minister must realise that it is the small scale farmers who concentrate on that type of farming. There are thousands of them who make a living out of poultry farming, and what is going to become of those people if they cannot obtain poultry food? I shall be glad if, for the information of those farmers, the Minister will make a statement and say what he is going to do with a view to meeting them.

On Monday the Minister of Agriculture said that the price of mealies had been fixed at 12s. 6d. per bag for the coming season. Now I want to tell the House this, that I protest against the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is stating at this stage already that he is going to fix the price of mealies at 12s. 6d., at this stage when we do not even know what the crop is going to be! The position is this. Last year we received 15s. per bag. Let us assume that the crop is going to be poorer this year than it was last season; must we still get 2s. 6d. less in that case? Is it right that the Minister should fix the price of mealies at 12s. 6d. already at this stage? We find ourselves in this position, that everything which we require for production purposes has become dearer. Production costs have increased, and now the Minister is going to reduce the price. Where does he get that right from? On Monday I thanked the Minister for fixing a minimum price of 12s. 6d., but then he replied that the fixed price was 12s. 6d. You know yourself that last year in March there was the worm problem, and because of that our crop was reduced by 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. That may be the position again this year, and then the price will be 12s. 6d. It will be unreasonable on my part and unfair towards the farmers if I do not protest against the Minister’s action. I do not want to quarrel with the Minister, but if he persists in keeping the price at 12s. 6d. he will hear more from me.

I welcome the support which I have just received from the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens). The Minister certainly rendered the country and the farmers a disservice when he prematurely fixed the price of mealies at 12s. 6d. The Minister told us that the consumption of mealies rose to 22,000,000 bags last year. Since that is the case, we are by no means convinced, and we do not know at all, that there will be a surplus this year. Let us assume that the crop amounts to 25,000,000 bags. Then the Minister must bear in mind that already since March we have been living on green mealies, which is going to reduce the yield of the crop. He is therefore going to use a portion of the mealie crop during this season, before the next season’s mealies come in. The Minister will make the biggest mistake which a Minister has ever made if he thinks, for a moment, that the mealie farmers are going to be satisfied to take 12s. 6d. per bag in these circumstances. I said the other day, and I want to repeat, that I am convinced that at a price of 15s. per bag, and judging by the mealie crop last year, we shall find it difficult this year to cover the costs of production of last year and of this year with the two crops. He has all his economists at his disposal, people who continually work with figures. We have too little time for that, but we do know that we have to work very hard, and we know what our expenditure is. I cannot understand how a Minister of Agriculture of the Union can get up here and say that no mealies are available for pure bred stock, that there are no mealies available for poultry, and that there are no mealies for the dairy farmers. This is the staple food of all the biggest agricultural industries, and how can the Minister make a statement like that here? What has he done in order to meet that position and to give those people what they undoubtedly require for the furtherance of their industry? I want to make an appeal to the Minister to approach the farmers who still have mealies on hand, and to ask them to reduce their consumption as far as possible, and to place their surplus mealies on the market, so that we can see what quantity of mealies we can get to tide us over the two months of shortage. I am convinced that in my store rooms I have mealies which I could part with. There is hardly a farmer who, when we had the drought, did not put away sufficient mealies last year for his own consumption, and the majority of them will still be able to make available some mealies if the country requires it.

Must I commandeer the mealies?

No, I do not really want that, but the Minister should make an appeal to the country, to everyone who still has mealies available; and those farmers who have more than they can use, will probably be able to provide hundreds of bags if they can get a decent price. It will tide us over the difficulty until the new crop is ready. When the Minister speaks of commandeering, then I must ask him to give me a guarantee that in the future I shall be able to get all that I require for the production of mealies. I suggest, however, that the Minister should make an appeal to the farmers. But at the same time he must offer a decent price.

The price is still 15s. at the moment.

That difference is too small. The price for the new season has been fixed at 12s. 6d., and that is too low. I want to tell the Minister that I cannot swallow that, and I do not think the people will be able to swallow it. The farmers cannot produce at 12s. 6d. per bag. If the Minister wants a fight he will get it, but we shall for ever be going to the Minister’s office in Pretoria. We cannot accept 12s. 6d. for our mealies, and in all friendliness and in all politeness, I want to say this to the Minister: I hope it will not be necessary for us to go further and to quarrel with the Minister. We would not like to do that. We, as members of Parliament—and members of Parliament are the most polite people on earth—would like to settle this matter amicably with the Minister. The Minister upset us very much, but we rely on the fact that he will be man enough to rectify the mistake which he has made, so that justice will be done to the mealie farmers.

I do not think the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has treated me quite fairly. He accused me of not wanting to reply, that I was not paying any attention to the questions which were put. The hon. member will remember that we discussed mealies the whole of Monday, and the question of potatoes was only referred to in passing. It is not that I do not want to reply to the point. I am prepared to discuss potatoes now. But during the whole of the day the subject of debate was mealies.

I accept that.

With regard to potatoes, I can give him the assurance that I, too, am worried about the position, as is my department. We are as concerned about the matter as the hon. member. There is one thing, however, which I want to stress immediately. When we told the farmers to produce, we added the warning that they must be careful in so far as perishable produce is concerned.

Nonsense. The farmers were encouraged to produce anything of which there was a shortage.

It was never said that we should not produce perishable produce.

I just want to tell hon. members that I asked our Director of Propaganda, Prof. Marais, to stress this matter, and my department has always adopted the attitude that in the case of potatoes, especially summer potatoes farmers must watch the market very carefully in order to make certain that they will have a market. I go further and say that if my department were to have forgotten that, then every sensible farmer should still have known that he must be careful. But I should like to quote the statement which Prof. Marais made at the meetings where he addressed the farmers.

Where did he make such a statement?

The “lie and rot” story is now becoming true.

If they produce without knowing that there is a market, and that happens on such a scale. … I just want to tell the hon. member that if we had not taken part in the war, a great deal more would have rotted than is the case today.

No!

I think the majority of people in the country are of that opinion.

Put it to the test.

We shall see. But let us get down to business now. This is what Prof. Marais said, in response to my request—

It is not true that this statement was made everywhere. Where was it made at agricultural congresses?

I did not hear it.

That may be so, but the hon. member is not as unwise as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad as to say that it is not true. I hope that hon. members will not become heated. The farmers were encouraged to produce, but we have always stipulated that condition. Even if the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is right, however, and he does not know of these meetings and statements, then I must still say that every sensible farmer knows what the position is in connection with summer potatoes, and if all of a sudden a million bags more are produced and put on the market, then one naturally gets a difficult position. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad now asks what we are going to do. He protested against the production of potatoes on Government farms and settlements. There I want to correct him. We did plant potatoes at Vaal Hartz last year, but only for seed purposes. No potatoes from Vaal Hartz were brought on to the market. With regard to Pongola, winter potatoes are produced there. Hon. members must not forget that up to December people stood in queues in Durban, for example, in order to be able to buy a few potatoes. Hon. members know that it is not an easy matter to produce winter potatoes, and I wonder whether they have any objection, since there was a shortage, to the fact that the Government stepped in and planted potatoes. Up to December of last year, the position was a difficult one, and potatoes were scarce, but in December only 4,000 bags were brought on the market. In so far as my department was concerned, we gave instructions that if other potatoes are obtainable, they must buy elsewhere and that they must not buy Government potatoes. We are opposed to selling Government potatoes in competition with private farmers in normal circumstances. I hold the view that the Government must not compete with the farmers. In so far as this position is concerned, I have asked for a report, and I just want to quote it—

As you notice, they say that good potatoes are still sold at comparatively good prices. The hon. member shakes his head. I can only give the information which I receive. After hon. members had visited the local market, the Secretary for Agriculture promised them that he would go and inspect. He has a representative of the Department here, who buys and tests the potatoes and, in so far as the Cape Town market is concerned, the information is the same as that with reference to Johannesburg, namely, that the biggest portion of the potatoes which flood the market is of a low grade, and of inferior quality. In proof of this, I may say that Transvaal potatoes are still fetching a fairly good price here today. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad and I may differ as to what a good price is. Perhaps he will not agree that 10s. and 11s. represent a good price for summer potatoes, but I think it is a reasonable price. Now the hon. member asks whether we have any plan. If he looks at the newspapers he will see that the Secretary for Agriculture returned from a visit to the market, and that same evening a statement appeared in the Press saying what steps we would take immediately. In the first place, we asked the Transvaal potato farmers not to overload the local market. If they exercise a little patience, the majority of the Cape potatoes will be off the market, and in this manner they will assist their own fellow-farmers and prevent the market from being flooded. We also immediately asked—that was done even before I left Pretoria—the big employers, like the mines, the railways, the municipalities, and especially the military authorities, to use more potatoes instead of mealies. We suggested to the poultry farmers and the dairy farmers that here was a chance to obtain comparatively cheap fodder. If they feed potatoes, they will be able to manage. We also said that we would tell them within a few days how the potatoes should be fed, whether they would be better raw or cooked. We also decided later to buy more potatoes on behalf of the Government, in order to relieve the market, but I want to repeat that the information on all sides is to the effect that generally speaking the market was overloaded with potatoes of a lower grade. Nevertheless there is, in any event, a big surplus of potatoes. I can only give the House this assurance, that in so far as the Department is concerned, we have done everything in our power to alleviate the position. We dry as many potatoes as the available machines permit, and we are carrying on with that. So much for the potato position. In so far as wool is concerned, I do not want to deal with that now. We shall have a great deal of time to discuss the wool question. With regard to meat, the producers could not come to a mutual agreement. Hon. members know that they are engaged in drawing up a scheme. I asked them to do so as soon as possible, and we shall then go into the matter. I am glad that he hon. member is so concerned about the consumers. I appreciate that very much. But when he speaks on behalf of the farmers, I do not think that he ought to talk about the price. The price is good. With regard to potatoes I want to add this, that I have asked the railways to assist me in transporting and removing from those markets which are overloaded as many potatoes as possible during the next fourteen days. With regard to mealies, I have already said that there is not much likelihood of poultry farmers obtaining mealies. I think the mealies which we have today should be retained for the purpose of feeding human beings. Europeans as well as Natives. I cannot understand the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) very well. On Monday he thanked the Minister for fixing the price of potatoes, and now he complains about it.

Is 12s. 6d. the maximum?

What we said was that the farmers would in any event get 12s. 6d. The Government told the farmers that they must produce, and that they would get 12s. 6d. in any event. Now I am told that this is a terrible sin. Surely everyone knows that you can only determine the price finally when you know what the crop is. The Mealie Control Board will, of course, be consulted, and they will suggest a price. I repeat that I only stated that whatever the size of the crop, the farmers would get 12s. 6d. for the next season’s crop, and it will be the duty of the Government to see to it that they get it, even if the Government has to buy the mealies from the farmers.

Does that mean that the farmers will not get more than that in any circumstances?

The promise which was made to the farmers was that they would get 12s. 6d. in any event.

†One more point I want to touch upon, and in that connection I must apologise to the House for again going back to milling margins. I venture to say that we would have heard nothing about this if it had not been for the wire everybody received from Johannesburg. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) was almost not to be kept back a few days ago when he wanted to read this wire. I want to warm him, although I do not think he will take my warning, and I want to warn his party, if they will take my warning, I know they won’t—I want to warn them that they are playing with fire. The people who sent them this wire are out to kill control boards and co-operative societies. These are the people you are quoting to me here, and I am warning the party against them. What the hon. member was concerned about, he did not press it this afternoon, but what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) told the House was that according to his information I had misled the House.

As a point of procedure, it had nothing to do with the merits of this case.

I am incidentally saying that certain members wanted to quote a telegram; the hon. gentleman has forgotten that too, and the hon. member tried to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, and asked your ruling …

On a point of personal explanation, I only spoke on the point of order. I said that the Minister had said certain things which were incorrect, according to the statements of other hon. members. I did not accuse the Minister of misleading the House, but I only pointed out by way of argument that he had said something which, according to other people, was incorrect. It was a point of order.

I don’t say the hon. member knew anything about the merits of the case, I would not blame him if he did not. I would blame him if he knew too much about the merits of the case. The point that was made, and very strongly made, was that I had misled the House and the hon. member for Kimberley had misled the House in saying that the big millers were making large profits outside of the milling business. That was the point that was at issue. The hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Henderson) told the House that the milling costs were so large, and that was the reason why bread had to be sold at 6½d. He appealed to me to reduce this. In support of his argument he told us the dividends that were paid by certain companies. On that I reacted and said—it was only a general statement—that I was informed a good many of these profits were not made out of grinding, but out of such matters as speculation in maize and other products.

That, notwithstanding your control.

No, no. It has probably been for the last two or three years. I have controlled maize very definitely this year, but that is not the point at issue.

The point at issue is that the shares of these companies have risen tremendously in value.

Yes.

Well, how can that be the result of speculation years ago?

That is not the point at issue. We are not asking how they made their profit, and why they were allowed we were talking about the question of milling costs, and the argument was used here and was pressed by the opposite side of the House that milling costs were altogether too high, and I, sir, made the point that other profits were included here, and that was taken amiss. Now I do not want to weary the House by going into the whole matter, but I say definitely that you cannot accept the statement that millers are making too much out of grinding fees at the expense of the consumer of bread. I say definitely that these large millers today are making their profit out of other produce like maize, beans and other things. I could go further into the matter but I won’t at this stage, but at the risk of wearying the House I must give a few figures about milling costs. The Wheat Board at the time took the report of the Board of Trade and Industries on the cost of milling and accepted that as a basis. After that I was not satisfied, my department was not satisfied, we thought the margin was too large, and we got a joint report from both the Marketing Council and the Board of Trade. They went jointly into this, and a basis was laid down. I would like hon. members to observe these figures. In the first place, railage both ways, 2s. 2d.; milling costs 1s. 6d.; cost of placing in bags 2¼d.; selling 4¾d.; bad debts 2½d.; administration costs almost 10d.; levy 1s.; interest charges 1s. 6d.; total 7s. 9.3d. Now these costs have been increased by 1s. 1d. as extra expense caused by the war. I do not think my hon. friend the member for Hospital Hill would be able to knock those down by much. I think any hon. member will have difficulty in knocking it down by 1s. but if these costs were reduced by 1s., it would only mean one eighth of a penny on a loaf of bread. You would have to knock it down by 2s. 6d. before you could cut ¼d. off a loaf of bread. And by 5s.which is half the cost, much more than half the milling cost, before he could save ½d. That is a point which hon. members should remember when complaining about the price of bread. I want to say that when this margin was fixed the Marketing Council took about 35 millers, large and small, and they took an average figure, not the most efficient and not the least efficient. Notwithstanding all this I do think that the miller is in a very good position, and before I left Pretoria I had already given the Marketing Council instructions again to go into the question of milling. But I do want to say—and this is a point which has not been answered—the hon. member says that the milling costs are too high and that large companies are making tremendous profits—these monopolies as the hon. member for Smithfield calls them—but he forgets that the small miller gets exactly the same milling costs, and he gets his quota of wheat, his wheat is even kept for him if he cannot pay cash. So the millers all get the same grinding fees. Now, if you accept it that the bigger millers make tremendous profits I should like to be told why many of the smaller millers have to go out of business. The hon. member has not explained how the large millers are oppressing the small ones, and pushing them out of business. I won’t weary the House by going into the same matter as far as the baking of bread is concerned. It is, of course, in the Report of the Wheat Commission.

What about the bad quality of meal that is made?

Well, now, I can only tell the House this, I can only give my opinion for what it may be worth to the House, and I want to say that in looking at the bread price which we fixed, I was satisfied that the baker was not making a fortune. I was satisfied, however, that the question of distribution left a lot to be desired and that some money could be saved there, and that is why we made the condition that if someone went to the baker he could buy his bread at 6d. over the counter. I would like to repeat that Mr. Fotheringham can sell his bread tomorrow for 6d. per loaf and no one will interfere with him. The minimum price is 5¾d. There is just one point I must clear up and then I am finished. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) has repeatedly come before this House with this one argument. He has a bee in his bonnet, and I must try and remove it in some way or other.

Smoke it out.

His argument boils down to this, that during the last war wheat was sold at £3 per bag and bread was still sold at 6d. and 6½d. per loaf, and that was his argument, which he has asked me to explain. He is continually harping back on that, so I want to give him the explanation. The explanation is that the figures which were given him at the time were per pound and not per 2 lb. loaf. Perhaps I need not say any more after that. I have taken the trouble since this matter was before the House to make special enquiries and I have got particulars from a baker who has baked bread since before most of us were born, and he has kept very careful statistics. Now, I shall give those figures. The wheat prices in 1914, 1915 and 1916 were 24s. 6d., 29s. 11d. and 33s. 2d. During that time the 2 lb. loaf was 6d. for white bread and 5d. for brown. That was the price to the 12th November, 1916; from the 13th November, 1916, to February, 1917, the price of bread was 7d. for white bread and 6d. for brown bread. In 1917 the price of wheat was 35s. 8d., in 1918 it was 35s. and in 1919 35s. The price of bread from February, 1917, to September, 1919, was 8d. for white bread and 7d. for brown bread. From September, 1919, to January, 1920, the price of bread was 9d. for white and 8d. for brown. In 1920 the price of wheat was 63s. per bag. From January, 1920, to May, 1920, the price of white bread was 10d. and brown bread 9d. From May, 1920, to the 2nd July, 1920, the price of white bread was 11d. and brown bread 10d. From the 3rd July, 1920, to the 20th July, 1920, the price of white bread was 1s. and brown bread 11d. From the 21st July, 1920, to the 2nd September, 1920, white bread was 1s. 1d. and brown bread 1s. Then from September, 1920, to December, 1920, the price of white bread was 1s. and brown bread 11d. From the middle of December, 1920, to the 23rd January, 1921, the price of white bread was 11d. and brown bread 10d. Then, to the 31st March it was 10d. for white bread and 9d. for brown. From the 1st April, 1921, to the 8th May, 1921, the price of white bread was 9d. and brown bread 8d. and on the 9th May, 1921, it went down to 8d. for white bread and 7d. for brown. From that date for many years prices remained at 8d. and 7d. for white and brown 2 lb. loaves respectively, and it is unnecessary for me enumerate recent changes as these are well known. Having given these figures it should settle that argument. But to this I would like to add that from May, 1918, to January, 1919, white bread had 17½ per cent. of mealie meal mixed with it, and the price of mealies was not anything like that of wheat. And then in respect of the 2 lb. loaf—the weight of which is fixed now—the baker had the right rather to juggle with the weight, and it was well known that generally the 2 lb. loaf was 1 lb. and 14 ounces. I need only mention that the conditions 25 years ago were very different from what they are today. I need only mention that the wages paid were about half of what they are today, and I think that all these conditions tend to show that the argument of the hon. member for Brits has no merit at all, and I do not think we should be worried about it again. I have nothing more to say about wheat. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) made one remark that if a man brings a bag of wheat to a big mill they take 30 lbs from it. I have no personal knowledge of that. I can enquire into it and at a later stage I hope to be able to satisfy my hon. friend on that point.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—76:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P.V.G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—53:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

I move as an unopposed motion—

Just a few words. There is one matter which I want to bring to light, and that is in connection with the precise amount which, together with the additional sum of £16,000,000, we have made available for defence this year. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister also intimated here that we only voted a sum of £80,000,000 on the Main Estimates, and that we are now voting an additional £16,000,000. That makes a total of £96,000,000. The Minister of Finance is here at the moment, and I should like him to testify this afternoon whether that is so or not. I said that the war expenditure account is made up, according to law, in the first place, of the amount which was brought forward from the previous year. The money which is spent on defence, is not taken out of revenue alone, but from an account, and that is a current account. What is not spent during one year is carried forward to the next year. Now I want to ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that we carried over from last year to this financial year an amount of £6,800,000—is that not a fact? We started with an amount of £6,800,000 in our war expenditure account. We then deposited into that account an amount of £80,000,000 under the Main Estimates, and then £16,000,000 under the Supplementary Estimates. The amount which has already been made available, therefore, is not £96,000,000, but it already stands at £103,000,000. Is that the case or is it not? Then, according to an Act which we passed last year, Act No. 41 of 1942, moneys are deposited into that fund which we spent on behalf of other governments in the past, in previous years, but which are repaid during the current year. Any moneys which are received from other governments in that way, in respect of work which we did, are deposited into the war account during the year. Now the Auditor-General tells us this in his report. He gives a statement of accounts. There is altogether an amount of £13,500,000 on the one side which he reflects as income, and there is still an amount of £3,500,000 representing arrears. But on the next page he says this, that although he puts this £13,500,000 under “income,” he is not certain whether that money has been received. I said that those amounts, totalling £17,000,000,—and we do not know whether that was paid into the war account or not—ought to be explained. If the Minister will only say how much of that £17,000,000 was paid by the British Government this year, then we shall know how much was paid into our war expenditure account, and then we shall know precisely what amount is spent on defence. If the Minister will tell us that, then we shall know what we are spending on the war. Where I blame the Prime Minister is that he gets up here and says that all we are spending is £96,000,000; although we know that there was an additional sum of £6,800,000 in the fund, which could have been spent; that we might have received in repayment this year, large sums which we spent on behalf of other governments. We could not have spent £96,000,000 only, but as I said, we might have spent £120,000,000. If the Minister of Finance will tell us how much he received by way of repayment, then we shall know what we might have spent under the war expenditure account.

I shall reply in just a few words, and it really will be a few words. The position is this. We started the previous year with a balance of nearly £7,000,000 on the account.

That is precisely what I said.

We ended the year with a balance, also on paper, of £8,600,000. That balance, to a great extent, consisted principally of amounts which had not yet been paid by other governments. That is the position. What happened is this. There were certain sums, not out of £17,000,000, but out of £13,000,000, which had not yet been paid by these other governments. That amount was more or less £3,500,000. But that sum is included in the amount of £8,000,000.

That is not reflected here.

If my hon. friend had had a little more knowledge of reading a balance sheet, he would not have made that mistake.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—76.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson. R. H.

Heyns, G C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—52.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry at the end of the day to take the House out of the calm and non-contentious atmosphere of agriculture into the stormy waters of a war debate, but we do not get away from the war; it remains our great, our dominant issue, both in this country and all over the world. This motion means a modification, it means a step forward in our war policy. Some would say a step backward, but it involves a modification of the war policy on which we have been acting since the 4th September, 1939. On the 4th September, 1939, we entered into the war under a certain reservation under which the Government was limited not to send any expeditionary force oversea. The third paragraph of that resolution reads as follows:

This promise the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) refers to in his amendment, that “the Government should not send forces overseas as in the last war.” If this motion is passed, Mr. Speaker, it will mean that we are deleting in fact this limitation which is imposed on the Government, this bar against sending forces oversea. That is one change, and the other change is the introduction of the principle that in no case will there be compulsion. Whatever forces are sent out of Africa overseas will have to consist of volunteers.

It is a confession about the past.

That, as hon. members know, has been the policy, the declared policy of the Government from the beginning, but it has never been a formal resolution of Parliament, and I think that now that we are taking a step forward, now that we are taking a step further in the prosecution of our war policy, it would be wise to limit the Government formally by a declaration of Parliament in order to prevent and to see that no forces are sent overseas which do not consist of volunteers. Now when eventually this motion is passed, certain steps will have to be taken by the Defence Department. We shall, for instance, have to submit to our forces and to the public generally who want to volunteer, a new attestation. The attestation which has so far been signed voluntarily by the public is an attestation for service in Africa, and that attestation, therefore, will not hold in respect of men who are sent overseas out of Africa. We shall therefore have to amend that attestation and submit a new one which will free us of this condition of service in Africa, and will make it possible for men to volunteer for service beyond this continent. It will also be necessary to make another change in the attestation. As hon. members know, we limited ourselves in the original attestation which has been in force for four years or the period of the duration of the war. We acted on the assumption that the war would probably be finished in four years, that that would be the maximum period. In all probability now it will not be finished in four years, and it is quite possible that at no distant date the attestation will therefore become ineffective, the four-year period will have expired, and men will no longer be bound to serve. Under the circumstances we shall have to submit to the public and to the men now in the forces, this attestation to serve for the duration of the war. I do not anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have any difficulty in getting the necessary forces for the purpose. Hon. members must bear in mind that in any case it will always be necessary for us to keep fairly large forces in the Union, for local defence and for contingencies. One never knows what may happen in a war. We shall want a large number of men here in any case, who will not be sent even out of the Union, and beyond that we shall have fairly substantial forces within Africa, even if Africa is cleared of the enemy—base troop forces for contingencies will always have to be kept there, and it is only the balance, it may be a fairly large balance, which the Government will be free to send beyond this continent. What I mean to say is this. It will not be necessary for’ the purpose of the war or carrying on the war, that every man should volunteer under this new attestation. A substantial number will probably serve the purpose. I also want to add this, that strict instructions will be given to the Defence Department, and through the Defence Department to our officers, to make this principle of volunteering real and effective, and not through official influence to exercise any form of compulsion, any form of persuasion.

A confession.

No, I make no confession.

Confession is good for the soul.

It is clear, sir, that when volunteering is laid down as a principle by Parliament, it will have to be kept in the spirit, and instructions will go forward from the Defence Department to the various organisations concerned with recruiting, that no undue influence should be used, no undue persuasion should be used, but the men should have a free choice in regard to the decision they are going co make. As I say, it is not necessary for every man, we do not need every man, to make this new attestation, and to volunteer for service beyond Africa. I have heard also a great deal about “blou-eed”. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no intention whatever to depart from that first flash which has become a symbol of honour in South Africa. If there is one symbol, one colour which all over the world is to-day the distinction of fighting South Africa, a symbol of honour, a symbol which expresses what is best in South Africa, it is this Orange flash, and that token of honour I am not going to trifle with. We do not want any other colour, whether men have volunteered merely for service in Africa or beyond, they will all be distinguished by the same colour.

And those in Parliament who get double salaries.

Let me just pass over now to some of the reasons which have led to this change I am proposing. Naturally, when we entered the war on the 4th September, 1939, everything was very obscure, nobody knew really what was going to happen. Here in this House and all over the country we were making a leap in the dark, and nobody knew what the future would be. Since then much has happened. Our first duty in those first days of uncertainty, the beginning of this war, was the defence of South Africa, of the Union. So that resolution that I have referred to put it in this way, the Government should take steps for the defence of the territory and the interests of the Union. We confined our interests to the Union from whatever direction our interests might be menaced, and so, as a matter of fact, we limited our activities, the scope of our war activities, to this Continent. We formed a Defence Force on the principle of volunteering, we sent men North to East Africa on a purely defensive basis. They were not equal to cope with the very much larger, stronger and more powerfully organised and equipped forces of Italy which they had to face in East Africa, and for a long time there was this purely defensive attitude. After that, as hon. members know, and as the world knows, this force went forward with their allies, they dealt with Abyssinia, and they achieved one of the outstanding achievements of this war in its earlier phases. I do not think that any two countries put up a finer fight, any two small countries put a finer fight than did South Africa and Greece against Italy. With our allies we finished that Italian army, which was many many times larger than our own in Abyssinia. The men of South Africa proved of what mettle they were made. That First Division, and especially that First Brigade of the First Division, brought immortal honour to South Africa. One remembers today, Mr. Speaker, the sad event of recent weeks, we remember that the man who led that wonderful First Brigade was Dan Pienaar, a man who has added fame to our Afrikaner people here in South Africa, whose fame as a soldier has gone over the world. When our task was finished in Abyssinia, it was necessary for us to go further, there was no point at which we could pause, the German forces were going into Egypt in order to help Italy, the Italian army there had been badly mauled by Wavell, and it was necessary for us at that stage to go forward. The cry came to us for help, and we sent our men forward into the Middle East, and into Egypt, and they had a wonderful career, such as probably no other army has ever had. Our South African forces had in the Middle East great victories, great defeats. We cannot forget, Mr. Speaker, that the Second Division, which had achieved that wonderful victory over the enemy forces in entrenched positions, that Second Division not long after was lost and had to surrender at Tobruk. I mention this simply to show the terrific struggle that took place in North Africa, in the Middle East in which our forces took part. After that disaster at Tobruk, the men in this country came forward and helped us to reconstitute the Second Division. The First Division was still there. They went forward right on to Kassala, and although they did not take any great part in that battle, which led to another smashing defeat for the British army and for our army, and to the capture of Tobruk, the First Division had the credit, at any rate, of a masterly retreat from Kassala over hundreds of miles to the El Alamein position. At that El Alamein position they had the honour of stopping Rommel. After that long retreat that might have been sufficient to break the spirit of any force, they stood their ground at El Alamein, and checked the victorious march of Rommel, which might possibly have reached Alexandria. At the next phase, when the turn of the tide came, this First Division of ours, the division that had been through Abyssinia, and all the heavy fighting for two years in the North, were the first to break through the entrenchments, the minefields and that wonderful fortified line of Rommel’s, and contributed in a very high degree to that astonishing defeat which was finally dealt to Rommel’s armies. In three months Rommel’s army had been driven back over hundreds of miles, and today practically with the exception of one small corner in that tip of Tunisia, the whole of the African Continent is free of the enemy. It is a wonderful achievement. It had its ups and downs for three years, for three years it was a battle against heavy odds, it was a defensive action that had to be fought against chances that were often very heavily against us, but after three years the turn has come, and this Continent is now on the point of being cleared, and cleared finally, of the enemy. Meanwhile, while this was going on, this great battle was going on which has led to the practical clearing of Africa, we also took part in the expedition to Madagascar. It may be said, Mr. Speaker, that we stretched a point, it has indeed been said that we stretched a point, and we went beyond the limitation imposed on us. We did send an expedition overseas, but it certainly was not any such expedition as was contemplated in the original motion. What really was referred to in the original motion was the sending of armies as we had done before to take part in the battles in Western Europe. This was a different case, and there was this to be said for our action that Madagascar was a point of a more vital threat to the Union than probably any other place. If Madagascar had fallen into the hands of the enmy, into the hands of Japan, it would have been a far more serious threat to the Union, a nearer and more vital threat than would have been East Africa and Kenya if that had fallen into enemy hands. Whatever argument one may use about the situation, there is no doubt that we served the interests of South Africa well in clearing our frontiers and the Indian Ocean and preventing Madagascar from becoming a submarine base, which might have had a very serious effect on the British position here in the Union. That is the position we have reached now; with one small exception we have cleared the African Continent, we have succeeded far beyond our highest expectations, we have taken part in operations which I hope are going to have a very far-reaching effect in the final issue of this war. I think the time has come when it is no longer necessary for us to keep this very large force inactive on the Continent of Africa. It is now possible for us to go forward and it is probably also our duty to go forward. It is necessary for us to clarify the position, and by a resolution of Parliament, to realse the Government and the country from that limitation which was imposed on us not to send expeditions overseas. I may say this, Mr. Speaker, that in removing this limitation, it is certainly not the intention of the Government to send our forces to far distant theatres. It is quite clear that we cannot stop where we are, we cannot, whilst the war is going on in the Mediterranean, whilst theatres quite close to Africa are becoming the principal scenes of the war, it is impossible for us to keep our forces inactive on the African Continent. There is no intention of sending forces either to America or the Far East, but there is an intention to take part in neighbouring theatres close to Africa, where the war is now probably going to take place, and where most likely the war may be fought out in the months to come. It is for this purpose, and for this reason, that the position has changed completely, the clearing of Africa that has been effected and the opportunity that has now occurred for us to extend our activities beyond this Continent to neighbouring theatres, that the situation calls for this amendment to free us of the limitation and the conditions which had been imposed on our action. In the first instance we had to look to Africa, South Africa and Africa first was the sound strategy from our South African point of view. But I personaly have always held the view that even from the larger point of view, from the point of view of our whole war strategy the African Continent was much more important than many other military thinkers thought it was. The African Continent, the clearing of the African Continent might have a far greater effect than merely securing the safety and the defence of African territories. If we could clear Africa we might use Africa as a base for wider operations. That view I have held, I held it strongly. There were great differences of opinion about it, but that view is today the prevalent view.

You did not say so on the 4th September.

No, because it was not necessary, that is the point I am making, the whole situation has changed. Nobody knew on the 4th September what the future would be.

You expected that change to come about.

Nobody could say; there was no prophet who could say on the 4th September what the ultimate strategy of this war was to be, but it is quite clear that once we could clear this continent we would not only render South Africa safe, secure the safety of our own country, but we would have a base from which to operate for the final victory in this war.

And for the British Empire.

When Africa is cleared, as it will be within a very short time now …

Are you sure of that?

We cannot be sure of anything, but I do not think I venture far afield in making that little prediction. When Africa is cleared, not only will our position here be fairly secure, but we shall be in a position to secure that victory on which our safety ultimately completely depends. It is no use merely thinking that we are safe while the war is going to be lost in the world. We are going to be in it to the full and to the end. I think it would not only be a mistake, but it would be a crime, and it would be impossible for us at this stage to sit back and to say we have achieved our end, “Africa is cleared; go home, boys.” It would be a crime for us to do so, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that nothing would be more deeply resented by our men, by our army in the North and elsewhere, than to sit in North Africa, to remain in the desert, whilst the battle for victory is going on further north. They would resent that extremely, and I think if the choice were put before our men, they would say, “Certainly not, we are for going on, and we are going forward.” I say that much has become clear since the 4th September. Much which then we did not understand, much on which we were then divided, is today clear. It is, for instance, beyond all dispute what the measure of Germany’s ambition was when she went into this venture. At that time we did not know. The argument that many people honestly and sincerely used was that Germany intended simply to remedy certain anomalies in the Treaty of Versailles. Today, after three years, events have proved that Germany had very different objects, the idea of dominating the world, of overriding all countries at all costs. That has been proved by events, and no argument is necessary any more to make that clear. It has also been proved, perhaps much better than anybody realised three and a half years ago, that Germany was a much more powerful country, much more powerfully organised, much more highly armed and prepared for the conquest of the world, which was the real object, These are things which have now become clear, and I think that if any justification were ever sought for the rightness of our action, if any proof were needed that this country in that dread hour decided rightly, that proof is given by the course of events of what happened. We have not looked for safety in neutrality like so many other smaller countries—we know that our only salvation lies in final victory. Things have proved how right we have been in the line we took. In fact, the German menace has proved of such supreme effect, far beyond any calculations of that time, that but for certain events which have happened Germany might have won the war. Many of our friends opposite had made up their minds that Germany would win, they made their plans on that, and they had a good deal of reason for it, because the German power was far greater, far greater than most people had thought. They had some justification for their anticipations which, thank God, have turned out wrong.

You mean, thank Stalin.

What a wise word was spoken there.

And you will live to regret it.

The anti-Christ fighting for Christendom.

I certainly take off my hat to Stalin, to those heroic Russian armies which have sacrificed themselves by the millions, and who have been used as an instrument for saving freedom for this world. I take off my hat to them.

Very amusing indeed!

You will lose your shirt to Stalin.

I say this in response to my hon. friend—no, sir it is not only Stalin, it is not only the coming of Stalin which turned the tide, it is also the coming in of America, and does my hon. friend object to that? After having spent so many years in that great country does he still object to America coming in to help us?

She was pushed in.

I am sure that my hon. friend does not prefer the company of Japan.

Neither of China.

A great change has come over the situation, and it is only the lack of faith and vision among many members opposite that made them make the wrong calculations as to the future. Things are changing. Three years of the hardest struggle and the greatest sacrifice which the world has ever seen. South Africa has made her sacrifices, too, very heavy sacrifices. Three years of the heaviest sacrifices, mostly in defensive warfare, mostly in hanging on. But the tide has turned. The advance of that great army, the German army, has been checked, it has been turned back.’ Japan has been checked and turned back in the Far Pacific. Germany is moving-back. A great change has come over the scene. Africa practically clear where we were in the greatest jeopardy not so long ago, and what is perhaps most significant of all, the supremacy of the air which is the decisive factor in this war, that supremacy has moved from Germany on to the Allies. Well, I notice from the papers this morning that a conference has taken place at Casablanca. That conference, judging from the statement, deals no longer with problems of defence, it is the problems of offence, the problems of how to arrange our offensive strategy for victory, and it shows the enormous change that has come over the scene.

How dare they consider their strategy without consulting you!

I think any man who today surveys the scene after three and a half years of war sees something very different from what there was on the 4th September, or the month that followed. Today we look upon a scene where although the struggle may still be fairly long, although it may go on into next year, and hard and bitter blows may still be struck, we can look forward and look forward firmly to victory, and we shall be in the right company in the end.

Yes, you will be in the company of Stalin.

Looking-back now, if we ask ourselves what the position would have been, not only the position of South Africa, but what the world position would have been if South Africa had made the other choice on the 4th September, 1939?

What about Ireland?

The position would have been this as I see it. In the first place Africa would have been in danger. Instead of being a practically free Continent as it is today, or will be tomorrow, Africa would have been in the greatest danger, and that would have applied to every State on the African Continent. Africa would have been in just the same danger, if not in greater danger, than Europe, where all these small neutrals have been submerged and wiped out. That would have been the position. And what is more, this Cape route would have been a battle front.

What nonsense!

We might have tried to be neutral but we would have converted this Cape route into a battle front which would also have cut us off completely from the world.

And what is our position now?

Now, with the resources which we have developed, with the Allies we have, with the air and sea power which we have, we are keeping the seas open and we can get our stuff to the markets.

That is also amusing.

We can get such supplies as we still want and we can carry on this country—not without difficulty or hardship, but we can carry on this country on a basis perhaps as favourable as any country in the world. Under the guise of neutrality we would have been cut off. This Cape route would have cut us off completely.

Who would have cut us off?

And what is probably of as great, if not of greater importance, we would have been one of the hated countries in the world.

Oh!

We would have been hated by our friends—yes, we would have been hated by our friends in Holland and by any other country. I should like to know what the position of South Africa would have been. What would have been cur affiliations, our associations, our friendships in the world if we had made the wrong choice and had been left in the stew in which our friends wanted to leave us—when they wanted neutrality for this country in the present and future, we have been saved and we are now in a position, we shall be in a position at the end of this war—and we can see what that end is going to be—we can look forward to a safe future for this country. We can look forward to progress and friendships and alliances which will guide our young footsteps to the greater future ahead of us. We chose the difficult path, and we are still choosing the difficult path. In the motion which I propose we are still making the bitter choice, the hard choice of going forward, when we might be sitting still. But I am sure that in making this choice we are saving our future, we are saving our self respect and the soul of the people of this country, and many other things will be added to us; we shall have our reward. I think the part which the people of South Africa have played and which they propose to continue to play to the end will be our title deed to security and prosperity in the years that await us.

I do not intend discussing the speech of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister at this stage. I understand that he has no objection to the adjournment of the debate at this juncture. I just want to say that the speech which we heard from the Prime Minister today, was just such a speech as we expected from him. He did not bring anything forward which was new, but he simply repeated his old arguments in his old way. He repeated this afternoon the same arguments which he used in the past, and he again played the role of prophet with reference to the future, and for the rest, he resorted to intimidation. His speech was interesting, but it was just the type of speech which we expected from him, and to a great extent it was amusing. I just want to say immediately that the attitude of this side, as the Prime Minister knows, is in direct contrast to his attitude, and for that reason we shall oppose, tooth and nail, the motion which he introduced. Instead of the permission which he seeks from this House and the country, we are of opinion that he owes an apology to this House and to the country. I therefore intend to move an amendment to the motion, but as the time for adjournment has come, I move—

I second.