I move—

I do not think that the motion is one contemplated by the Standing Order, and for that reason I am not in a position to put it to the House. I informed the hon. member of my decision when he submitted the matter to me this morning.

On a point of order, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are prepared to give the House the reasons why you cannot put this motion to the House? I am asking this for the information of hon. members of the House, so that we may know in future what kind of motions will be taken.

It is not necessary for Mr. Speaker to give any reason other than that already given, viz., that in my opinion the motion is not one contemplated by the terms of Standing Order No. 33. I might add that the matter was fully discussed with the hon. member when he consulted me this morning.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, will you ask the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) to inform us whether the released criminals are the internees?

That is not a point of order.

Last Monday afternoon the Hon. the Minister of Finance told the House one thing and another about the country’s financial position, and how he thought or hoped to conclude the financial year on the 31st March. He told us very little, but it was clear that the Minister right throughout tried to create a certain impression. He tried to create a certain psychololical effect among the public in connection with the country’s finances. The impression which the Minister tried to create on the public, so it appears to me, was that our sources of revenue in South Africa were so buoyant, that our sources of revenue were increasing so rapidly that in spite of the tremendous expenditure and it spite of the fact that the Minister, since the introduction of the Main Estimates, had to incur fresh expenditure—fresh expenditure to an amount of nearly £6,000,000—that in spite of that fact he was able to give South Africa the reassuring news that he hoped on the 31st March to conclude the financial year not with a deficit but miraculous to say, with a surplus. I am not allowed to quote from what has appeared in the Press. That’s quite correct, but I want to quote the words which the Minister himself used in this House and which were read right throughout the country. That as a matter of fact, is the impression which he tried to create by what he said here—that the result would be that the increased revenue would wipe out the whole of the estimated deficit. So pleased was one of the newspapers with this statement of the Minister’s that it announced to the public in big headlines, “Surplus expected”. Now, I want to ask the Minister this: How long is he going to carry on with this farce, this concealment of the country’s financial position from the public outside? Nobody knows better than the Minister himself that there is not the slightest possibility of there being a surplus in South Africa on the 31st March. Why does he not tell the public what the real position of affairs is? The Minister knows that there are a great many people in South Africa who are alarmed at the country’s financial position, who feel alarmed in regard to the future of the country’s finances. A great many people are greatly alarmed and now the Minister himself makes this announcement: “The deficit had been wiped out, and in fact we are going to have a surplus at the end of the present financial year.” He makes this statement to reassure the public, but he does not give them the true facts. I want to ask the Minister this today—I want to ask him when he intends placing really honest and correct balance sheets before the public? I want to ask him when he intends taking the people of South Africa into his confidence in the same way for instance as the Minister of Finance in Canada has done with the Canadian people? I have here in my hand an issue of the “Journal of the Parliaments of Empire” and I want to draw the attention of the Minister and of members of this House to it. There is a great deal of frankness here—this book speaks about “The Parliaments of the Empire” and tells its readers what has happened in countries like Canada and South Africa, in the countries which are usually called Dominions. Now I should like to compare the methods of our Minister of Finance with those of the Minister of Finance in Canada. How does the Canadian Minister discuss Canada’s finances with the people of that country? In the first place he deals with the financial position during the financial year, 1942-’43, and in that connection he says this, inter alia—

And then he continues—

And then we get this balance sheet which he submits—

There we have an honest and correct picture which was placed before the public of Canada. That was the position for the year 1942-’43 and then he comes to the Estimates for the year 1943-’44 and he says—

There you have an honest balance sheet submitted to the people. He states clearly:— “This is the country’s expenditure and this is the revenue, and that is the deficit which we are going to have.” Now, is that what our Minister of Finance has done? Does he place the position as clearly as that before the people of South Africa? No, he does not; instead of doing so he states that the deficit at the end of the financial year will be wiped out and that there is a possibility of a surplus. Why does not the Minister lay his cards on the table; why does he not tell the public that we are going to conclude the financial year with a deficit of at least £50,000,000?

The only thing is that you do not understand it.

That hon. member cannot even do a sum.

Personally I think it is of the greatest importance that so far as the country’s financial affairs are concerned, the Minister should be honest and frank towards the public and Parliament. I should like to point this out, that Parliament in South Africa is gradually beginning to lose all its functions. It is gradually losing its authority, its status, and its control over the Government. At one time the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial powers were clearly delimited. That is not the case today. The Government in power to a large extent holds the Legislative Authority of Parliament. It can proclaim regulations which have force of law, and in that way it has secured legislative authority. It also has judicial authority because it has the power to say which laws come within the jurisdiction of the courts and which do not. We no longer have a delimitation between the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial authorities. All powers are concentrated in the hands of the Government itself, and the only hold which Parliament and the people have on the Government is by means of financial affairs. I hope that this House and the country will give their assistance in seeing to it that the Government, at least so far as the financial control of the country is concerned, is called to account, to the very last details, to Parliament. One of these days the Minister of Finance has to come forth with his Budget for the next financial year, and he will then have to make a comprehensive report to us regarding the country’s financial affairs. Now I should like to ask the Minister this. Is he going to give us a correct balance sheet when he introduces his Main Estimates at the end of February or at, the beginning of March, or is he again to give us a manipulated or a cooked budget? I feel that after having quoted what I have quoted in regard to what happened in Canada, I dare ask him to follow Canada’s good example, and even though it may be unpleasant for him to do so he must tell the country clearly and explicitly how we are going to close off the financial year and how we are going to meet next year. Now, may I say a few words about the Additional Estimates themselves. I think the Minister agrees with me that it is a fixed rule in connection with Parliamentary procedure that on the Additional Estimates only such items of expenditure shall appear which have occurred suddenly and unexpectedly, items which could not have been anticipated, items which were unexpected, which were urgent, and in respect of which the Minister has had to take the responsibility to incur the expenditure. And that is the reason why he has to come to Parliament with the Additional Estimates to ask for approval of his actions. That is the test which we have to apply, and I should like to take each of these votes and submit each of them to that test. If those items of expenditure do not meet that test, then it means that we have had a slovenly drafting of the main estimates, that we have had either slovenly estimates, or that we have had a deliberate attempt on the part of the Minister not to submit all expenditure at the same time to the public, but to submit them to the people in instalments. I repeat that what we had was either slovenly work in the framing of the Estimates, or an effort not to place all the items of expenditure at the same time before the public, but to do it drop by drop, and in instalments. Now, so many million pounds are asked for, and within a short while another large amount of money will be asked for, so that the public shall not be scared unduly by being faced with such a large amount at the same time. To that test I want to submit the various votes.

Will you also tell us what you want to cut out.

Very well, I shall do so. First of all take the vote of His Excellency the Governor General. Here we are dealing with an item which no one could have expected. I do not know whether this expenditure is justified or not, I merely want to express the hope that when we reach the Committee stage the Minister of Finance on his own initiative will tell us why this expenditure was necessary. This is a matter which nobody could have anticipated. If it was necessary to incur the expenditure, then the Minister had to take the responsibility for it. Then we come to the vote “Prime Minister”. Here I notice quite a few items of expenditure, items which appear very strange to me. Take A.3 on the Prime Minister’s Vote, Incidental Expenses. Last year an amount of £3,000 was voted for this purpose, but suddenly a much larger amount has to be found now for these incidental expenses.

I suppose it is in connection with the joy ride.

Last year £3,000 was voted, and now it has suddenly been found that it is not sufficient, and the Prime Minister’s Department comes along and asks for another £8,000. So this item will not be £3,000 but £11,000. I think the House will agree with me when I say that we should be very careful with the money which we allow to be spent on items of this kind. This House agrees with me that to incur expenditure and to record it in a few general vague words—incidental expenses—cannot satisfy us, and I want to express the hope that the Prime Minister will give us the details tomorrow and tell us what this extra £8,000 is required for. I think the House is entitled to know this. The House has not only got the right to know it, but it is its duty to demand these details from the Prime Minister. How is this £8,000 made up? Here we find only a few vague words, and no details are given in regard to those incidental expenses. Then I come to the items of expenditure in respect of what is generally known as Unrra. In this respect an amount of £25,000 is asked for. I should like to know from the Prime Minister why there is such a hurry about this, and why this amount has to be asked for so suddenly. What has caused the Prime Minister now to spend this amount? I should like to know why he could not have waited for the Main Estimates. What makes it necessary so suddenly to ask for this amount on the Additional Estimates? I speak subject to correction but I believe that these funds are intended for the reconstruction and restoration work when the war is over in that part of Europe hard hit by the war. I again speak subject to correction but I should like to ask the Prime Minister: “Is the war over, and when will this committee, this body which has been established, begin to function, and why is there such a terrible hurry, so that we are now already asked for a contribution of £25,000?”

It is only a trivial amount.

It may be a trivial amount but the hon. member knows that it is only the first drop in the bucket.

Have you noticed what England has done?

Yes, I have. But I understand that the organisation has met in America and that the amount for which South Africa would be responsible was fixed at millions of pounds. I should like to have some details from the Prime Minister when his vote comes under discussion. We should like to know from him in the first place what all the hurry is because it seems to me that we are again busy doing what has been done so often, namely creating an army of officials somewhere in the world who will sit there twiddling their thumbs and playing about. That is practically all they do and we are expected to contribute £25,000 for the establishment of an army of officials somewhere in the world because there is nothing for them to do at the moment. One cannot start reconstruction and restoration work now in those countries which have been destroyed.

What about supplying food and clothes?

I want the Prime Minister to tell us exactly what the amount is for which South Africa will be responsible, and secondly I want him to tell us who is being assisted and helped. Is this really a humanitarian act, or what it is? Is it intended for a few nations, or for the whole of mankind? We want the Minister to give us all these details. We are asked here only for one drop of the total contribution which we shall have to make. What are our total commitments, and which nations are going to be helped? Is this again something exclusive or is it for the whole of mankind, is this something for everyone who has suffered from the war? And now I come to the Treasury, and we find here that even the Treasury originally asked for too little money. But if it is the intention in asking for this additional amount to provide for the better collection of revenue, then we have no quarrel with this provision. In the Main Estimates, however, such appointments are clearly specified. It is stated there what new officials have been appointed, what work they do, and what their salaries are. We hope that when we get to the vote the Minister will be able to give us all that information. And so I can go through all the votes, but I have not got the time to do so. I should, however, like to say a few words on the Agricultural Vote— Assistance to Farmers. I am referring to Vote No. 20 and I should like to say a few words, particularly with reference to the amount of £280,000 which we are asked to vote for the Deciduous Fruit Industry. I want the House to understand me very clearly. We on this side of the House are not opposed to control being exercised by farmers over their own industry. We are in favour of the principle of giving the farmer control over his own industry. That we are in favour of. But it is because we are so very strongly in favour of that principle that we resent it very much if the Boards do their work so badly that they endanger the whole principle of control of the farmers’ products, and that is the charge which I want to make today against the Deciduous Fruit Board. They do their work so badly, there is so much incompetence in connection with the administration of this Deciduous Fruit Board, that today not only are the consumers full of grievances and dissatisfaction, but the farmers are just as dissatisfied. I want to tell the Deciduous Fruit Board in the first place that its administration is weak. One writes to the Board but never gets a reply. It is practically impossible to get a reply from the Board in good time. Farmers write about important matters, and they wait and wait but they get no reply. May I be allowed to give an example which will show the results to the farmers if they cannot get a reply? Two young farmers bought a farm in the Long Kloof. This was towards the end of last year, about September or October. After they had bought the farm certain fruit, including peaches, plums and grapes, were put under control. Nothing can be done without reference to the Deciduous Fruit Board. At the end of November when the crop was nearly ready they wrote to the Deciduous Fruit Board to sell their crop gradually, as the fruit became ripe, to a certain large fruit dealer. This was towards the end of November. They waited the whole of December. At the beginning of January they had not yet had a reply from the Deciduous Fruit Board. That is the position in which the farmers are placed. The fruit is ripe on the trees; they either have to sell, or the fruit rots on the trees. They write to the Deciduous Fruit Board; they have to do so, because they are not allowed to do anything without the consent of the Deciduous Fruit Board, but they cannot get a word from the Board. What does the Minister think of that sort of thing? These people either have to watch their fruit crop going bad, or they have to break the regulations. That did not happen only in the one case which I have mentioned, but that is the complaint one gets from farmers right throughout the country. One cannot get a reply from the Deciduous Fruit Board. The Board is a body which has been given full power over the deciduous fruit industry, and as hon. members know, the deciduous fruit industry has to be handled quickly—one has to work fast unless one wants to lose one’s fruit. And here these people sit and wait week in and week out without getting any reply from the Deciduous Fruit Board. I can mention another instance. This is also in connection with the complaints of the public generally, that whatever is handled by the Deciduous Fruit Board becomes more and more scarce and more and more expensive. I am going to mention the matter from the point of view of the farmer in order to show that not only have the consumers the right to complain, but that the farmers too have well founded grievances. The Long Kloof is in the centre of the timber world, and there are quite a number of timber merchants who manufacture fruit boxes. Fruit farmers require boxes for their fruit. In the past the farmers used to get their fruit boxes from the local timber merchants at £60 per ton. Last year the price went up to £70 per ton. This year the industry was placed under the control of the Deciduous Fruit Board, and those fruit boxes now have to be ordered by them, and the price immediately went up to £86 per ton. If it were not for the Deciduous Fruit Board the farmers would still have been able to get their boxes direct from the local timber merchants at £70 per ton, but now the price has gone up to £86. And the thing that has put the consumers up in arms against the Deciduous Fruit Board has also happened in regard to the farmers. The position becomes so serious that one of the big fruit farmers co-operative societies in this country took a resolution at its annual meeting, which they sent to me, and this is what that resolution said—

The people who took that resolution on the 11th January were fruit farmers, and the reason, as I have said, is that, the Deciduous Fruit Board does bad work and the administration of the Board is inefficient. The farmers are dissatisfied and the consumers are suffering. I ask hon. members to think of the scandal in connection with the sale of grapes, peaches—do hon. members realise that on the Johannesburg market today one can buy fruit cheaper than in Cape Town which is in the heart of the fruit industry.

We pay cash for our fruit.

In regard to the other matters which I want to raise, I shall raise them when the House is in committee. I only hope that the Minister, when he replies, will tell us whether he is going to follow Canada’s good example, yes or no, and whether he will give the public an honest, correct and true balance sheet at the end of the year.

We have listened to the Opposition critics on public expense, and from the moment the hon. member got on his feet were were all impressed by the fact that there stood a very disappointed man. As a matter of fact, the financial position of the Government and the financial position of our country has not been a source of worry to the Opposition in the sense that it has been very bad; but is has been a source of worry to the Opposition in that it has been so very good. After the Election in July the Opposition of course expected almost every day, every week, every month, that Parliament would be called together. Why? Because Parliament would need more money; instead of which Parliament has been called at the ordinary normal time that. Parliament meets, in January, because the finances of the country were so well provided for by the Minister of Finance in April last, that he had enough money to carry on the business of the country, despite the fact of the war we are waging and the place South Africa has filled in this struggle. I think it is unique in the history of any one of the United Nations that from that point of view alone the Parliament of any one of these nations has been able over a recess of something like seven or eight months, without having been called together, to get enough money to carry on its war activities. The Minister of Finance provided very well in April and March for the year’s expenditure, so that it was unnecessary to call Parliament together to vote more money. That is why my hon. friend is so disappointed today. Disappointed as he is, he tries to impute to the Minister of Finance something ulterior, something dishonest. We know very well that the system of finance in this country for years and years has been that you have a budget out of which you take current expenditure, and out of which you take loan expenditure, and at the end of the year if your current expenditure and your loan expenditure as voted by Parliament balances, then you have a balanced budget. That is the system we have today. That is the system that the Minister of Finance has today, and, so far as I know, it is the system that has been followed since Union. He has done nothing differently. In the old days of the government of the party of which my hon. friend is a member, they carried this system on for years and years and years, and every year, as far as I remember, they also had to come for additional money—additional estimates had to be passed in this House. There is nothing new about that. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has indeed talked for an hour about nothing. All the time he has tried to get over that one suggestion to the country that the Minister of Finance is doing something no other Minister of Finance has ever done; in other words, that he is trying to bring before this country a dishonest balance sheet, a cooked balance sheet, if you like. If he has done that, that has been done since Union, since 1910. That is the method we have laid down as our financial policy, and at the beginning of the war, to the astonishment of many people, the Minister of Finance said, more or less, “You will pay from current revenue 50 per cent. of our war expenditure and you will pay 50 per cent. of our war expenditure from loan account.” Many people, many financial pundits, said that that was too big a strain to put on the financial resources of this country. During early war years those views were urged; for war years the demands on the public purse of this country have been greater and greater; and yet the Minister of Finance has been able to meet the expenditure on that basis. I say there is no other country among the United Nations that has been able to do such a thing.

No other country in the world.

Well, I don’t know whether Hitler can go nine months without having to find more money. Imagine if Hitler had to abstain for nine months from any financial schemes. It is unimaginable. My hon. friend claims to be a great Afrikaner; he claims to be a great lover of South Africa; my hon. friend is second to none in his faith and trust in South Africa, but nearly every time he gets up in this House he cries stinking fish in regard to everything about South Africa. Would it not have been a nice gesture for my hon. friend if he had said something about the wonderful resources of South Africa, about the wonderful work that has been done in South Africa these last few years, how we met the storm and how we paid our way, as no other country in the world has done? Is it not something to be proud of? Is it not something to make every South African’s heart thrill, that we in our land have been an example to many other countries in the world? It is most unfair of my hon. friend to make no mention of our resources and of the power of South Africa, and how it has met this world storm. When he came to the actual estimates, I really then expected my hon. friend would be able to tell the Minister how he could have saved money. He first of all gives the impression to the House and to the country that a good Minister of Finance would not have needed to come to this House for additional money at all. I have shown how wonderful it is that he has been able to wait so long before he has had to come for money. Take any normal pre-war year, let us take 1936, when additional expenditure was asked for, something like 3 per cent. of the estimates, and it is rather remarkable to find that the additional expense we are asking today is only something like 3 per cent. of the estimates. They asked for additional amounts in 1936 under the following headings: His Excellency the Governor General, Prime Minister and External Affairs, Superior Courts, Magistrates, etc.; a sum of £250,000 for labour, £150,000 for farmers etc.—a total amount of just on £1,000,000, in time of peace. I think when the hon. member for George suggests that the fact of the Minister coming here and asking for additional expenditure shows that his budgeting is bad, that his handling of the finances of this country is bad, what about all the finance ministers before him? What about the same kind of thing having happened in time of peace as is happening today? I say this, Mr. Speaker, that any honest student of the finances of South Africa must be amazed at how well we have stood this test, how splendidly we have come out of this fiery ordeal; and from the financial point of view and the handling of the finances of this country, we have got a Minister of Finance perhaps second to none amongst the nations whose budgets we can hear of today. They may have a better man in Italy, they may have a better man in Germany, but there is no country of the United Nations that I know of where the Minister of Finance has handled better the finances of the country than our present Minister of Finance. I know that my hon. friend the member for George had a very disappointing task to perform today, and he has performed it as disappointingly. The Opposition, as I say, are only surprised that the Government has been able to carry on and spend the huge sums that have been necessary, with so little disturbance of their original budget. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, the Department of Finance, has shown itself competent, has shown itself efficient, and we in this House should, I take it, express views along these lines—that this task that South Africa has been set on the financial side, has been performed well and efficiently, and with results that make every South African proud of South Africa.

I do not propose saying very much about what the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Mushet) has said, I only want to remind him of the fact that what he did this afternoon was to put up a number of skittles, only to knock them down himself, and then to say: “Look what a clever chap I am.” He did not try to contradict or disprove the contentions of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) regarding the way the Minister of Finance is engaged in misleading the public of the country about the true financial position of South Africa. The hon. member for George made certain assertions and the only reply the hon. member gave was to say that we have such a good Minister of Finance and that South Africa’s financial position is sound. That is not the question at issue— the debate concerns the way in which the Minister of Finance represents the country’s position to the House and to the public outside. Now I want to busy myself more particularly with the amount of £280,000 which is now being asked for on Vote No. 20 for the Deciduous Fruit Industry in respect of the season 1943-’44. When I speak about this I want to deal more particularly with what to my mind is really wrong with the marketing in Cape Town and other large towns, so far as the farmers’ products are concerned. This amount of £280,000 is being given to the Deciduous Fruit Industry as a subsidy, to enable that industry to control the sale of deciduous fruit, and to take the product in a more effective manner and at a cheaper price to the consumer. When we discuss the question of deciduous fruit and of taking that fruit in a more effective manner to the consumer, then we not only have in mind those particular fruits, but all perishable products. What I say here about one perishable product also applies to the others. A good deal of criticism is being levelled against the Perishable Products Board today. It is a good thing that that criticism is being levelled. There are complaints of the way in which the Perishable Products Board has done its work. There are complaints from the consumers but there are also complaints from the farmers, and I personally, as a farmer, have a good many complaints to make against them. But I want to say this, that although I have complaints of the way in which the Perishable Products Board does its work, I am by no means against the principle of the farmer having control by means of such Boards over the sale of his own products. I hope that if criticism is levelled againt the Board such criticism will not be against the principle of such Board, but only of the manner in which the Board does its work. In regard to the marketing of perishable products and the control thereof, we had the vested interests which had complete control over the marketing of the farmers’ products, we had these vested interests which had the handling of those products in their hands. It is for that reason that the farmers learnt with a great deal of disappointment and suspicion that a price controller had been appointed in South Africa, a certain Mr. Keegan, a man representing interests which are in direct conflict with the farmers’ interests. We now have this position, that the, man who is able to determine the price which the farmer is to get for his product is not friendly disposed towards the farmers, he is in an objective position towards the farmers, but a man who has come from, and who belongs to certain vested interests, to a class of vested interests to whose benefit it is to bring down the farmers’ products to as low a price as possible. In other words, he is a representative of the element which wants to see that the farmers get less for their products than they used to get in the past, and who will not assist the farmers, I am afraid, to get a reasonable price for their products. If criticism is levelled against the Perishable Products Board I hope that such criticism will not come from the farmer against the principle of control because we are all in favour of producers having control over their own products, over the distribution of those products, and the prices which are to be paid for them. If one goes to buy a Ford motor car in any garage today, it is Henry Ford who determines how much one is to nay for that motor car, even if one buys that car in Long Street, Cape Town. If one buys a shirt it is the hon. member who spoke just now (Mr. Mushet) who says how much that shirt is to cost, in whatever shop one buys it, But if one buys a farmer’s product it is not the farmer but the dealer, the vested interests, the person whom the Minister has now appointed as controller to determine at what price the farmer’s products are to be sold who determines what the price is to be.

That is quite wrong.

The whole principle is different. The position is that the farmer today has no say in the control of his products. With the Fruit Board a start was made to bring about a change in the right direction. This is the first time that an effort has been made to give the farmer an opportunity, so far as perishable products are concerned, of determining what the price is going to be, and that is why I say that the matter is an important one, so far as we are concerned.

We had exactly the same position last year. The farmers then had exactly the same say and they did the same thing as they did this year.

I am not trying to say that it has been done just recently, at this exact moment. What I want to say is that this Board was established comparatively recently, and the point I am trying to make is that attacks are going to be made on the Perishable Products Board and those attacks will come from people who want to see that Board and similar boards abolished. Those attacks will be made in this House, and they will be made as a result of criticism which can be made and can rightly be made of the manner in which the Board has done its work. We admit that the Board has made many mistakes, and those mistakes will now be used by those people in order to advocate the abolition of that Board. We on this side of the House believe that justifiable criticism can be made, but we are not in favour of such criticism being used as a reason to advocate the abolition of the Board. Because by means of those Boards the farmer now for the first time is getting a say in the sale price and distribution of those particular products. The establishment of this Board is due chiefly to the fact that just as in the case of other Boards and products there was a surplus of farming products at certain times. I think the Minister will agree with me in that respect. On account of the fact that we used to export many of those products in the past and no longer have that export market today, there was a surplus of those products on our local markets in South Africa. The Boards were established in order to secure a more even distribution of the products and in order to avoid temporary accumulations of fruit by keeping fruit off the markets at those times, and thus spread the distribution over a longer period. That is the cardinal idea behind this scheme. But our complaints as farmers against this are twofold. In the first place our complaint is that the scheme is not sufficiently comprehensive. It should not only be applicable to the marketing and distribution of fruit, but it should apply also to the marketing and distribution of all perishable products grown by the farmers, and the fixing of prices should not be confined merely to fruit but it should be extended to all perishable products. May I be allowed to take this matter a little further? I want to say a few words about certain things that have happened on the vegetable market here in Cape Town— things which have probably also happened on other markets.

Can the hon. member indicate to me which vote this discussion relates to? There is a vote here in connection with the Deciduous Fruit Industry, but the hon. member is now speaking on a totally different subject.

No, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to explain? I am making these remarks because the Deciduous Fruit Board has been created for the purpose of avoiding certain things which have taken place in connection with vegetables, and not, in connection with fruit, just because the Board was there. An attempt will be made to get this Board abolished, and if it is abolished the same thing can and may take place with fruit as have now taken place in regard to vegetables. My first point therefore is that the scheme is not sufficiently comprehensive. The object of the scheme is to bring the farmers’ products to the consumer, and my contention is that the scheme does bring the farmers’ products a little closer to the consumer, it brings the farmers’ products closer to a small section of the consumers, it brings it closer to an increased number of consumers—a small number, but there is every possibility of bringing it to a larger number of consumers than is the case under the present scheme. So far as the fruit industry is concerned, and so far as all other perishable products are concerned, we need a new marketing scheme behind which we require people with a little imagination. Let me tell the House what happened before the Fruit Board came into being, let me tell the House what happened in regard to fruit and what is now happening in regard to vegetables because there is no such Board to deal with vegetables. Of late there has been a slump on the Cape Town Vegetable Market, there has been a slump in cabbage, a slump in onions, a slump in green beans and in squashes—all during the last three months. About two months ago squashes were sold at 9d. and 1s. per bag of 70 lbs. which means about 150 to 200 squashes for 9d. Before the slump the price per bag was about 7s., and the housewife had to pay 1s. for 8. When the slump came the price so far as the producer was concerned dropped from 10s., 8s. and 7s. to 9d. and 1s., but the housewife still had to pay just as much as before. There was a time, two months ago, when housewives bought green beans for 5d. and 6d. per lb. and in those days the farmers were getting 3d. to 4d. per 1b. During the slump the farmers sold a 35 1b. bag for 1s. on the market, but the housewives still had to pay 5d. and 6d. per lb. The price of fruit and vegetables on the Cape Town market has nothing at all to do with the price which housewives have to pay for those products. What is happening now in regard to vegetables has for many years been going on also in regard to fruit. Now the question is why is it that the housewives in Cape Town—and I assume that we find the same position in other towns although I only have experience of the Cape Town market, why is it that the housewives in Cape Town cannot get the benefit of the low prices which the farmer has received for his products? The reason is the manner in which the distribution takes place here in Cape Town, and in which, I think, it also takes place in other towns. Now, how does the distribution of products such as fruit and vegetables, which are perishable, take place here in Cape Town? The distribution takes place mainly in two ways. The first way is that coolies and coloured men become hawkers of vegetables—they have their little carts, their little wagons and their lorries. In the second place distribution takes place through vegetable shops which mostly belong to Greeks. Those are the two principal means of distributing the farmers’ products among the public here in Cape Town, and I wish to show the House how the system works. Take the case of the coolie or the coloured man who goes to the market in the morning and loads up his cart with vegetables. He has certain streets where he sells the vegetables and where he has his customers. His custom is on a fairly loose basis, but still the people buying from him are more or less his customers. He loads up his cart with fruit and vegetables and he goes and sells his fruit in that area. He is accustomed to get a certain price for his fruit and vegetables and he knows that the housewives in that area are prepared to pay him, say, £2 for that load of vegetables. Whether he has paid £1 or 5s. for that load makes no difference in the price because he knows he can get £2 for it, and if the market price is low it simply means that he puts the additional profit into his pocket. We have the same principle in connection with the vegetable shops. Such a vegetable shop perhaps has 50 to 100 housewives who regularly come and buy their vegetables there, and they buy at a more or less fixed price. It makes no difference whether the shopkeeper has had to pay a high or a low price for his goods, he is not going to change his price to the public because he has no opportunity of getting any increased custom as the custom is divided more or less between the various shops. Those shopkeepers keep the prices as they are because they know how much they can sell and to whom they can sell. It simply means that this vegetable seller puts the benefit of a lower price into his own pocket. That is the reason why such a Board should be created, because there is no controlling element in the towns so far as the price of the farmers’ products is concerned. Something of the kind should be created, but that in itself is not sufficient. There is only one way, and that is that the whole marketing of perishable products should be taken out of the hands of the Municipalities. They have proved that they do not take any real interest in this matter. True, we have found them willing to establish markets, but they establish those markets not with the object of bringing the farmer and producer together, but only because it is the custom for every town and every dorp to have a market. That has been the custom ever since the days of yore, and that is why Municipalities establish those markets. But there is no economic principle in the running of those markets. Nobody with a real knowledge of affairs, nobody who is really anxious to bring the farmer and producer together, has control over those markets. One can only do it in one way, and that is by taking the Municipal markets out of the hands of the Municipalities and placing the control over those markets in the hands of some central controlling body. But even if that were done it would only be the beginning of things. We often read what the Minster of Lands has told us, that under a controlled scheme one or two depots have been opened where the public can buy its products. At those depots products can be bought cheaply, but experience has taught us that people do not go to those depots to buy vegetables and fruit there. The reason is that the housewife in South Africa, just as in any other country of the world, is one of the laziest when it comes to leaving her house to do shopping. She is not going to walk twenty yards to buy any commodities if she can get it within five yards, even if she has to pay more for it. It has been proved over and over again that the housewife all over the world will not go any distance to buy her products if she can get those products even at a somewhat higher price at her own house. If we were to establish a depôt at the Cape Town market and say another two or three throughout the Peninsula, it would make no difference, because the housewives would not go there—and probably they have not got the time to go there. In a town like Cape Town one would not require one or two distribution depots but twenty or twenty-five throughout the Peninsula and the Suburbs. Those distribution centres should be branches of the Central Market and they should be so situated that it would never be necessary for the housewives to go more than three quarters of a mile to get to one of the depots, and if that were done we would get the position that the prices charged by the vegetable hawkers and by the Greek vegetable shops would be regulated by the price charged by the depot. Today one finds that the housewife in Sea Point or in Claremont buys a cabbage for 1s., which that hawker has perhaps paid 2d. for on the market. Of course, she cannot go to Cape Town market to buy one cabbage. She pays that price because she has no option, but if the depot were within easy reach of her home that Greek or Coolie would no longer be there and would no longer charge more than the price at which she could get her vegetables at the depot because the hawker would very soon realise that if he were to charge higher prices he would lose all his custom. The fact that the housewife can always go to the depot will fix the price for the hawker or the vegetable shop. And not only that, but it will bring down the retail price of fruit and other perishable products to the consumers, because the farmer and the consumer in that way are brought into close touch. But if we want to carry out a scheme of this kind, it will need more than £280,000. Large sums of money will be required, so much money in fact that the Minister of Agriculture will perhaps say that it is impossible to spend those large amounts. We shall really need as much money as it now costs us to run this war for four or five days. But it will bring the farmer into direct contact with the consumers and by that fact alone we shall reach a solution of the great problem which we are faced with in regard to perishable products. There is a great difference between what the farmer on the one hand gets for his perishable products and what the consumer on the other hand has to pay. On the one hand we find that the farmer gets an inadequate price for his products whenever there is the slightest accumulation of certain products on the market. I can speak from experience. I sent certain products to the market and I got 10s. per bag. Two days afterwards I got 1s. per bag. There was no difference whatsoever in the quality of the products. In a few days the price dropped from 10s. to 1s. per bag, but in spite of that the housewife had to pay the same price right through. One will only be able to do away with that kind of thing by bringing the farmer and the consumer together and by having a proper system of distribution depots in our towns where the consumer and the producer are brought into contact with each other. If that is done it will not be necessary for us afterwards to spend money loosely in the way we are doing now. Surely the expense cannot be so heavy, apart from the initial capital expenditure which may be required? Municipal markets are not run at a loss and if there is a loss it is a very trivial one. The fees which are paid are not high. They are very much less than the costs of transport, and they are less than the commission paid to the agents, and in spite of those small marketing fees the Municipalities make the markets pay, or they make them almost pay. And if we undertake the capital expenditure and build up the distribution centres, the expense will almost be met without raising marketing fees. If we do that, and if it is done in a proper way, we shall not be establishing in Cape Town two, three or four distribution centres; if we do that the whole scheme is doomed to failure. Why does not the Minister make some experiments? Let him take Cape Town, Pretoria or Johannesburg and make an experiment, let him establish sufficient distribution centres in any of those towns so that what I have suggested here can be carried out. If he does that he will be able to see whether he has been successful in bringing the consumers and producers together, and he will be able to see whether that is hot a good solution of his problem. If the experiment is a success he can go on with it in other towns. I know the Cape Town market. I have been selling products there for thirty years, and I know how hopeless the position is today. If the Minister selects Cape Town for his experiment, I can tell him that he will have full support from the farmers, and if his experiment proves a success here in Cape Town, he will be able to extend it to other parts of the country. I am convinced that if such a system is created, a great deal of the money that is spent on those boards and similar institutions will no longer be necessary because we shall be able to get at the root of the evil and in that way we shall be able to solve this great problem.

The hon. member who has just sat down rather twitted my colleague on not having replied to the remarks of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). If I may venture to do so this afternoon and try to reply to some of the statements he made I would say that they were a little involved, but I must say that on the whole the hon. member gave a good deal of satisfaction to this side of the House. The hon. member went to Canada for an example and I hope he will in future always follow the example of a sister Dominion.

I am always prepared to follow a good example.

The hon. member started off by saying that the Minister of Finance had misled the country with regard to the financial position, and he quoted the Canadian example which had been set in the presentation of the budget to the country. Now I should like to ask the hon. member if he were to read in the same journal from which he quoted the statement submitted on behalf of South Africa to any independent audience, whether that audience would have been misled at all by the figures which were presented there in respect of South Africa’s financial position? I am going to read one or two of the paragraphs which appear in this journal and I think you will agree that to any dispassionate audience it must be perfectly clear what the expenditure was that was being made in South Africa on behalf of the war and on behalf of social services. There is no need to go through the whole of the budget statement.

On Monday he gave the impression that there was a surplus and not a deficit.

The hon. member said that he misled the country.

He said that I gave a cooked statement in my budget speech last year.

Now, here is what the Minister said—I am quoting from the same journal the hon. member quoted from—

Now in that paragraph it shows very clearly that from expenditure from the ordinary revenue services of the country there will be £52,250,000 spent on social services, and £48,000,000 on Defence. Hon. members can work it out and see that the position is perfectly clear and there is nothing misleading. Then, if hon. members will turn over the leaf in the same journal and read what the Minister said under the heading of “Loan Account”—

By means of borrowing.

It says here “by means of taxation.” That shows very clearly that the total expenditure of the country less recoveries was £155,000,000. And these figures are taken from the self same journal. Now I would ask the House to be perfectly fair—is there any misleading anyone as to what the expenditure and what the financial position of the country was? The hon. member said definitely that the Minister had misled the country. I would ask him whether his Canadian audience, if they read that, would have been misled? I think the hon. member makes a mistake in using extravagant language. I don’t want to cast any reflections or make any remarks about the hon. member’s financial capacity.

You might find that very difficult.

But when you have the facts before you as in that same journal it is clearly laid down what the financial position is, then it seems that the hon. member is going very far when he says that the Minister had misled the country. The hon. member also criticised various items and the way he started off gave one the impression that practically every item was going to be criticised. I was waiting for him to criticise the additional expenditure on the farmers’ votes but he did not do so. But now let me say that there has been a great deal of criticism in regard to a number of these boards. I think there is a feeling right throughout the country that things have not been altogether happy in regard to those boards. But I want to point out that these boards have been created as a result of the direct wishes of the farmers of this country; I am particularly referring to the Deciduous Fruit and the Citrus Board. Some of the criticism has been perfectly justified but I would say this, that it is up to everyone to try and assist the boards in their very difficult tasks, and the boards would be very much better if they obtained the assistance of business men in their work. There is always the strong opposition to placing business men on any of these boards, but I venture to say that if some of these boards—most of them— were strengthened by experts in their own particular sections a good many of these difficulties would disappear. I know today it is true that fruit is probably more expensive in Cape Town than we have ever known it to be, but we are getting good fruit—sometimes. The other day in Pretoria we had good fruit sent up from here but on arrival one quarter of it had to be regraded or condemned. A good many of these difficulties could be overcome if the functions of the board could be extended, and if they could bring into co-operation with them some of the expert business men who know these jobs. And that is what I would commend to the Minister.

What about the consumers?

The hon. member asks about the consumer. Obviously, if you are to get fruit under a better system of marketing and prices are lowered all the way round, the consumer will benefit as well, but it means that you must get good business men on these boards.

I believe both the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) and the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) are business men; at any rate, they call themselves business men. Now I should like to know this from them. If they draw up a balance sheet and they draw it up as follows: “This is my income in respect of this item; this is my income in respect of the other item; this is my expenditure; this is money which I borrowed on first mortgage; my nett profit is so much.…”

Or loss.

The hon. member knows perfectly well that if he does that, and he approaches the bank with such a statement, he will be put in gaol. The hon. member for Vasco also knows that. If he shows borrowed money in his balance sheet and he shows a nett profit, taking into account the borrowed money, and he then pretends that it is income, and he goes to the bank with such a statement and borrows money on the strength of that statement, he will get into trouble. We do not come here to amuse ourselves. We must say what the true position is. If the Treasury’s income is so much and the expenditure is so much, and the expenditure exceeds the income, the balance sheet does not balance.

You do not know what the difference is between a balance sheet and a profit and loss account.

The hon. member who has just interjected need not talk. I also have a little business experience. I know that if I were to do a thing like that I would get into trouble.

You still don’t know the difference.

It is no use telling me this, that or the other appears in the parliamentary magazine. The position is simply this. Our Estimates show a deficit, and we borrow money in order to make good that deficit. That is the position, and the money which we borrow does not constitute revenue. We have consequently no balance in our favour. That is the position. No hon. member on the other side has tried to refute that fact. They had something to say about the Deciduous Fruit Board. I really wanted to raise this matter in Committee, but I shall do so now in view of the fact that the ten minutes allowed to members in Committee, do not permit of full discussion. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he realises that he is giving £280,000 in the form of a subsidy to the Deciduous Fruit Board. I have no objection to that. He could give even more if they were entitled to it. I should like to have the Minister’s attention. I should like the Minister of Finance to hear what I am saying, because he is the person who has to tell the Minister of Agriculture how much money he can get. The wine farmers are being asked to subsidise the Deciduous Fruit Board. The Deciduous Fruit Board costs us £100,000 every year. If the Government feels that the deciduous fruit farmers have made out a good case for a subsidy, give them a subsidy, but do not ask the wine farmers to give such a big subsidy. Look what happens when they sell their grapes. If the Government gives them a subsidy, it gives that subsidy because the farmers sell their grapes in the form of fruit. Why not leave it in the form of fruit? Why do you allow them to ask such a high price for their grapes so that they are not in a position to sell it? I should like the hon. Minister to know that these people are now asking us for a permit to make good wine. Well, can you make good wine from table grapes?

Who is asking for a permit— the Deciduous Fruit Board?

Yes, that is the position. You know that there is a big surplus of good wine. There is a big surplus of distilling wine, and if the Deciduous Fruit Board makes wine, which after all cannot be good wine because it is not made of wine grapes, it means more distilling wine, which in turn means that the wine farmer receives less for his wine. If the hon. Minister gives a subsidy to these people because they sell the grapes and because they have lost their export market, steps should be taken to see that they keep it off the wine market. Why should we wine farmers who already have a surplus of forty per cent. this year, have to receive this distilling wine from them and pay them £100,000 for it? We do not require it. The country does not require it. And if they cannot sell it, why do they not give it away? There are thousands of people in this country who are too poor to buy grapes. There are thousands of people in this country who cannot afford to pay sixpence per pound for grapes.

[Inaudible.]

Not only in the Eastern Province but in Natal and in the Transvaal and everywhere. If the Deciduous Fruit Board had appointed an agent and asked him: “Give me so much per basket; how much could you take”, this position would not have arisen. We have not sufficient grapes in this country if all our people were to get sufficient grapes. No, to-day they load it on the cities. The wine farmers receive approximately a penny per pound or l½d. per pound only. Every Coolie and Greek—there are too many of these fruit shops—now want compensation for the fruit which becomes rotten. If these things had been controlled and there had been just enough, this would not have happened. Someone tells me that the farmers near Van Rhynsdorp are selling their grapes at 3s. 6d. per large basket. The lorries came to fetch it there. They took it to the Karroo and they sold the whole crop. Now the Deciduous Fruit Board comes along and says: “You can no longer sell it at 3s. 6d.; you must get 7s. 6d.” It means that those grapes are not being consumed. It is converted to distilling wine and it is dumped on the wine farmer. And then the Government still gives them a subsidy. This is a serious matter, and we feel it strongly. We have tried to pay our way. We did not come to the Government and ask for a subsidy. We too have lost our export market. We did not come to the Government and ask for a loan. We took care of ourselves, and, apart from the increased excise which is crippling us, we now have to assist these people whom the Government subsidises, and I say it is a disgrace and that a stop should be put to it. The Deciduous Fruit Board should be told by the Government: “Look here, we are giving you a subsidy and you must now sell the grapes as fruit and not as distilling wine.” And if that is not sufficient, then give them enough so that they will be in a position to make ends meet, because £100,000 means quite a lot to us. If we could put aside this money, we would be able to bear the hard times which will come later. But now we have to pay out this money in the form of a subsidy, and it is not the only subsidy which the wine farmer is asked to bear. The raisin farmers have lost their export market. We have to subsidise these people too. I say it is not fair that one section of the farming community should bear the burdens of the other sections. If the Government wants to be of assistance, it should give adequate assistance, otherwise it must say that it is not able to assist. Now I should just like to say this with regard to the Deciduous Fruit Board. Everyone criticises that Board. I know that it is a difficult matter to control. I know that many difficulties arise in connection with it. Their complaint is that the whole thing rests with the Government. I can understand that if you are a follower of the Prime Minister’s Government and you detect mistakes, and you are able to put the responsibility on other people, you do so. I do not want to praise the Deciduous Fruit Board. I do not believe that they have answered their purpose. Grapes are now being sold at sixpence per pound, in order, according to them, to give l½d. to the grape farmers. Just think of it; the poor farmer gets l½d. In the area in which I live my neighbours have all decided to boycott grapes. In the past they bought grapes at 4d. per 1b., and now all of a sudden they have to pay sixpence. They adopt the attitude that they prefer to buy bananas in future. Here we are voting money in these Estimates for the re-construction of nations—as someone has said—to give food to other people, and then we are treated in this shabby fashion. Short of stealing grapes, how is the poor man going to get hold of grapes if he has to pay sixpence per pound? I think if the Deciduous Fruit Board were to follow the example of the wine warmers and do as we did a few years ago, when we had thousands of tons of grapes, it would help very much. We gave our grapes free of charge to the poor people who could not afford to buy them. If they have the grapes available and they can do so, why do they not do it? I feel that it is not fair, and I should like a reply on this point from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to hear what they intend doing in regard to this serious matter.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to what I deem to be a mis-description of the sub-head under which an amount of £660,000 appears under Vote 21, “Expenses incurred in the stabilisation of the price of bread, 1943-’44.” I have previously drawn attention to the alteration made by the Minister of Finance, I think two years ago, when in the estimates he described this as “assistance to wheat farmers” and then in the course of one of his speeches said it was a mis-description and that he was going to change it to “expenses incurred in the stabilisation of the price of bread.” I was unable to raise this matter in Committee last year, as I was ruled out of order, and that is the reason I am taking this opportunity of speaking on the subject. I can only conclude, and I am open to correction, that this additional amount of £660,000 can only be required because the production of wheat has exceeded the crop estimate, and therefore the payment is going to the Wheat Control Board to be passed on to the wheat producer; and how in those circumstances this amount can be considered as expenses incurred in the stabilisation of the price of bread, passed my comprehension. The subsidy is not stabilising the price of bread. They have already raised the price of bread to 6½d. per loaf, and this additional expenditure is certainly not going to those involved in the baking, or the milling, or the sale or consuming of bread; and therefore I say it must be an absolute mis-statement and a mis-description of the purpose for which this amount is being voted. Whilst on this subject I want to refer to a speech by the Minister of Agriculture made, I believe, on the 19th March last year. I am speaking from memory, and I am open to correction, but in that speech, Mr. Speaker, the Minister stated that the Wheat Control Board had recommended to him that the price of wheat for the 1943-’44 season should be £2 per bag, and that the Board found that the cost of production of a bag of wheat on the basis of six or seven bags per morgen, was 33s. 11d. Now this 33s. 11d. included fair remuneration to the wheat farmer, 5 per cent. on his invested capital, a reasonable profit, cost of living, and a few other incidentals. Therefore the Minister did not consider that they were entitled to what might be called 6s. 1d. encouragement grant per bag of wheat produced. He said “No, I am not going to give you £2 per bag, I am going to give you 36s. per bag.” Incidentally, I may say that in translating from Afrikaans into English, Hansard has made a mistake twice in the same paragraph, of reporting 30s. per bag instead of 36s. per bag. But that recommendation of the Wheat Board is outside the bounds of decency. Imagine them getting fair remuneration for their services, 5 per cent. on their invested capital, a reasonable profit on their production, cost of living, and a few other things, and then having the cheek to come along and say: “We want 6s. 1d. encouragement grant per bag produced.” The only thing one can conclude is that they are trying to milk the country of an undeserved profit, and I hope the Minister is going to steel his heart against them in the coming season when they ask for an increase in the price of wheat per bag. But coming back to the bread business, during the debate last year there was only one mention of the price of bread, and that was from the hon. member for Pretoria, who asked the Minister to ensure that there will be no increase in the price of bread. There was no reply to that, but the prices were to be fixed in the following September or October, and when they were fixed it was 6½d. per loaf retail, and the price of wheat was 36s. I protest, Mr. Speaker, first of all against the increase in the price of bread, and secondly I protest against this description of the sub-vote under which the £660,000 is to be expended. It is not spent in the stabilisation of the price of bread, but it is paid to the Wheat Control Board, and they pass it on to the wheat producer, and therefore the item should be changed, and I ask the Minister to change it.

It seems to me hon. members on the other side are splitting hairs. I shall leave them to it. I should like to say a few words in regard to the Department of Agriculture. In the first place I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance whether it is not possible to alter these things. When one opens the Estimates, one sees “Assistance to Farmers” all over the place, and this gives the farmers an inferiority complex. I maintain that there is no such thing as “Assistance to Farmers.” Actually it is “Assistance to Consumers” and I want to urge in all seriousness that this procedure should be altered, so that our farmers will not suffer from this inferiority complex. When one opens the newspapers one sees constant references to assistance received by the farmers. It is not assistance received by the farmers. It is a subsidy to the consumers of the country, and I think the Government has done very well to do this. I am not criticising the policy. The main question on which I rise to speak is this. The difficulty we experience in this country and not only in this country but throughout the world is to bring the consumer and the producer closer to one another. There lies the whole trouble. There is an army of people between these two sections, and they walk off with the profits. In this country we have gained some experience in connection with cooperative societies. These co-operative societies were established in this country to eliminate the middleman or in an attempt to eliminate the middleman, and to obtain a better price for the farmer. I think hon. members on the other side and even the hon. Minister will immediately agree with me that these co-operative societies are a very great success today. Not all of them are a success but the majority of them are a success. The co-operative movement in South Africa, generally speaking, is a very great success. It is such a great success today that the business men of the cities who have handled these products of the farmer, are beginning to feel uneasy. They are beginning to feel uneasy because the co-operative societies are such a success and I foresee a struggle between that section of business men and the cooperative movement in South Africa.

Will the hon. member tell me under which item he is speaking?

I am speaking about the Control Boards. The Control Board is practically being used to distribute the products of the farmers. I would just like to recommend what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has said. The hon. member gave this advice to the Minister, that he should take a big step, that he should try to establish distribution centres so as to deliver the produce of the cooperative societies more cheaply to the consumers. I think it is wrong for the Government to undertake such things. I believe in self-help. The Government can be of assistance. The Government of this country has assisted the co-operative societies to a great extent, and enabled them to attain their present position, but if you are going to create those distribution centres in the big cities, I agree with him that it will cost millions of pounds. I believe in these co-operative societies. I believe in the Government; the Government has rendered assistance to the producers. The Government created the control boards and enacted the Marketing Act which is operating fairly well. But the Government ought to encourage the consumers and afford them the same assistance which it has given to the producers; the Government should encourage them to establish their own consumers’ co-operative societies, and if we did that, I believe that a great deal of our difficulties would disappear. I take it that what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has said, is true, namely, that the farmer receives a penny per pound, and that the people have to pay sixpence per pound for grapes. We cannot go on like this. I want to urge the hon. Minister to take this matter into consideration and to create a new system. The hon. Minister has one of the most difficult tasks to be performed in this country today. How he has managed to see it through during the past four years, we do not know, because we know what the difficulties were. Take, for example, the meat question. The Minister fixed the prices with good intentions. The producers lost thousands of pounds. The producers are prepared to lose a certain amount if the consumer derives any benefit therefrom, but I maintain that the consumer derives no benefit from the fixation of prices. I know what the prices were in the cities. The speculators and the butchers derived all the benefit and not the consumers. For that reason I think there is only one other way of solving the question and that is to have co-operative societies of your producers and co-operative societies of your consumers. If the Minister assists us in this direction, I believe that we shall solve many of our difficulties.

Many things which are said by this side of the House are always confirmed a few years later; they are confirmed only a few years later by hon. members on the other side, as we have seen again today in the case of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). Last year this side of the House urged very strongly that a stop should be put to this so-called “Assistance to Farmers,” but then the hon. member for Kimberley (District) still hoped to get a few votes in that portion of Kimberley, and he would not support us. But now that the election has taken place, he is also beginning to veer in that direction. Now we come to the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Neate). We cannot take much notice of him when he speaks about farming matters, because he does not know much about it. He wants to tell the House that the wheat farmer of South Africa wants to get every penny he can out of the consumer, that the wheat farmer, because he wants a certain percentage of profit on his investments, is exacting too much from the consumer. That only goes to show that the hon. member himself has never been a farmer; perhaps he has never been on a farm, otherwise he would not talk such nonsense in this House. Does he not know that farming represents the biggest gamble in South Africa? Does he not know that the farmer may put all he possesses into the land and then, as a result of climatic circumstances or pests and plagues, he is deprived of everything in one fell swoop? We shall leave the hon. member there. We only want to advise him, before he again talks about farming matters, to take a trip in Natal. Let him visit the farms; then he will know more about it. When we come to the two members on the other side of the House, who defended the hon. Minister of Finance, and we take that as a sample of what we are going to have during this session of the Assembly, we pity the Minister of Finance if that is the type of support which he is going to receive from his side of the House. A statement was made here by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) that on Monday the hon. Minister of Finance created the impression in this House, an impression which was then taken up by his own Press, that we are going to end this financial year with a surplus, and the hon. member only asked the hon. Minister of Finance frankly to reveal the position not only to this House, but also to the people in the platteland, to follow the example of Canada, where you take your total revenue and your total expenditure, subtract one from the other and then see whether you have a surplus or a deficit. That is the only sound financial way which one can follow if one does not wish to become insolvent, and the hon. Minister of Finance knows that. He knows that if he conducts his private business in such a manner, as he gave the House to understand on Monday, he will become insolvent. Then we have hon. members on the other side who want to defend the Minister with the assistance of a passage from an overseas journal about the Minister of Finance. But the hon. member for George clearly said here that he was not referring to what the Minister of Finance had said on a previous occasion, but to the impression which he had created in this House on Monday, and he took exception to that impression which was created. Now hon. members on the other side want to make us believe that even people overseas are highly satisfied and pleased with the manner in which the Minister handles the finances of our country. It is no use arguing like that. The fact remains that when your revenue is less than your expenditure you have a deficit, and we challenge the Minister to prove that our revenue in South Africa today exceeds our expenditure. It is simply camouflage; it is a method which is used to make the burdens which are imposed on us as a result of the war a little more palatable. The people are made to believe that the burden we have to bear is not such a tremendous one, and that posterity will not be saddled with such a terrific burden. The hon. member for George pointed to the manner in which the additional estimates were framed, and he objected to certain of these items. I want to support him in that respect and to quote a few other examples. Under “Miscellaneous Services” we get the expenses in connection with commissions, and there we find an increase of not less than £20,000. That means that during this financial year the expenses in connection with commissions amounted to £36,000. Did the Minister really not know how many commissions would be appointed when he compiled the previous Estimates? It is possible that the Minister can no longer keep pace with it, because this Government practically governs by means of commissions only. But we take it that since an additional amount of £20,000 is being asked for, the Minister at least owes an explanation to this House as to why such an enormous additional amount is required. I hope the Minister will take the trouble to explain to us why that extra money is required. Then we come to the item, “High Commissioner in London”. Under that heading, in respect of “additional expenditure, etc.,” £15,000 extra is being asked for. It seems to me they are having a jolly good time over there. We do not know whether the money has been spent on extra parties. In the past such cases have come to our notice.

Were there perhaps parties when the Prime Minister was there?

I do not think the Prime Minister would spend as much as that on a party. I think the Minister of Finance ought to tell us why this additional amount is required. When one goes through the Additional Estimates, one finds inexplicable amounts which are being spent, without the Minister having explained how this money is being spent. Now we come to essential services, and there the position is quite different. There is, for example, a matter which is now ultimately being taken a little further after four years of pleading, and we find an amount of £9,500 on the Estimates for the provision of accommodation for the manufacture of vaccine against splenic fever. Four years ago, when we questioned the Minister about this discovery, his reply was that this was an Australian remedy and that Onderstepoort had made investigations and found that it was not the best remedy against splenic fever, but that they were now earnestly engaged in testing their own vaccine. The following year when we again asked the Minister, he said that the position was still the same, and he said that the vaccine could not yet be put on the market, for fear that the cattle farmers would discontinue using bone meal for their animals. And the Minister went on to say that we should be very careful in this connection. He also informed us that the necessary ingredients for the manufacture of the vaccine were not available owing to war circumstances. The third year the Minister came along and said that the position was largely the same as previously, that they could not really make any progress. In the interim the position of the cattle farmers in South Africa had become very much worse. The Minister’s own department says that as a preventive measure against splenic fever one should give five ounces of bone meal per beast, but one is only allowed two ounces per beast under the Minister’s rationing system, and every cattle farmer knows that that quantity is useless for preventive purposes in splenic fever areas. Consequently great losses were suffered and are still being suffered, 20 to 30 per cent. in the splenic fever areas. Last year we again put this question to the Minister, and he then replied that they had now made so much progress that they were able to make a start. That was a year ago. We then heard to our surprise that the war circumstances no longer prevented the acquisition of the necessary ingredients to manufacture the vaccine.

Under which item is the hon. member discussing this matter?

Under “Public Works”, where there is an item for accommodation for the manufacture of vaccine against splenic fever, £9,500. What is the true position, however, in connection with the vaccine? The position is that as early as 1937 the remedy had already been discovered, and all that time it has been held back. It has never been made available to the cattle farmers of South Africa, and they were not even taken into the confidence of the Minister. He did not tell them what the hitch was, just why the remedy did not come on the market. Today the position with regard to bone-meal is critical. The Minister knows how difficult it is for a farmer to obtain bone-meal, and two ounces per head of cattle is quite inadequate. Now the Minister comes along after four years and asks for £9,500 merely for the erection of the building. In heaven’s name, when are we going to get the vaccine? The Minister is laughing, but the cattle farmers in South Africa are suffering; they are not laughing, and the Minister will not laugh when he meets them in connection with this matter. We hope that he will take up the matter as seriously as the cattle farmers themselves, and that he will rise to give the country the assurance that this excellent remedy which has been discovered will be made available; for it is an excellent remedy. An experiment was made on an experimental farm of the Minister. Poisoned bait was given to the cattle. In one case one ounce was given to a beast; in another case 1½ ounces, and within twenty-four hours both cattle were dead. The third beast which was inoculated with this remedy, ate two pounds of the poisoned bait, that is to say, 700 poisoned doses, and it did not affect the beast at all. That goes to show how excellent this remedy is against splenic fever. I should have thought that the Minister, if he was really interested in this matter, would have come along to ask for money not only to erect a building but to put the vaccine on the market, so that we may remedy this critical position. Once again I want to express the hope that the Minister will take up this matter as seriously as the cattle farmers are taking it up today, and that he will take the House and the farmers in the platteland into his confidence and intimate when they may expect to receive this vaccine, because bone-meal is practically unobtainable today.

According to custom I shall confine myself in my reply to this debate to the financial points which have been raised. Various other matters were, of course, referred to, but my colleagues will be able to deal with them when the House goes into Committee. It is more fitting that they should provide the detailed information than that I should attempt to do so. That means than that I have to confine myself principally to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He opened the debate in his usual eloquent manner, as usual “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”; as usual, he made an attack upon me and accused me of dishonesty. As usual. Well, the House and the country outside know by this time just how much value they should attach to accusations coming from the hon. member for George. The attack which he made was based not upon what I said but what appeared in the newspaper. The newspaper stated that there would be a surplus at the end of the year. That is not what I said.

Who created that impression?

I am not responsible for the statement of the newspaper. What I did was this. I said that what I would do on this occasion would be, not to come before the House with a balance sheet but to explain to the House what the effect of the acceptance of these additional Estimates would be on the financial position as it was put last year. That was all I tried to do. And I said that the revenue from the other sources of income, apart from the mines, had risen to such an extent that the increase would be sufficient to cover both the deficit with regard to the mines and also the additional amounts which are being asked for here. That is what I said. I did not say a word about a surplus, and I also explained to the House that there were further expenses to be incurred in connection with Defence. It was not my object to mislead the House. I did not use the word “surplus” at all, and now my hon. friend makes this attack upon my honesty and says that it is not a bona fide balance sheet, that in submitting my Estimates last year I placed before the country an untrue, “cooked,” manipulated balance sheet. Let me test that statement. What is at the back of the hon. member’s mind? He did not explain that sufficiently to the House. The hon. member, as the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) correctly said, made an attack upon what has always been the financial custom in our country, namely, to have two sets of Estimates, viz., Revenue Estimates and Loan Estimates. Apparently Canada does not follow that practice. But we have always followed it, and when the hon. member was a supporter of the previous Government he never criticised the financial policy and he never said that the Revenue Estimates and the Loan Estimates should be taken together. That would have meant that there would have been a deficit every year in our history, although previous Ministers of Finance prided themselves on surpluses. He never said so. He makes this discovery now. But it is our practice; we have always followed it. But did I pride myself on a surplus while there was not a surplus? Did I misrepresent the position to the House last year? Let me read to the hon. member what. I said in my Budget Speech. In the first place I referred to the position with reference to the year 1942-’43. I said that the year would probably end with a favourable balance of £4,720,000 as far as the Revenue Account was concerned. I then went on to say—

I never prided myself on a surplus. I said—

It is therefore quite clear. I did not speak of a balanced Budget nor of a surplus; not at all. I then dealt with the Estimates for the following year the current year, 1943-’44. I dealt ’ with the Revenue Account and the Loan Account separately, but at the end I summed up the whole position. This was the conclusion, a conclusion which my friend not quite correctly calls “the balance sheet”:

And then the hon. member for Swellendam says that we are using borrowed money and claiming that we made a profit. The position was put in all honesty there, that our expenditure would amount to £164,000,000 and our Revenue £108,500,000 and that we would have to borrow the balance. What right has hon. members on the other side to accuse me of dishonesty, to accuse me of having submitted a manipulated balance sheet to the country and the House last year? It is unworthy; it is an unfounded accusation. In view of the fact that it comes from the hon. member for George I do not want to take it too seriously, but I hope that especially new members of this House will appreciate at this early stage of the session just how much value they should attach to the exaggerated accusations and criticism of the hon. member for George. Then the hon. member also started to develop a new point, but he did not get far with it. His second point was that the test to be applied in connection with Additional Estimates was whether the items contained in it were really unforeseen items. I expected him to go through the whole Estimates and to prove to us, point by point, that we could foresee the expenditure. But he got no further than Unrra. Does he really expect me to have foreseen the establishment of Unrra in February last? He could, of course, not expect that. It was an unforeseen item. If, therefore, I have to use the test of the hon. member for George, that is that the items on the Additional Estimates should be unforeseen items, then these Additional Estimates will pass the test with flying colours. The member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) also referred to a few items which he thought should have been foreseen, and which, according to him, cannot be regarded as unforeseen items. He is not here at the moment, and perhaps I can deal with that during the Committee stage. It is perhaps necessary for me to refer to something which was said by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). It is true that it falls within the scope of the hon. the Minister of Lands, but I think the sooner it is said the better. The hon. member for Humansdorp made an attack here upon Mr. Keegan, the new Food Controller, and he created the impression — I think he said it outright — that Mr. Keegan would now fix the prices which the farmers will receive. That is wrong. No change has been brought about in the system of fixation of the prices of producers. In future, as in the past, the prices will be fixed by the Cabinet Committee and not by Mr. Keegan. I think it is right that I should immediately remove this erroneous impression, and I may add that Mr. Keegan was appointed not because he represented any particular interests, but because he is a man of ripe experience and great efficiency and someone with talent for organisation, and I think that the House and the country will have every reason to be thankful to the Government for the step which we have taken in making this appointment.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

Expenditure from Revenue Funds:

On Vote No. 1.—“His Excellency the Governor-General,” £2,500.

The hon. member for George has asked that a statement should be made in connection with the allocation under this Vote, and I think that this is the best opportunity to explain the proposed allocation. In the past, when it was customary to appoint a Governor-General from overseas, one of the conditions which was applied was that an amount of £2,500 would be paid to him on assuming office, in connection with expenditure involved therein, and a further amount, also of £2,500, on the occasion of his relinquishing office. When the late Sir Patrick Duncan was appointed by the previous Government, it was decided by the Government of the time and by the then Minister of Finance, my predecessor, that the same arrangement would be applicable in his case. An amount of £2,500 was therefore voted on the occasion of the appointment of Sir Patrick Duncan, and in terms of the agreement made with Sir Patrick at the time, we are under an obligation to pay the amount of £2,500 to his estate on the termination of his office. The Government is therefore only giving effect to the agreement which was made by our predecessors, and I expect the House will approve of it.

This does not mean that future Governor-Generals will also receive it?

Not necessarily.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister and External Affairs,” £49,300.

I think it would be useful to hon. members if I in advance make a statement about some of these items which figure on this new list. It might help them to deal with this matter in an expeditious way. In regard to the first item, A.1, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, that is due to the new sub-division which has been created in my department, the Department of External Affairs, to deal with subjects of reconstruction. It has been thought necessary that there should be a new undersecretary in the Department with a suitable staff in order to superintend from a departmental view the work of reconstruction. I may say just for further information to the House that several steps had to be taken after the last election to deal with this this matter of reconstruction which is coming prominently to the fore and which will be one of the most prominent aspects of our administration in the future. Hon. members know that several of the existing departments have been arranged on a basis which will make them function better from a reconstruction point of view hereafter. So, for instance, a Ministry of Welfare and Demobilisation has been constructed to deal with questions falling under the subject of welfare, and the care of our returning soldiers under demobilisation. Similarly, a Ministry of Economic Development has been instituted to deal with various subjects of economic and industrial reconstruction which will soon be on our doorstep. Then a third Ministry has been established, the Ministry of Transport, which will expand the activities of the present Minister of Railways and take care of a number of additional matters which we shall have to deal with under the new order of things. Now, these three changes were made in the Government itself, in the Ministries under the Government. There was at the same time, as hon. members will remember, a good deal of pressure of public opinion in favour of the establishment of a Ministry of Reconstruction, and that was given a good deal of attention by the Government but finally the decision was come to that a Ministry of Reconstruction would not work well under our system as it exists at present. A Minister of Reconstruction would have an overriding authority over a number of departments, he would have the power to give a mandate to his colleagues in the Cabinet. It was thought that such a system would lead to friction, and not to economic and easy working. It was therefore decided that instead of a Ministry of Reconstruction there should be a Cabinet Committee of Reconstruction under the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would preside over a committee of the Cabinet dealing with this subject of reconstruction, and the authority of the Prime Minister would therefore cover whatever orders had to be given to departments generally and to ministries generally. And in order to enable the Prime Minister to superintend this work and see that this work of reconstruction is properly carried out, this little sub-division which is now constituted under an under-secretary, will carry that work out. The £2,000 is intended to cover this development, and beyond that further steps have been taken to facilitate the subject of reconstruction. A Cabinet Departmental Committee, an Inter-departmental Committee has been constituted, consisting of all the heads of departments who might conceivably have to deal with the subject of reconstruction in its various aspects. All the departments will co-operate, and they will be under the chairmanship of the Minister of Economic Development. In this way it is expected that we shall have in the Government itself committees both in the Cabinet and in the administration, an efficient organisation which will co-ordinate, superintend and carry out the whole work of reconstruction in all its aspects. This item, as I say, is due to this departure which has been made in constituting a small subdivision in my Department of External Affairs to superintend this work. With regard to the next item, “A.2, subsistence and transport £1,400,” that is due to a number of transfers that have had to be made in our foreign representation. Hon. members know that Mr. Close, who has looked after our representation in Washington for a long number of years, is retiring, and that his place has been taken by Dr. Gie from Stockholm. I should like to say here in passing, we are profoundly indebted to Mr. Close for the very fine work he did, the very fine and efficient service that he rendered at Washington during the ten years that he represented South Africa there. His service has been outstanding, and we owe him a great debt of gratitude. His place has been taken by Mr. Gie, who formerly represented us at Berlin, then at Stockholm, and who is now transferred to Washington. As hon. members know, Mr. Egeland, a former member of the House, has been appointed as our Minister at Stockholm to take the place of Dr. Gie. This item of £1,400 is due to the travelling expenses connected with these transfers, the changes of these Ministers at these three seats: and then there is an additional item for the transport of two officials, one of whom has gone to Tantanarivo in Madagascar. We have appointed a commercial representative of this country in Madagascar at Tantanarivo. We have added an additional representative at Nairobi. And these two appointments also account for part of this total of £1,400.

Are they in the civil service?

Yes, they are in the civil service; they are simply moved from one branch of the civil service to another. The next item, A3 “Incidental expenses,” which is a fairly large item of £8,000, is an unavoidable one, due to the immense increase in our telegraphic service arising from war conditions. It is quite impossible to foresee or to calculate with any degree of accuracy the amount of telegraphic correspondence which is necessitated by war conditions, and the position has been made still more difficult and awkward, because of the difficulties, the changes in our mail service due to the shipping question. Owing to the difficulties of dealing through the ordinary mail with our Government correspondence, we have had to resort to the telegraph on a very large scale, and these reasons account for these increases. The next item, A6 “Contribution towards the administrative expenses of inter-departmental committee on refugees and towards transportation, maintenance and repatriation expenses for refugees”; this refugee question was first dealt with as far back as 1938 by what is called the Evian Conference in Switzerland. At this conference an organisation was created to deal with the refugees who were escaping for racial and other reasons, from Germany and Austria and neighbouring countries. After the declaration of war, after the occupation of a large number of countries in Central Europe, this refugee question became much more difficult and acute, and a conference was held which finally added to the mandate of the original Evian Conference, and enabled this organisation to deal with a large number of additional refugees. This had to deal with the refugee problem in its broader aspects in so far as it relates to people of various races and religions, and irrespective of whether they were refugees for political reasons, and to arrange for a contribution by governments towards the funds received from private sources for the objects of the committee. This larger committee is now dealing with the refugee question, and they have invited us to become members, which we have done, and to make a small contribution of £200 to the administrative expenses of this refugee committee; and it is this sum of money, £200, which appears now.

Is that our total annual commitment?

It is a voluntary question; no amount is definitely settled, and it may vary from time to time, according to the conditions, but we thought it would be very undesirable and make a very bad impression if we in South Africa were not prepared to make our small contribution towards the support of this movement, and give assistance towards its administrative expenses. Then we have A7, “Contribution to United States relief and rehabilitation administration;” that is Unrra. Hon. members know that a conference was held in America at Atlantic City towards the end of 1943. This conference was called by the United States; was representative of a large number of states, and after a good deal of debate and consideration, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to establish an international organisation to deal with the question of relief and rehabilitation of all countries that would fall under the United Nations during the course of the war, or thereafter. It was not limited to any particular country; it was not limited to any particular region; but wherever the United Nations came into occupation of certain territories now under enemy occupation and found the conditions there of such a nature that relief had to be given, rehabilitation had to be started, this organisation would see to it. We were invited to become members of this organisation, and we have agreed to do so, and we have done so quite readily, Mr. Chairman, the Government considered, and I think the people of this country will agree with us that there is no more deserving object both from our South African point of view and the world generally, than the helping hand to those countries who are to be rescued from the enemy, and whom we may find in a state of absolute destitution and impoverishment. It is a wide humanitarian matter which it is impossible for us to ignore. We are bound, constituted as we are among the more fortunate countries of the world, today, we are bound to give a helping hand in these cases. But even from a purely selfish point of view there is everything to be said for our giving a hand in this business. South Africa is a country for primary production. South Africa is a country of food export on a very large scale. We are an exporting country, and largely an exporting country of foodstuffs. Our markets are abroad; our markets are largely in other parts of the world, and nothing would have been more damaging to our interests, the interests of South Africa, than an attitude of isolation and aloofness on our part in a case like this. We thought we would be serving the interests of South Africa by joining in this organisation, and making our contribution to the question of relief. It is only as these countries are built up and prosperity returns to them that we shall be able to find markets for our exports, whether it is maize or meat, or any other of cur agricultural products. Unless we put these occupied countries now in destitution on a footing of comparative prosperity once more, we shall have very little prospect of finding markets abroad for our agricultural exports. And we therefore readily agreed to make our contribution and to join this organisation. The organisation has been started. An American gentleman, Mr. Lehman, is the director of it, and the Council has asked us to make a contribution of £25,000 as a first instalment both to the administrative expenditure and to such needs as may become necessary even during the course of the war, in the countries which we are going to rescue from the enemy. That is only a first instalment. It is quite possible that in years to come Parliament will be called upon to vote much larger sums of money. That is quite possible.

Can you give an estimate of the total amount?

Nobody can say what the total estimate will be. It is considered by the organisation itself that the ultimate amount which will be necessary to be contributed by all the members, all over the world, will be between five and six hundred million pounds. So the demand may be quite considerable. But hon. members must bear in mind that we shall have only our share in this business. No demand should be made on this country which is unfair and unreasonable. And they should also bear in mind this, that much of our help may be remunerative; that is to say, we may be exporting stuff from South Africa to Unrra for relief and rehabilitation which the countries to which they are sent may be able to pay for. It is quite possible that there may be a return wherever the countries in need now come into a position to pay, they will pay for the assistance which we are giving, but in the meantime it will be necessary for us for some time to vote moneys in order that this relief may be sent to these destitute countries. That is the contribution which is down here—the first contribution to be made to Unrra. The next item, Mr. Chairman, falling under “Salaries, wages and allowances, £1,000,” is intended as an ex gratia payment to Mr. Close on his retirement in accordance with the usual practice which exists in my department. We have no arrangement under which we pay gratuities, no legal arrangement under which we pay gratuities to our foreign Ministers on their retirement, but it has been customary to pay them a certain sum of money up to half-a-year’s salary, and in consideration of the length of Mr. Close’s services, we propose giving him this amount of £1,000, which is a half-year’s salary.

Does he get a pension?

We have made no arrangements yet for pensions for our Foreign Ministers; it is something which will have to be arranged in due course, but the system is so young, the system is so novel, that so far no statutory arrangement has been made, and all we can do at the moment is to put Mr. Close on the same footing as we have treated other foreign representatives who have retired, and we have given him this gratuity. Then there is the vote “Salaries, subsistence, transport and incidental expenses £8,100.” This amount is due in connection with the work of the Planning Council. The Planning Council have recommended, as hon. members will have seen from their report, that we should have a regional survey of South Africa done by the bigger universities; that the universities, through their staffs, should survey the various regions of South Africa and consider their natural resources and their power supply, transport facilities and capacity for manufacturing industry, and the distribution of the population. On the basis of such regional geographical survey they will make recommendations to us in the matter of reconstruction. We have adopted that recommendation, and the Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch have been asked to start with this survey, and the £8,100 is a sum of money which it is reckoned will be involved in the work of the universities in this regional survey. It may lead to very considerable information about regional requirements. In dealing with this subject of the reconstruction of South Africa, or the vast amount of money that will have to be spent by us after the war in various parts of South Africa, it was considered necessary by the Planning Council to have this preliminary survey by the Council of facilities and requirements in the various parts of South Africa. We have made a start with that, and this will be the cost involved. The next items “U 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6,” are due to a new departure, that is our consular representation at Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. In the last few years, and quite recently, there has been a great development in our trade with South America. We have adequate representation in Buenos Aires in Argentina, but we have had no representation in Rio de Janeiro, whereas our trade relations with Brazil are expanding very rapidly and on a large scale, and the situation has arisen that it has become, quite necessary for us to have consular representation at Rio, and this sum of money is necessary for the salaries and establishment of a consul-general and vice-consul and staff. Those items cover the provision for these purposes. I think that this information may be useful to the Committee in dealing with this vote.

In the first place, I want to say that I am very glad that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has today introduced the new practice of furnishing all the details in connection with his vote to the House at the outset. I think that it saves a great deal of time, because it gives us an opportunity of replying immediately without it being necessary for us first to put questions in order to obtain information in regard to the subject which we want to discuss. I hope that the other Ministers will follow that good example. The question which I want to raise is the matter which the Prime Minister elaborated at some length, namely A.7, “Contribution to the Expenses of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration,” which is usually known as Unrra, £25,000. According to the explanation which the Prime Minister has given us, the object of this organisation is really that it is an organisation which was called into being by the United Nations in order, as he put it, to care for the destitute in the conquered countries. The Hon. Minister of Economic Welfare also gave us certain information in regard to this matter some time ago, and he went into slightly greater detail than the Prime Minister did this afternoon. The Minister of Economic Welfare said, inter alia, that the countries which had signed this agreement, had undertaken to collaborate and to contribute from their own sources to provide food, clothing, etc., to the scattered nations. He specifically mentioned the bringing back of prisoners-of-war, and he also said that the object of the assistance was to set the cogs of the economic machine in motion again, and to introduce essential services in those countries once again. According to the statement of the Hon. the Minister of Economic Welfare the object of this organisation went a good deal further than was explained by the Prime Minister. Apparently we are not dealing here with relief only, but with questions of setting the economic machinery in those countries in motion. That is not exactly what the Prime Minister said. It is not only a question of a humanitarian object. It goes further than that according to the speech of the Minister of Economic Welfare. He goes on to say in his statement that according to an estimate in China, 30 million Chinese have been driven out of their provinces. We are not going to concern ourselves with Europe alone therefore, but we are also going to contribute to bringing about a change in the position in China. He went on to say that in Europe there will be 20 million prisoners-of-war and refugees, who will have to be repatriated. In other words, we are being asked to contribute not only towards relief in those countries, but also to assist in bringing back the prisoners-of-war. We should have thought that the bringing back of prisoners-of-war was the responsibility of the countries waging war. But here we have this statement from the Minister — and I take it that he spoke on behalf of the Government — that in Germany alone there are 6,500,000 prisoners-of-war. He again touches on the question, and we are being asked to contribute to the expenses involved in bringing back those prisoners-of-war. Then he goes on to say that, according to a conservative estimate, there are perhaps a hundred million people or more who will have to be brought to their homes. On the other hand we find that the Prime Minister has stated here today that this organisation has a humanitarian object. Then we also come to the question of which countries this relief will be confined to. In this connection we have a statement from the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, from which we notice that we are here concerned with a scheme which aims at only a certain number of chosen countries, and at this stage we should like to have more information from the Prime Minister. Furthermore, the Prime Minister stated quite openly that this was only the first instalment. This £25,000 which we are now being asked to vote is not the total amount. It is only a first instalment, and we should like to hear from the Prime Minister what the total amount will be. We would like to know what it is going to cost us. The Minister of Economic Welfare said, “South Africa has undertaken.” In other words, we have now been dragged in and tied down to something which will continue for years and years. We do not know where it is going to end, and we do not know exactly what the object of it is going to be. I notice from a statement which was issued from Atlantic City, where the conference was held — it is a Sapa message — that it is expected that South Africa will be asked to contribute twelve million dollars to relief in Europe through this organisation which is usually called Unrra. Twelve million dollars. That is the provisional estimate, and it amounts to a sum of £2,500,000, a little more than £2,400,000. But that is only an estimate. We do not know how long it is going to continue, for how many years and to what degree it will be extended, and I say therefore that in the circumstances we have every reason to feel nervous about this undertaking which was given by the Government. The Prime Minister says that we must all contribute with a view to assisting. He says that by so doing we are serving South Africa’s interests. He says we must not be petty in connection with this matter. I have already indicated that on the strength of the speech of the Minister of Economic Welfare, we have every reason to throw doubt upon the true object of this organisation, especially since the Minister has spoken of prisoners-of-war. We as Opposition are prepared to serve the interests of South Africa. If the Minister and his Government had remained out of the war, they would truly have served the interests of South Africa. They must not come along today, after having plunged the country into war and having created this state of affairs as a result of the declaration of war, and say that we must now agree and be prepared to pay the expenses which were caused as a result of their war policy. We have been opposed to the war since the beginning. Our attitude was stated clearly, and the attitude of the Opposition in connection with this matter is that we are not prepared to vote for this amount. Our attitude is that if there has to be betterment and reconstruction, and if poverty and unemployment have to be combated, we must begin in our own country, we must rectify these things in our own country. Undoubtedly the consequences of this war will still be fully felt; we shall still reap the bitter fruits of the war policy of the present Government. For that reason I move—

But now I want to put this further question: What is this amount for, which is already being paid? There cannot be any relief work at this date. It is clear that what is being asked for now is merely for administrative charges. Every day when one opens the newspapers, one sees that a new director-general or deputy director-general or a diplomatic adviser has been appointed in connection with Unrra. We are getting the same swarm of directors and deputy directors in connection with Unrra as we have controllers and deputy controllers in South Africa. In other words, we are contributing towards creating a big administrative machine. We have gained enough experience of this type of international organisation which has to take care of this type of thing. We saw how the administrative charges of the League of Nations rose to an amount far in excess of what it should have been, and we are engaged in creating a similar machine here, and the £25,000 which is now being asked is not a contribution to relief, but the £25,000 is destined to pay the salaries of the directors and deputy directors who are being appointed.

I should very much like to support the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I think that it is hardly necessary for me to say much about it. At the commencement of the debate the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) put a very clear and pertinent question to the hon. Minister, namely, why is the Government in such a hurry to have this amount voted. To that question no satisfactory answer has been given. A sum for this purpose can, in my opinion, stand over until the main estimates have been introduced. It ought not to appear in the additional estimates. Additional estimates contain items of expenditure which are made available before this House is afforded the opportunity, as representatives of the taxpayers, to pass judgment on them.

That is the case with certain items, but not with others. This amount, for instance, has not yet been expended.

Then there is certainly no urgency to vote for the amount now. It is wrong in principle that an item of this nature should appear on the additional estimates without the representatives of the people having had the opportunity to discuss it. I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends to expend this sum before the main estimates come up for discussion.

Yes, if the money is voted it will be paid out.

The money is being spent before this House has a chance to consider it properly. Accordingly I maintain that it is quite wrong that an amount of this sort should appear in the additional estimates. I should further like to draw attention to the whole position in connection with the Prime Minister’s vote. I think, too, that we must also look at the vote as a whole, and if we regard it as a whole and compare it with the additional estimates of last year, then it will be seen that last year’s additional estimates contain an amount of £3,900 in respect of the Prime Minister’s vote, this year the amount is £49,300, or an increase of £45,000 compared with last year—twelve times as much. Then we have the explanation of the Prime Minister that certain of the items here are incidental. These are incidental items of expenditure. I will now deal specifically with the point that we must face the question where our country will be landed if we continue in this matter and vote for such large amounts in the additional estimates. Allow me to refer particularly to one item, namely “Incidental Expenses £8,000.” The explanation of the Prime Minister is that the substantial increase is due to the increase in telegraphic correspondence as a result of war conditions. But I want to direct attention to the fact that the war has already been in progress for four years, and the increase under this head is greater than the whole increase on the vote last year. Was not the war in progress last year? Were there not more or less the same telegraphic expenses? I do not think that we can be satisfied by simply saying that the telegraphic expenses have been necessitated as a result of the war. I think that we are entitled to get further particulars in connection with this vote. There is something more that I wish to refer to, and that is that last year we had an item “Subsistence and transport and incidental expenses,” and we voted £500 for that. This year we have for “Subsistence and Transport” an amount of £1,400 and a separate amount for “Incidental expenses”—which can mean anything—of £8,000. I join with the hon. member for Beaufort West in saying that we are pleased with the procedure that has been followed of furnishing an explantion at the beginning of a debate on a vote; but when the explanation is given then we should be provided with some information, because otherwise it does not help matters. The Government assumes a great responsibility with reference to these amounts in the additional estimates. It is engaged in spending money which those who are responsible for this expenditure have not had the opportunity to approve.

I should just like to say this by way of explanation. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is labouring under a misapprehension, under a wrong impression, if he imagines that the amount that is now being voted is only intended for administrative costs. It is true that part of it will be used for administrative costs, but to a considerable extent it concerns Unrra. The Administration is even now engaged in the purchasing of supplies on a large scale. I am aware of the activities that are in progress. Sugar, wheat and grain are being purchased in large quantities, for enormous supplies will be required and purchases are being made in good time. On that account the money is now being asked for, and that is the reason why pressure is being exercised for payment to be made as soon as possible.

Have you any information regarding the salaries that will be paid to the various directors?

I have not got that information, but I know that it is not simply a matter of administrative expenses, but that a start has been made already with the comprehensive activities that are necessary. That answer also covers the point made by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). It is an urgent matter, and one that cannot wait until the main estimates are before the House. Money must be voted immediately, so that the administration can go ahead with the purchases. The hon. member is also under a misunderstanding, if he thinks that the £8,000 that is asked here for “incidental expenses” covers something else than merely telegraphic correspondence and things of that sort. There has been an extraordinary extension—

But last year the war was also in progress.

Of late there has been a serious dislocation of the overseas mail service, and it has been well nigh impossible to send Government correspondence as ordinary mail matter. While in previous years it was still possible to send correspondence by boat, this has now become almost impossible, with the result that it has become necessary for the Government to telegraph any necessary communications. That is the reason for this vote.

Has not the position been eased since the Mediterranean Ocean has been opened up.

That has afforded a certain measure of relief, but not in respect of our communications.

I should like to say a few words in connection with the sum of £25,000. The right hon. the Prime Minister has made an appeal here to our feelings of humanity, and he has harped on that in order to persuade us not to offer any opposition to this expenditure. It is all very well to put the matter in that light. Where there is really distress and one can do anything to allay the distress, no one will hold back. But the question is whether we in South Africa, having regard to the problems we ourselves have to contend with, the poverty with which we ourselves have to wrestle, can today really afford to pay out £25,000 and further amounts — for the £25,000 is only the first contribution for reconstruction in other parts of the world. Bearing in mind the position in our own country, are we able for years and years to contribute millions of pounds for the rehabilitation not only in Europe but also in China, the East Indies, Singapore and all these other places. Are we justified in doing it? If you are engaged in this task you cannot have regard only to the problems related to the relief and rehabilitation of Europe. We, as Nationalists, wish in the first place to focus our attention on the poverty, the problems and the requirements of South Africa. We hear every day, and read every day, of the enormous social reconstruction that will occur in South Africa after this war. Last year a motion was introduced by this side of the House. The other side of the House, the Government side, did not want to be left behind, and gave notice that they would introduce a motion to promote social security. The Minister of Finance replied that if all the beautiful ideas, if all the representations were followed up for the social welfare of South Africa and to eradicate poverty, then we must be prepared to pay over a number of years enormous sums, millions and millions of pounds, in the shape of taxation. I agree. If you want to solve South Africa’s problems in connection with poverty, it will require millions and millions. Just consider for a moment the reaction that will follow this war. Let the Prime Minister pay attention to that problem. A problem which at present is often in the foreground, is, the placing in employment, in permanent posts, of the 150,000 soldiers who will return. Think of the other matter that is continually being brought to our notice, the problem of soil erosion, the saving of our land from erosion. Hundreds of millions will be required for this purpose. Think of the hundreds of millions that will be necessary to save the European race in South Africa, bearing in mind the growing colour menace. I had a chat in this building today with a supporter of the Government. Do you know what he said? He remarked that if measures were not taken in time, then within 50 years it would not be possible for any white man to live in Natal. I quite agree with him. If steps are not taken to have a line of demarcation between black and white, and if steps are not taken to prevent Natal being entirely bought up by coolies, there will in the course of 50 years, be no room for a white man in Natal. But if that problem is going to be tackled, and if the white man’s position is going to be made secure, then we shall have to spend millions and millions of pounds yearly in our cities alone. We realise that after this war it will be necessary to spend millions every year to eradicate poverty; and, as far as regards the soil of South Africa, to save it from erosion, and to secure the position of the white man from the colour menace. The Prime Minister, instead of concerning himself with building up an organisation to tackle these matters, has always directed his attention overseas, and now he wants to commit us in advance to annual contributions of large sums for reconstruction, not only in Europe, but also apparently in China and other eastern countries. We, as Nationalists, whose heart and home is in South Africa, and in South Africa alone, see no reason for depriving our own people of what belongs to them and giving it to other nations. The Prime Minister may perhaps say that after the three years war during which his friends wrought havoc in South Africa also, the Boer people received aid from Holland, Germany, France and other countries. So we did. But we did not obtain that assistance from the government of France or Germany or Holland but from private individuals who sympathised with the burghers. And if there are people in South Africa who sympathise with folk overseas, and want to contribute, I have not the slightest objection to that. I shall myself contribute to rehabilitate my kinsmen in Holland who may need assistance. But it is quite a different matter to bind ourselves as a country to contribute millions annually. Bearing in mind our own problems we have no right to do that. Bearing in mind the poverty in our country, bearing in mind the starvation wages that are paid in many cases by the Government itself, we do not feel justified in spending this money. Consequently we lodge our objection, and we are unable to record our approval of what the Prime Minister has already done to commit South Africa. This is, as a matter of fact, another aspect of the matter. This Government has gone there and has already committed us to the undertakings of Unrra, before the matter could ever be discussed by Parliament. That is nothing else than treating this Parliament and the people of South Africa with contempt. What right had the Government to commit us overseas, before they had received the assent and the instruction of this House? If these people tell us that they are fighting for the rights of democracy, then it is making a mockery of democracy. The Prime Minister acts as a dictator. He does just as he likes, and then he comes to this House and the House has to put its seal on what he has already done. It is unfortunate that so many hon. members are always prepared to be rubber stamps. I want to express the hope that as we have now a new Parliament, and a Parliament in which one third of the members are new, that the new members will show a little more backbone than the old members have done in the past, and that they will not allow themselves to be used as rubber stamps, saying “yes” and “amen” to what the Government may have already done.

Our electors have sent us back.

The hon. member says that his electors have returned him again. If there is one member who should not talk here of the rights of his voters it is the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). He knows what methods he applied. He should not talk of the rights of the electors. If there was ever anyone whose activities in respect of his electors ought to be the subject of enquiry, it is the hon. member for Vereeniging and I counsel him to be careful. For these reasons we cannot vote this money.

If this amount were intended for alleviation of the suffering of humanity, we should be the first to say that we are prepared to contribute something towards the amelioration of the sufferings of people not only in Europe but elsewhere where they have been affected by the war. But here we had a group of people assembled at Atlantic City and, according to the newspapers, one of the big Allies, namely Russia, ’was not represented. Can the Right Hon. the Prime Minister tell us whether there was a representative or representatives of Russia at this conference? If one is to judge from the newspapers, and the reports that we receive from Moscow, then it would appear that Unrra is a fresh apple of discord that has been thrown amongst the Allies, and it is quite possible that it may yet happen that it will foment dissention and that nothing will come of these plans. If we are to judge from the press reports, Russia is not well disposed towards the funds that Unrra will have at its disposal for the rehabilitation of the unfortunate nations that have suffered so severely as a result of the war. They assert that the funds are intended solely to assist western democracies. They are not interested in that, and say that the money is not intended for those countries which border on Russia. Russia does not want to have anything to do with the aid that will be given to England and America, because they think that England and America want, in this way, to exert their influence, and that by so doing they will see to it that the system now prevailing in those lands will be entrenched. Russia is not too pleased with that. It wants chaos and Communism. It wants to exert its influence. That is why there is dissension. Moreover, in America there are the Republicans who also are not pleased with Unrra. What they say is that the money is being voted to help communistic Russia against Europe. Well, as the Prime Minister has said, Russia is the mightiest power, and we must pay regard to Russia’s standpoint. Here we have two influences at work. The one maintains that the money is intended for one purpose, and the other declares it is intended for another purpose, and we do not even know whether Russia has been consulted in the matter. I consider that the Prime Minister is premature in regard to this amount. Today it is still not at all possible to do anything or to ascertain to what extent aid must be granted. One cannot approach those parts of the world where aid is needed, for they are in the main still in the occupation of Germany and other members of the Axis. Nothing can yet be done, and no investigation can be made as to the extent of the destitution. Furthermore, there exists a possibility that there will be a swing-over in America. President Roosevelt, if we are to judge from the Press, has today lost some of his popularity in the States, and if we are to judge by the results of the election, his position is shaky. America comes along and we are asked now to commit ourselves to Unrra. Is there not going to be a repetition of what happened in the case of President Wilson and the League of Nations? He was the great protagonist of the League of Nations, and when it was brought into being the United States stood aside to the last. Now one is faced with this position, where the Government of the United States of America, a democratic government, supports the rehabilitation plan of Unrra, but there are opponents who are gaining ground daily,, and throw suspicion on the whole effort. We must be careful about committing ourselves to so many millions on a partnership basis, while the principal partner may presently withdraw and while Russia is taking no part. This is the danger that confronts us, and the Prime Minister should listen to this side and not act prematurely. There is this difference of opinion between Russia on the one side and England and America on the other. They do not know yet what they want themselves, and I think our Government is being absolutely premature in asking for sums for this purpose at the present stage.

I should like to point out that according to the statement made by the Minister of Food in England and leader of the British Delegation to the Conference in Atlantic City, he said, inter alia—

According to this pronouncement, definite obligations have been accepted by the Allies. Now I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether a definite agreement was signed by the South African representative at the conference. I should also like to know if he will be prepared to lay that agreement, as signed, on the Table of the House.

That will all be done later on.

Will the Prime Minister at this stage, before the money is voted, tell us how and to what extent the Union is committed, and if there are any limits to the amount that we have to contribute. I take it that the Prime Minister has been advised by the Union’s delegate not only with reference to the amount to which we are committed, but also in respect of the other provisions of this agreement, and we should like to know what we have undertaken, and for how long. At the moment it would appear that the matter is very much in the air. I hope that even hon. members on the other side of the House, as for instance the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) who takes an interest in national expenditure, will also ask to what extent South Africa is compromised in this matter. As far as we can make out, it is a very slack business, but seeing that the Prime Minister is now asking for the money, we should be glad if he would furnish us with the necessary information. It takes the matter no further for him to say that he will later on lay the information on the Table of the House. We are required to vote the money now, and we should like to know how and to what extent, we are committed. I want to refer the Prime Minister to a statement made by a member of his Cabinet. The Minister of Economic Welfare spoke on this matter, and we should like to know whether it is a fact that the purpose of this money is that we should contribute towards the return of our prisoners of war. Is it the idea that we must again set in motion the wheels of the economic machinery in those countries; is it the intention that we should restore essential services, such as the railways, in those countries? If the Minister of Economic Welfare is correct, and if these are inter alia, the things on which our money will be used, then I say that the scheme goes a great deal further than what the Prime Minister described as a humanitarian object. In that event we have to do with other matters, and we on this side of the House have the right to point out that here in South Africa we also require those services. It is also necessary for us here to set in motion the wheels of the economic machine. Seeing that according to the S.A.P.A report we shall have to contribute a sum of £2,400,000, we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister for this information, and the hon. members on this side of the House are also entitled to ask for that information before we vote this money.

I have not all the details, but I do not believe that there are any definite stipulations. The hon. member mentioned a figure of £2,500,000. I presume that this was only a general estimate of what may be the limit of South Africa’s total contribution. I do not believe that the matter has been so arranged that we have undertaken a definite responsibility for a fixed amount. No, there is no provision of that sort in the agreement. It will always be left to South Africa to give its own interpretation to the general purport of the agreement, and to the general obligations imposed on us. The hon. member also referred to prisoners-of-war. But he will fully appreciate that when a people are in a state of destitution, and prisoners-of-war are being returned to their own country, it will be quite impossible to draw a line between prisoners-of-war and other people.

But there is talk of the return of prisoners-of-war.

I doubt whether that was the Minister’s meaning. It is a question of alleviation of distress and rehabilitation. South Africa will retain a considerable say for itself as to how far it will go, and for what it will give its contributions.

Have you received the agreement yet?

No, I believe not. We have the draft.

Have you read it?

No, but I shall lay it on the Table later on, and the hon. member will be able to read the terms.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—36:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dohne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouche, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—90:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. H.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

Maclean, J.

Mare, F. J.

Marwick, J. F.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts. J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister and External Affairs,” as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 6.—“Treasury,” £8,700, put,

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again: House to resume in Committee on 27th January.