In the Budget debate the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) made an assertion which we on this side of the House must say something about. He said that this side of the House did not have the moral right to make itself heard about war expenditure. I am sorry the hon. member for Vasco is not in his seat because there is just one question I would have liked to put to him and it is this: Whose money is spent on the running of this war? We are asked today to vote £102,500,000 for the war. I want to ask the hon. member: Who pays that £102,500,000? Is it only the people on the other side of the House, and the people whom they represent, or is it also the people on this side of the House and the hundreds of thousands whom they represent? I just want to put that question to him. That £102,500,000 is raised by war taxes. Those war taxes fall as heavily on us on this side of the House as on hon. members on the other side.

The hon. member can only discuss the reason for the increase of £2,500,000.

That statement was made during the Budget debate, and I am only asking your permission to reply to the hon. member’s contention.

The hon. member must confine himself to the reason for the increase.

Very well, then we shall have an opportunity later on to go into that question. Now I want to put a few questions to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in regard to this matter. My first question is this: When war broke out the Government commandeered sixteen fishing boats and whalers. Since that time the Government has had those ships on lease. The rent which the Government pays has been fixed by the National Supplies Board. The rent was fixed at £15 per trawler, for a big fishing boat, and £12 10s. per day for the whalers. When the Committee on Public Accounts went into this question last year certain things came to light which I can only describe as scandalous. We found that the Government had paid more in rent for those ships than the ships had originally cost the the owner. Some of the ships were very old, some of them were sixteen years old, and we found that in two years we had paid more by way of rent for those ships than they had cost the owners when they were brand new. May I bring this to the notice of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister? I am quoting from the Select Committee’s Report for last year, and I am giving three ships as instances of what happened. The first ship cost £15,000. Those ships were leased to the Union Government for two years. That first ship was sixteen years old and in a few years we paid £11,000 rent for that ship. In the second case the original cost of the ship was £16,000, and we paid £12,500 in rent for it. But the third case was the worst of all. The original purchase price was £4,400. We hired that ship and in two years time we paid £9,944 in rent for it, although, as I have said, the original price was only £4,400. That is to say, that in rent we paid twice as much as the ship originally cost the owner. The Select Committee on Public Accounts felt that this sort of thing could not be allowed to go on. As a result a new agreement was made with the owners under which the rent was reduced. It will interest the House to know that as a result of the interference of the Select Committee on Public Accounts the rent per year was reduced from £193,000 to £106,000 — that is to say a saving of £87,000 per year. That is only one way in which money for war expenditure can be saved, and I am emphasising that because this side of the House is not prepared to vote this £2,500,000 which the Government is asking for. Now I understand that there is a scheme of eventually buying those ships after we have had them on lease, and in some cases have paid the owner twice the amount they cost him. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he can inform the House whether those ships have been bought, how much has been paid for them, and how the purchase price compares with the price originally paid by the owner. I shall be very glad if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister can answer that question. The Select Committee on Public Accounts has been busy for years trying to investigate certain malconditions which prevailed in Central Africa, especially in connection with the Abyssinian Campaign, and we have always been told that the position there was so chaotic that it was impossible to create order. I now understand that the Government has decided to close that chapter in our war history by making a cash payment to England in regard to any claim which England has against us in regard to that matter. Will the Prime Minister kindly tell this House what is the nature of the agreement entered into with the British Government? What is the amount which we are paying the British Government in respect of outstanding claims, and what is the basis of settlement with the British Government, so far as the present and the future are concerned. We should like to know what the nature of the agreement is. I understand that this agreement was entered into last year with the British Government. There are some other very important matters on which I would like some clarity from the Prime Minister. I believe that three years ago, for the first time, as a result of what appeared in the report of the Auditor-General, attention was directed to the chaotic conditions in the Paymaster’s Division of the Defence Department. We have been told that the pay accounts of the soldiers over a period from the 1st April, 1940, to the end of 1941, that is to say over a period of a year and nine months, were in such a state that the Auditor-General said that he could not possibly scrutinise and check them. The Prime Minister then — that was three years ago — got up in this House and said that he would assure the House that everything would be put in order. [Time limit.]

I should like to know from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister how many professional people, particularly doctors, have made application for assistance under the scheme, which has been announced, under which they can get an advance or a gift of £750, when they return to their ordinary sphere of work, and how many of those applications have already been considered and granted. I happen to know of a few cases where doctors have returned and made application. These people are here now, and unless we can assist them at once they cannot start practising again. The money is needed immediately. They have to continue their practice and I should like to know whether any of those applications have already been granted, or turned down.

Three years ago the Prime Minister gave us an assurance that the accounts of the Paymaster’s Division would be put in order. Three years have passed. I should now like the Prime Minister to tell this House what the position of these accounts is today. Our information is that 90,000 accounts are involved. These accounts are in such a state that if a soldier is demobilised and his account happens to be one of those 90,000 it is impossible to demobilise him. They don’t know what they owe him. These 90,000 accounts have to be reconstituted. They are reconstituting them as from the 1st January, 1942. That is to say they are dealing with the years 1942 and 1943 and part of 1944. I understand that of these 90,000 accounts only 34,000 have been reconstituted and that 56,000 have not yet been reconstituted, and we are given to understand that when demobilisation takes place the position will become impossible. It has taken two years so far to reconstitute 34,000 accounts. How much longer is it going to take to reconstitute the remaining 56,000 accounts? I should like the Prime Minister to tell us what he intends doing to improve this position. Year after year, when we ask the Paymaster when he intends putting those accounts in order, he simply shrugs his shoulders and says that he can do nothing; he cannot get any help. All the Paymaster is asking for is to have 250 or 300 good men placed at his disposal. But he cannot get those men. There are men available in the army, but be cannot get their services. The condition in the Paymaster’s office is such that if demobilisation is to take place in the next two years, we are going to have terrible chaos there unless the reconstitution of these accounts is expedited. These are the three matters which I wanted to bring to the Prime Minister’s notice now, and we shall be glad if he will give the House some information on them.

In regard to this question of the whalers which the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) referred to, the position is as he stated it, namely that the payment by the Department of Defence and the rent paid for those ships is regulated by the National Supplies Board, and we acted in accordance with the law, until it was realised that the amount was excessive. As the hon. member said, what we have paid in rent is nearly as much as what the ships originally cost. That is why the Department of Defence said that the position should be changed and we thereupon notified the owners that the ships were going to be bought by the Government, that the leases would not be continued, and that this high rent for the ships would no longer be paid.

They are living in hopes of getting the ships back.

Notice has been given that the Government will buy these ships and negotiations are still going on about the purchase price of the ships. That is the position which has now been reached. The hon. member then asked about the agreement with the British Government to close off the old accounts in connection with the Abyssinian campaign and North Africa. When I was in London we came to an agreement the details of which will be placed before the House later. I can only say that on the basis on which the accounts were kept by the British Government and by us it was practically impossible finally to close off the accounts. The position was so involved that it was practically impossible to square up any account. Hon. members will realise that where one has two armies which supply each other, which are fighting alongside each other, which are using the same ammunition, which use each other’s means of transport, all of which get mixed up in the course of operations, it is impossible to keep separate accounts, and in such a case it is quite impossible, too, to prepare any accounts. All these things got mixed up. We used each other’s supplies, and consequently when I was in London last we negotiated about the position and we arrived at a solution which was very satisfactory so far as the Union was concerned, and as a result of this arrangement it will be possible to regard the old accounts as closed off.

What is the amount?

I have not got the amount in my head. If the hon. member will raise this question on the Main Estimates we shall be able to go into the whole matter. But the old accounts have now been closed off. In my opinion, and in the opinion of our experts, they have been squared up on a very satisfactory basis so far as the Union Government is concerned. In regard to the future, a different arrangement has been made. The Australian and other Dominion Governments pay a certain amount for their men. They are maintained and supplied by the British Army, and then the Dominions pay so much per caput as their contribution. We cannot agree to that. We have special difficulties of our own and it would not work in our case. First of all we should remember that we have not only got white troops up North, but also coloured and native troops. And they are paid on a separate basis. The pay of the various sections of our forces up North varies considerably. We could therefore not enter into any agreement on the per caput basis in the same way as Australia has done. It would have been a very bad arrangement for us, and we therefore arrived at a decision for the future under which we are to pay a certain amount per month, both for our Air Force and our other troops, and I believe that the amount has been fixed at £1,000,000 per month for both sections, our land forces, our air forces, and also our naval forces. It amounts to £12,000,000 per year, and we consider that also to be a very favourable arrangement so far as South Africa is concerned. Owing to the confusion I have referred to, it was impossible to square off the old accounts and they were therefore squared up by the payment of a certain sum of money.

What is that amount? Surely the House is entitled to know it?

Yes, but I have not got the figures before me; I think it was £32,000,000, but I am not sure of the amount. I can go into that when the Main Estimates are under consideration, and I can then lay the figures before the House. But so far as the future is concerned an amount of £1,000,000 per month has been fixed. Now the hon. member also referred to the state of our accounts. It is a well-known fact, which I don’t deny, that we did not have sufficient staff in the Paymaster’s Office from the start, and it was therefore impossible to keep the accounts in order from day to day. As a result, the accounts got into arrear and that still is the position today. But we are doing our best to get the old accounts squared up. Hon. members will recollect that in the first instance there was an amount of £99,000 in respect of which the accounts had not been squared off. That was the complaint two years ago. I told the House then that the accounts still had to be checked. We simply did not have the staff to do all this work, so it had to stand over until such time as we could handle the matter. Now, those accounts in regard to the £99,000 have long since been squared up. I believe that practically every penny of the original amount of £99,000 reported on by the Select Committee on Public Accounts is squared up today. Everything is in shipshape order. But now we come to the subsequent years, the last couple of years. There, too, we are still in arrear, and the difficulty is due to the fact that the Paymaster has not had enough staff. That difficulty does not exist in the Paymaster’s office only. The Auditor-General has the same complaint. He says that he has not the necessary staff to do his work and to audit all the accounts submitted to him.

That is a difficulty which it is physically impossible to overcome, and it will take time to get all the accounts in order. I admit that if demobilisation were to take place today we would be up against it.

Even if demobilisation takes place in the next two years?

We are squaring up the accounts as fast as we can. There is an improvement in regard to the recruiting of staff and we hope the position will improve. It is not merely a question of numbers, but when you are dealing with figures you cannot just pick up anyone off the street to do the work; even with the best will in the world we could not keep the accounts up to date, and in the circumstances we can only do our best to improve the position. The Paymaster has told me that there is an improvement. He is keeping the current accounts up to date—they are being kept up to date—and so far as the old accounts are concerned we are trying to get them squared up gradually. We are doing our best. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) put a question about applications by doctors and other professional men who ask for assistance on their return to resume their practice or their career. That is a question which does not come under me, but under the Minister of Demobilisation. I believe that steps are taken in such cases to help. How quickly that is being done I do not know. It does not come under my Department and I have no information on that particular point.

I feel that this House cannot be satisfied with the vague terms in which the Prime Minister has told the House about the agreement with the British Government. The Prime Minister tells us that he believes the amount is thirty-two million pounds. It may be more. My information is that it is more than £32,000,000 and surely the House has a right to know what the amount is.

It is not more than £32,00,000 for expenditure up North.

The agreement was concluded during this financial year, and I should like to have the information. I do not know whether I am to put my question to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance. Assuming it is £32,000,000. My information is that it is more. I also want to ask how much of that amount has already been paid and how much has not yet been paid. If we vote this £2,500,000, will that be enough to liquidate the whole amount of £32,000,000, or of £35,000,000, or whatever it may be? How much are we carrying over to the next financial year? We are entitled to get more information from the Prime Minister in regard to the agreement itself, so that we may judge whether it is a good agreement for the Union or not. Here we have an agreement involving an amount of at least £32,000,000. Are we to know no more about that agreement than what the Prime Minister has told us this morning? Are we just to vote £32,000,000 and pay it without knowing any more?

Well, we have driven the Germans out of North Africa.

Yes, this amount of £32,000,000 is public money. Is the agreement to the benefit of the Union or not? Is the Prime Minister going to give us the opportunity of scrutinising that agreement? The Prime Minister has told us that for the past six months already we have been working on a new basis. If I correctly understood him, England now undertakes to bear all the expense in connection with our troops up North, with the exception of the pay of the soldiers, and their own allowances, and the allowances to their dependants. England is doing all these things, and is providing all the supplies, the war equipment and all these things for £1,000,000 per month. In order to enable the House to judge whether that is a good agreement or not we should at least have some idea of how many troops we have up North. Have we only one division there? Does that one division, so far as food and ammunition are concerned, cost us £1,000,000 per month? We notice that these things are done but we are told nothing. Now I want to deal with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the Pay Account. I want the House to understand that those Pay Accounts can be divided into three parts. First of all we had the first six months of war; the recruiting at that time was on a small scale. There was an amount of something over £90,000 missing but I understand that vouchers were fixed up here and there. They did not find them, but they reconstituted them. I don’t know how they can possibly reconstitute vouchers, but we were told in the Select Committee last year that certain vouchers had been reconstituted. They never found the lost vouchers, but they reconstituted them. I leave it to the House to judge what one must conclude from that. In that way £90,000 has been accounted for. That was for the first six months of the war. Now we come to the period from the 1st April, 1940, to the 31st December, 1941. There we are dealing with 90,000 accounts. Those accounts were in such a hopeless state that the Auditor-General said that it was quite useless and quite impossible to try and scrutinise them. Then the Prime Minister came here and said that he could give the House the assurance that order would be created out of chaos. They have been doing that now for two years — 1942 and 1943 — and as I understand it, the position today is that out of 90,000 accounts 34,000 have been reconstituted, and 56,000 are just as they were before. Do hon. members realise that if demobilisation is to take place within the next two years the Paymaster’s Division will be in such a hopeless position that we shall not be able to demobilise. And all the Prime Minister says is: “We are doing our best”. He knows that if we are to demobilise within the next two years the Pay Department will be up against a brick wall and it will be impossibe to demobilise. Are we to be satisfied with the bare assurance from the Prime Minister that he is doing his best? All the Paymaster says is this: “Give me 300 men and I shall be able to get order out of chaos.” Will the Prime Minister tell me that if he takes 300 men out of the army it will mean our losing the war? We know now that if demobilisation is to take place we are going to be up against it, and the Paymaster asks for 300 men to help him.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has kept on repeating a statement which he made and which he knows to be grossly exaggerated. He knows the facts; he knows the facts very fully. He has examined these facts, and, for example, in connection with the item he has referred to of £32,500,000, being in regard to the settlement between the Union and the United Kingdom, he knows very well that we have been told that the details could not be gone into very meticulously. He knows perfectly well that we have been assured by the local officials who have to deal with these financial matters and who are responsible, that the settlement that was made in London is very advantageous to the Union of South Africa. Why is it that he keeps on creating an impression or trying to create the impression that that settlement is not to our advantage? We have been assured by the financial authorities who had to examine those matters, that the settlement is to the advantage of South Africa, and I think it is as well that the country should know that that is the position. The hon. member keeps on talking, too, about the position of the Paymaster’s Department. It is true, as he states, that there have been difficulties in the past. One of the difficulties over the period he refers to, and he knows it has been specifically stated and reported publicly by the Paymaster-General, was due to the amount of sabotage that was going on at the time. Accounts were being destroyed and thrown away, and it was impossible, as the hon. member knows, to keep proper records. Over and above that our friends opposite are wholly concerned with trying to create a feeling and to create an impression in the country against the war effort that is being carried on. They know perfectly well and the country knows well, that as far as difficulties in connection with the pay office are concerned, everything possible is being done to obtain the necessary personnel. But it is no good saying: Why do you not take out so many men from the fighting forces? If we pulled out so many A. men they might be required at any time in connection with the military operations that are likely to take place. It would be nonsensical if for the purpose of accuracy in accounting we started picking out of the army men who would not necessarily be satisfactory for that job. The country is being combed to try to get sufficient men to carry out the job in the paymaster’s office efficiently. Personnel in the C. category are being combed all the time with a view to satisfactory men being found. You cannot always get satisfactory men for that office. With the present shortage of staff, which applies to every department including the Auditor-General’s office, if we started taking staff away from the army who could ill be spared in order that these accounting tasks should be given priority, well, the hon. member might as well say what he really wants, namely, to break up our war effort. Difficulties undoubtedly exist, and an enquiry may be necessary, but if so, let it be conducted at the conclusion of the war. That will be the time for an enquiry. But to have one now would be simply to interfere with the war effort, and I think neither the majority of hon. members in the House nor the majority of people in the country wish to see our war effort interfered with.

I really do not understand the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He is asking me to reply to a question when he knows the answer. He asked me a question about the amount we have to pay under the agreement and the hon. member has all the details because those details have been before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and the hon. member knows them better than I do.

But the House does not know it.

I am not allowed to mention the amount.

And the hon. member wants me to do it? I think it’s making a farce of the whole matter.

But you are the Minister concerned, and you can give the information, not the hon. member.

The hon. member knows what the amount is. I have quite enough to do with a hundred and one other matters, and I have not got the figures of this particular contract in my head, but the hon. member has all the information and the Department of Finance states that the agreement arrived at is to the advantage of South Africa in every possible respect. There is no reason for complaint of any kind here. The contract is before the Select Committe and we are going to get the Select Committee to report. It will be found that the agreement has been made in the interest of the Union. I do not know what the exact amount is. I believe the amount involved in the operations up North, in East Africa, Abyssinia and the Middle East is only £25,000,000, but in addition to that there are other accounts for which the Union is responsible. We have taken up the attitude from the very start that so far as our coastal defence or our internal defence is concerned we, and we alone, are responsible. We accept financial responsibility for that. There is an amount to be added in that respect, but the amount for our campaign up North is about £25,000,000. That is the amount which we have agreed upon. Then the hon. member asked how much of that had already been paid, and whether this additional £2,500,000 would settle the whole account. No, it will not do that. We have paid off £12,000,000 of the total of £25,000,000 and the balance will have to be put to our account and Parliament will have to vote the money on the General Estimates. If the Estimates are approved of we shall be able to pay the whole amount. So far as the future is concerned the hon. member says that he has not the necessary information to judge whether £1,000,000 per month is sufficient. He also asks whether there is only one Division up North, or whether we have more troops there. Well, that is the mistake which is generally made in these discussions and in similar discussions. The impression seems to be that we have only one Division up North. We have a few Divisions up there, or rather let me put it this way, that the forces which we have up North are equivalent to three Divisions. People only talk about the 1st Division which has been converted into the Sixth Armoured Division. In addition to that we have our Air Force which to all intents and purposes is equivalent to another Division and which is a very expensive force. An air force is a more expensive force than troops on land. In addition to the Sixth Armoured Division we have a strong Air Force up North which so far as personnel is concerned is equivalent to a further division. Over and above that we have more than one Division up North consisting of engineers, men employed in the workshops and, as I have said, the number is far more than that of a division. Our total number of European troops up North is between 50,000 and 60,000 men. It is not just one division. I am now speaking only of the European troops, and I say that the number is between 50,000 and 60,000 men. The number varies because there are always large numbers on leave—some are away in the Union and some are on their way from the Union to the North. I therefore say that the number is always between 50,000 and 60,000. The idea that our effort today up North is less than it was and that we have fewer troops there than in the past is quite erroneous. We have a larger European force up North than we have ever had before, and South Africa’s war contribution is greater than before. People only talk about the Sixth Division as if that constitutes all we are doing, but it is only one-third of our effort.

May we be allowed to know whether we have troops in Italy?

The major portion of our Air Force is in Italy. In regard to the Sixth Division—the question has often been raised during this debate why the Sixth Division is not in action. Well, the answer is a very palpable one. As the House knows the First Division was engaged up North for a few years, and it was necessary to give those men leave. That Division was given leave after the battle of El Alamein. The men were allowed to return to the Union. They did return to South Africa and here they were converted into the Sixth Armoured Division which consists of men from the First Division and other men whom we were able to send up North at that time. There were quite a number of units in South Africa which had not taken part in the original operations and which were very anxious to go up North. They have been incorporated in the Sixth Division and they had to be trained for some considerable time on a large scale. But that training is finished now, and the Division is on the point of taking part in the fighting which is going on.

May we know where they are?

No, I’m afraid I cannot give the hon. member that information.

Are there any non-Europeans in Italy?

There are no non-Europeans in Italy taking part in the fighting. There may be other nonEuropeans taking part in the fighting, but not from, the Union.

Are there any non-European motor drivers?

There must be quite a large number in Italy from the various territories but they don’t come under our control.

Are there South African non-Europeans in Italy?

Yes, quite possibly. I have not got the facts before me, but it is quite possible that there are coloured men with the Engineers in Italy who have to drive motor vehicles there.

And are they part of this Sixth Division?

No; there are quite a number of units which do not come under the Sixth Division. A large part of our war effort up North was not connected with the First Division or with the Sixth Division. From the very start the position has been that we have had a large number of workshops in the Middle East. When the war started there British troops were sent there, like our forces too, but they had nothing behind them, nothing at the back of them, in the way of workshops which, of course, are essential to a big army force. There is engineer’s work, work in connection with motor transport and repairs of all kinds. It was essential to have workshops established on a large scale, and the big workshops stretching from Suez to Alexandria were to a large extent made the Union’s responsibility, and more then 20,000 men were attached to those workshops. I mention this fact to let the House realise that our effort has not been confined to one division. It is a tremendous effort, greater than ever made before, and when we come to square up this amount of £12,000,000 per year for this huge force we can rest assured that from the financial point of view we shall have done very good business.

Why do we have so many troops in our own country?

Yes, there are large numbers in South Africa and one can quite understand that if one bears in mind the fact that we have training schools here for the air force. There are thirty-three training schools in South Africa and the personnel attached to those schools to keep them going and to train the pupils is in the neighbourhood of 30,000 men. If we have a large number of troops here in South Africa we must bear in mind the fact that they are attached to the air schools where men are being trained, where thousands of young Afrikaners as well as men from England and the Dominions are trained for the air force. A tremendous effort in that direction is being made in this country. We do not keep any of our fighting men behind in the Union unless it is absolutely essential. But men are needed here to do the work in connection with the air schools and so on. No, our numbers are amazing and if we take into consideration the amount we have to pay for what we are doing up North then I think the Union has made a very advantageous and very good bargain.

During the discussion on this Vote hon. members have been permitted to put certain questions to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister concerning certain Defence matters. Might I point out to hon. members that the Committee may omit or reduce a Vote on the Estimates before it but the rule that governs discussion on these Estimates is that if the estimate is for an increase in a service that has already been approved by the House, the discussion must be limited to the reason for the increase. The Minister in charge might be briefly questioned as to the policy of the Government, but discussion must be strictly confined to the reason for the increase.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You will quite understand that during the year an agreement was made with the British Government and the amount involved in that agreement is £35,000,000. We have now had that information from the Prime Minister. I could also have told the House that, but as a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts I did not want to do so. Part of that has to be found out of this £2,500,000 which we are now asked to vote. You will understand that it is therefore quite appropriate to discuss the matter here fully now. The Prime Minister said that I knew what the amount was. Perfectly correct. I knew it, but as a member of the Select Committee I am not at liberty to tell members on this side of the House or any member outside the Select Committee any details about anything that has transpired. I could ask the Minister to communicate those details to the House, but I am not at liberty to do so myself. I put those questions to the Prime Minister because I considerd it important that the House and the country should know a little more about this agreement. Now the Prime Minister says that we have scrutinised the whole question in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Let me say this, especially after what the Prime Minister has said— that we know no more than what the Prime Minister has told us here. We have only been told that an amount of £35,000,000 has been paid to the British Government to square off the old account. We have been told no more than that. We then asked whether it was in the interest of the Union, yes or no. We got no more than that—and I call the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) as my witness because he stated that I had exaggerated—we got no more than the assurance from an official, and we had no documents placed before us. The official said that he could assure the Select Committee that the agreement was advantageous to the Union. Beyond that we know nothing, and an amount of £35,000,000 is at stake.

Who was that official?

It was the Secretary of the Treasury and he informed us that in his opinion the agreement was advantageous to the Union. But we did not have the document before us. The House may perhaps be under the impression that we did have it before us but we did not; we were only given the assurance that it was to the benefit of the Union. I think it is essential, Mr. Chairman, for me to say this. I asked the Prime Minister to let us see the document because how are we otherwise to know whether it is to the benefit of the Union. It is a big amount.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has disclosed certain happenings in the Public Accounts Committee, and I feel, as Chairman of that Committee, I should now say a few words. Now, the information supplied to the Committee in regard to the amount was given to us naturally by the Defence Department, and the Public Accounts Committee, in trying to carry out its duty, wanted to sift the position to get as much information as it could possibly get; so the Secretary for Finance was called in for examination. I do not know what the opinion of the hon. member for George is with regard to the Secretary for Finance, but my opinion of him is that he is a very shrewd business man. When it comes to spending money which his Department has to put up, he turns over every sixpence. I pay him that tribute. As a matter of fact he is known as one of the stickiest secretaries for finance we have ever had. Now, that high officer comes before the Select Committee and is examined by the Committee, and on the evidence of that highly placed official we have it—what the Prime Minister has also revealed here— that in his opinion the Union of South Africa has made a very good bargain indeed. In fact, he rather gave us the impression that we had driven a very hard bargain indeed. Now, I ask this Committee on a matter of spending a round sum of £30,000,000, in respect of which the Secretary for Finance holds certain responsibilities—whether this Committee or the country would take the opinion of that expenditure of the Secretary for Finance, or whether it would prefer to take the opinion of the hon. member for George?

I expressed no opinion.

Well, the hon. member gave this Committee the impression that we had not got value for the money. But the official in charge of the Treasury and responsibile for the paying over of the money holds a very different opinion.

Would you not like to see the document yourself?

Surely we can be reasonable. This covers a period of 32 months up North, and, of course, if some of these hon. members had been with us in the war effort they would have known something of the difficulties.

You don’t know, you have not been there.

Of course, I don’t know all of them—and even over a hundred years we will not know all of them. The historians of the future will have to tell us, but let me tell hon. members that the difficulties were very great. We had difficulties to tackle which were very severe indeed, and if I had the opportunity I would congratulate the officer who went with the Prime Minister to England and settled this account, and settled it so favourably to South Africa.

How do you know it is favourable?

On examination, as a business man.

Examination of what?

Well, I take a simple thing like this. We are paying the Government of the United Kingdom a million pounds per month, and it is rather a coincidence—the period which is covered is something like 32½ months, and as it happens the exact sum paid was something like £32,500,000. So taking that yardstick we are not paying more in the future than we have paid in the past, and it looks to be a very good deal. We send from South Africa one of the most efficient, one the most able officers we could find in the country, and he in London in company with the Minister of Defence, made this agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom. When this agreement is made and agreed to, it has to be passed by the Treasury and we have the evidence of an efficient officer of the Government who says: “You have made a good bargain—in fact you have driven a hard bargain.” Can we have better evidence than that? To say that the Public Accounts Committee should examine all the figures is impossible. Surely we can trust these highly placed officers of ours, we can trust the man who went with the Prime Minister to London, and surely we can trust the Secretary for Finance when he comes before the Committee and says: “I think this has been a very good bargain for South Africa.” Personally speaking as an ordinary member, and as Chairman of that Committee, I would rather have that opinion from the Secretary for Finance than with all due respect even the opinion of the hon. member for George. I think in the circumstances this House has done everything it can to sift this matter, and I conclude that with the evidence that was placed before the Select Committee that matter is one on which the Prime Minister should be congratulated as a good stroke of business for South Africa.

In view of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I shall refrain from dealing with Defence matters until we get to the Prime Minister’s vote. I merely want to say this to the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) that his confidence of course is blind. It makes no difference to him whether it is £1,000,000 or £35,000,000. His confidence is absolutely blind. He does not even want to see the documents. He mentioned the evidence of the Secretary for Finance. But what struck me was that where other matters are concerned the hon. member as a business man would want to see such a document. In his own business he would insist on seeing the papers. There he would not be so blindly confident but where £35,000,000 of public money is concerned, he is blindly confident, and even if we should push those papers under his nose he would not want to look at them. Let me refer to an astounding statement made here by the Prime Minister in regard to these trawlers. It may appear to be a trivial matter but it affects the public as a whole. The Prime Minister took nine or ten trawlers from Irvin and Johnson and another fishing company. Those are the only companies here which go in for deep sea fishing. Now that is the direct cause of so little fish being supplied to the public today. It is well known that those two companies do all the deep sea fishing. The prices for deep sea fish have been fixed, but in regard to inshore fish the prices have not been fixed. We also know that 60 per cent. of our population get their fish from the deep sea fishing companies and not from the inshore fishermen. And now the Government, after the price of deep sea fish has been fixed, and the public thought that they were going to get certain quantities of fish cheaper, takes these trawlers from those companies. If we have to buy from the inshore fishermen we have to pay very heavily. It is a well known fact in South Africa that there is a serious shortage of this kind of food. There is a shortage and people have to pay far too much for their fish. The poor section of the community who in the past used to eat fish cannot afford to buy it today on account óf the prices. Even the people who have money to buy, cannot get fish sometimes. Yet the Government now steps in and takes these trawlers which used to supply hundreds of tons of fish with the result that we immediately had this shortage of fish. It took seven trawlers from the one company and from the other company it took two or three and it took their best trawlers. The Prime Minister must be aware of the fact that trawlers cannot be built in South Africa, with the result that we shall have all this trouble for years. We shall be faced with it as long as the war goes on. We shall have this difficulty of nine or ten of these trawlers being in the hands of the Department of Defence. We had hoped that it would be a temporary arrangement and that the companies would at least get some of their trawlers back, so that they might be in a position to supply large quantities of fish to the poorer class of the community who need fish so badly. But now the Minister comes here with his astounding statement that instead of the trawlers being returned to the company the Department of Defence is buying them. Perhaps the Prime Minister has not gone very carefully into the whole question. Perhaps he has not given any consideration to what it is going to mean to the public—what effect it is going to have. The fish shortage is attributed by two of these companies directly to the fact that they have not got their trawlers. The trawlers cannot be built here and they will now have to wait until perhaps some day the Department sells back the trawlers to the companies. Well, seeing we have been told that we are getting near the end of the war, I fail to understand how anyone can contend that this war will be won or lost through these nine or ten trawlers being in the hands or not in the hands of the Department of Defence.

Still, they help.

If the hon. member himself would only help a bit it would be better.

I should be very glad to help.

I think the harm that is being done is very much greater than the use these trawlers can be to the Department of Defence. To deprive the people of food of this kind amounts almost to a crime. I only want to say this again, that two facts are generally recognised, namely that there is a shortage of fish, that fish is expensive and costs too much. People say that this is directly attributable to the fact that nine or ten of these trawlers have been taken away. If a company had four or five trawlers and two of them are taken away, it is self-evident that it can only supply half its usual quantity of fish.

They took eight trawlers from a company which had fourteen.

Yes, from Irvin and Johnson. Those trawlers could have supplied large quantities of fish to the public, and I feel that as the war is not carried on new on the scale it was carried on two years ago, and seeing that so many people are on holiday—seeing that so many military men are on holiday at the expense of the State …

You know that that is not so.

… It seems peculiar to me that these trawlers are so badly needed and that the Government insists on depriving the fishing industry of the services of these ships. I want to ask the Minister to go into this question again and to devise some scheme, and if it is not possible to return all the trawlers, at any rate to return some of them to the companies. These ships cannot be built here and it therefore seems to me that the Minister’s action is a most unfortunate one.

Of course I quite appreciate the position which was placed before the House by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). It is perfectly true that as a result of the use of the trawlers by the Department of Defence the fishing industry has been seriously affected. I admit that, but on the other hand we have no option. There may be an improvement so far as the war is concerned up North and in other areas, but so far as the dangers at sea are concerned round about our coasts, that danger is still very great today. I cannot give the House the information I have, but I can assure hon. members that the danger today is as great as it was at any time. We know where the submarines are and what is happening today, and we know what has been happening round about our coasts during the past eight days—I cannot publish these facts.

Parliament is in the dark.

That being so Parliament must attach some value to what I say. We have been advised by the British Admiralty and by our own advisers that the whalers and other ships which contribute to the defence of our coasts are of the utmost value and in the circumstances I feel that if it is a question of priority we must give preference to the defence of our coasts before dealing with the question of supplying fish to the public. The hon. member can take it from me that we have no option. If he knew the seriousness of the danger and if he knew how necessary it is for us to have these ships he would agree with me.

I should be glad if the Minister could give the Committee some information on the arrangements the Defence Department is making in regard to the pay of those South African prisoners of war who braved the elements and escaped into Switzerland.

That does not fall within the scope of this vote.

I bow to your ruling, Sir.

I want to raise an objection to the pernicious doctrine which is proclaimed by the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) that we as a Select Committee on Public Accounts simply have to accept assurances given to us by officials. I strongly contest this contention. I don’t want to say a word against the particular official, but it is our duty as the watch dog of public finance not only to get evidence but the best possible evidence, and where we have to deal with the amount of £32,500,000, no business man in his own private business would be satisfied just to accept a statement of that kind. He would say that he wanted to see the documents, but I want to go further, and say that if we were to accept the principle enunciated by the hon. member we might just as well do away with the Auditor-General and then the Select Committee on Public Accounts would not be necessary. We could simply accept the statements made to us. We assume that every official who has the spending of money will be prepared to say that it has been well spent. Where will hon. members ever get an official to admit frankly that money he has spent has not been well spent. That is the very control which Parliament exercises by means of its Auditor-General and by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Not that we have no confidence in the official, but in the interest of sound administration, and in the interest of the control of the country’s finances, that must be done. I must say that I was astounded to hear the hon. member express that view, and I feel that I must contest that view most emphatically. If the principle enunciated by the hon. member is accepted it will completely undermine the effectiveness of the Select Committee. I was astounded at that plea of the hon. member for Vasco who is Chairman of the Select Committee. One would have expected him to have been very much concerned about upholding the honour of the Select Committee. Now I should like a little more information on this question of leaselend. Last year I put a question to the Prime Minister ….

I don’t think the hon. member can go into that now.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, we do not know what this £2,500,000 which we are asked to vote, is for. It may be that it is wanted, under an arrangement with Great Britain, to pay for goods which we have obtained under leaselend. I have not got that information, and that is why I am putting that question. Last year the Prime Minister told us that there was going to be no quid pro quo at all in regard to what we got from America under the lease-lend system. I asked the Prime Minister whether there was any account which would afterwards have to be paid by our Government, and the Prime Minister’s reply on the 15th March, 1943, was that so far there was nothing which we were committed to, except to provide supplies to the convoys from America. The Prime Minister thereupon referred me to the agreement which already existed between America and the United Kingdom and New Zealand and Australia, and he said that the Government was negotiating an agreement for South Africa, but that in the meantime we were getting our goods by means of the contract which England had with America. We are now getting goods from England under the agreement which England has with America. Is there anything we have to pay for? I notice in an official paper published by one of the Government departments the following in regard to 1942—

And then it goes on—

Now, I have made some enquiries into the position of the agreement between America and the United Kingdom, and the “Mutual Aid” Agreement in Clause 7 provides—

This makes it very clear, that under the Mutual Aid Agreement between America and the United Kingdom, payment will have to be made for goods obtained and now I want to know from the Prime Minister whether we shall get an account later on, whether he is already paying for the goods which we have secured under the lease-lend system. According to that agreement between America and the United Kingdom I believe we shall have to pay. If we have got goods from America under the agreement which England has, then it is self-evident that we shall also have to compensate England for the things we have got under that agreement because England herself will have to pay for them.

England took all that risk herself. We pay nothing to England.

Don’t we have to pay in future either?

That question has been closed. We are now only paying the £12,000,000 per year.

And if we get goods in future from England—from America through England, under the lease-lend system, won’t we have to pay for those goods either?

No, we pay nothing for what we get through England.

Not even for what we get from America through England?

Nothing. England has undertaken the whole of that risk.

England pays, and we only pay that fixed amount?

Yes.

I put a question yesterday to the Prime Minister—

The United Kingdom accepts all liability for that. The amount we have paid squares off everything.

But surely there must be an agreement with the United Kingdom. When I put that question yesterday the Prime Minister replied—

But today the Prime Minister comes along and tells us that an agreement has already been entered into. Hon. members will see, that as Alice in Wonderland said: “Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.” But still one would like to know what the position is. Yesterday I asked whether any arrangement had been arrived at in respect of goods which we get from America through the mediation of England and the Prime Minister said “no,” but the Prime Minister today tells us that this matter has been fully settled and that we get everything for nothing. Where is the agreement, where is the arrangement? Will he lay it on the Table of this House? I asked him yesterday, if there was an arrangement or an agreement, to lay it on the Table of the House, and his reply was: “The question falls away,” because there was no agreement. [Time limit.]

I am a businessman of sorts and if I enter into an agreement, I usually have reasons for doing so, and I have a basis on which I work, and I know what the position is going to be. In regard to Abyssinia I understand that an agreement has been made with the British Government, and the Prime Minister has told us that that agreement is before the Select Committee. That is so, but without the Prime Minister’s consent I am not at liberty to tell the House what the arrangement in regard to these matters is. Subsequently the troops from Abyssinia were sent to North Africa. The potential danger which existed in Abyssinia has been removed, and the danger was not as great when our troops went up North, and I understand that the Government therefore expected to have to pay less. But no agreement was ever entered into. Afterwards an arrangement was arrived at to get out of the difficulty. We as members of the Select Committee have no information before us in regard to the basis on which this arrangement has been made, nor have we any information as to the reasons why this arrangement has been made. We do not know whether we have struck a good bargain or not. We have only been told that it is a good agreement, but we don’t know what the agreement is, and what we have to pay for the troops up North and what we have to pay for. I should like the Minister to tell us what the troops have cost us and what the position now is.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I was asking the Prime Minister for more information to enable us to judge whether the agreement is a good one or not. That information has been given to us. We are now told that in future we shall have to pay one million pounds per month. For how many men is that? Shall we still have to pay the same amount of money if we have 100,000 or 50,000 men there? Are we still to pay £1,000,000? How long is the contract for? Parliament has been put here to attend to these matters, and we must have that information. It is no use saying that it is a good contract. We want to judge that ourselves. I hope the Right Hon. the Prime Minister will tell us for what term the contract has been made and whether it will always remain £1,000,000, irrespective of the number of troops we have. We do not know what it costs to keep a soldier in the field, how much ammunition is used, while he is at the front, how much it costs when he is doing garrison duty and so on. Consequently we are not able to judge whether it is a good agreement or not. We had an agreement that we would, together with Great Britain, bear half the cost of the soldiers who were employed in Abyssinia. After that the troops were taken further North. What share of the costs did we have to bear then? Was it one-quarter or three-quarters? After that the danger was removed further away from us, and there was no real necessity for our soldiers to go there. But they went and I want to know how much Great Britain is contributing to the cost of the soldiers we sent? In the last Great War Great Britain bore all the expense—so I understand. Now we are bearing part of the expense. I can understand that we should contribute part while we were fighting in Abyssinia, but now that North Africa has been cleared I want to know what our obligations are towards Great Britain. Without that information we cannot possibly say whether the contract is a good one or not. The Prime Minister may perhaps think it is a good contract; he may perhaps think we should bear the whole expense, but what is fair and what is the basis of the agreement? I assume that a soldier doing garrison duty in Egypt costs less than a soldier serving in Palestine for instance, because one may get trouble there any day between the Arabs and the Jews, and if a soldier is fighting on the Italian Front the expense may be much higher because they have to use ammunition there. That is why we ask for information so that we may be able to judge. If we do not agree with the Prime Minister we still want to form our own judgment about the agreement, because after all it is the taxpayers who have to pay, and we want to know how the money is being spent.

An additional amount of money is asked for the Defence, and there are a few points here which I think should be brought to the notice of the House. First of all I know of specific instances where soldiers have been back from the war for three years already. I know of one case of a soldier who has been back three years, he has been out of the army three years, and he has drawn more money than he was entitled to, but he has never yet been asked to repay that amount.

The hon. member is out of order, that has nothing to do with this vote.

We are asked here to vote more money, and we do not even know what the money is for.

The hon. member can raise that point on the Main Estimates.

Then I don’t know whether my next point is in order either— it concerns the question of money which is being spent on soldiers when they are discharged from the army.

I am sorry but that is also out of order.

I just want to say a few words about the points raised since I last spoke. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) asked why the arrangement which was made in regard to Abyssinia and East Africa under which we were to bear the expenses half and half with England was departed from. The difficulty of that system was that further north Great Britain’s share would be very much greater than our share, and if it had stopped at half and half …

I spoke about our troops.

No; but the position was that so far as Abyssinia was concerned the expenses were to be borne on a fitfy-fifty basis. In Abyssinia our troops constituted the main part of the army.

I understood that Great Britain was to bear half the expenses of our troops.

No; it was quite different. One cannot draw a line between the expenses of A and B; we fought alongside each other and we arranged matters on the fifty-fifty basis, which was in favour of South Africa, because the major part of the troops there were South African troops.

Were not there 200,000 Indians as well?

No, there were very few Indians, the South African troops were in the majority. Then the hon. member asked whether when the proportions changed, the basis of payment would also change. If there is any substantial change in regard to the numbers of troops we have there the £12,000,000 arrangement can be reviewed. It is not like the law of the Medes and Persians. If there is a big change in the war position, and in our contribution, the position can be reviewed. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has raised the question of lease-lend. I only want to say this in that connection, that the question of lease-lend does not arise here because in regard to all war equipment which we have obtained under lease-lend via England we do not share either one way or the other. The British Government has taken everything upon itself, so that if there is an advantage or a disadvantage in connection with what we have obtained under lease-lend via England …

We have no commitments there?

No; what is under discussion is another point which has nothing to do with this matter. So far we have been dealing with Great Britain under the “Master Agreement” because we have no separate agreement. Now our American Ally has said to us: “Look here, it is not fair to us, and we want to enter into an agreement with South Africa because South Africa is in a unique position.” Take Australia’s case where the Dominion Government is spending colossal amounts on behalf of the American Army. The reverse lease-lend, the contributions which Australia is making from its side, is a colossal figure. South Africa is contributing practically nothing. The amount which we provide for the American troops and for the navy calling at our ports is only a bagatelle. America, with a certain degree of justice, takes up the attitude that it wants a separate agreement with us so that we on our part shall also contribute something. It wants something else from us. It may be war materials, raw materials, minerals etc.

And bases.

No, it is only a question of raw materials such as manganese and things like that. They are anxious to get these things under a separate agreement with us. Those are the matters about which negotiations are going on at present. We have not arrived at any decision yet on this point, whether we shall make a separate agreement with them, and if so, what we from our side are going to put into the estate. That we shall have to negotiate. I do not know whether we shall go in for lease-lend or whether it would not be better for South Africa to pay cash rather than have this uncertainty.

But surely it is better to get something and pay nothing, than to pay in cash.

America cannot carry on on that basis. She has said that she is not going to do it in future, and she wants to have a different agreement under which we must also make a contribution.

That will take the place of the present arrangement with England?

It will come under a separate agreement between ourselves and the United States and not under the Master Agreement. Under the separate agreement we shall bring in raw materials as a quid pro quo. Negotiations are still going on and the question has arisen whether in those circumstances it will not be better for us to pay cash and not go in for lease-lend in future. It is a question of negotiation between the two Governments, and correspondence is going on on the subject.

We do not owe them anything, do we?

No. In regard to the war materials and supplies which we have got from America via the Master Agreement through England, there we have no debt. England takes it all over for better or for worse.

From what date did this agreement start? Is it from the present date that we are to get no more?

I believe that that agreement was made by me in October. After that agreement the British Government took everything over so far as the past was concerned.

May I just ask whether this agreement which the Prime Minister has been speaking about will be laid on the Table of the House; I mean the agreement entered into in regard to the past in respect of the goods which we have got under the Master Agreement? Will the Prime Minister lay that agreement on the Table?

I shall see whether I can lay it on the Table or whether I can place it before the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Will you allow us to see it privately?

I think so, but I first of all want to look at that agreement to see whether it does not contain anything that should not be published. If there is nothing of that kind in it then I shall be quite prepared to let hon. members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts see it.

Vote No. 5.—“Defence,” as printed, put and the Committee divided:

I notice that on Item D, Rate of Exchange on consignments of money, there is an increase of £50,000. This additional amount is asked for for the transfer of funds. In the main estimates there is provision for an amount of £57,000. £10,000 has been saved on that, and now an extra amount of £50,000 is asked for. The question immediately arises why this extra amount is necessary. It can only be caused by rate of exchange costs in connection with the transfer of capital payments on interest payments. Last year I see that according to the information on the Main Estimates the amount overseas was reduced by £2,000,000, and I should therefore like to know what this extra amount is required for?

The expenditure under this item is linked up with the question which we have just been discussing. The extra money required is spent in connection with the payment in London under the agreement we have been discussing. As the Prime Minister has said we are this year paying an amount of £12,000,000 in connection with the past, and after that £1,000,000 per month. That will mean that before the 31st March we shall have to pay altogether £15,000,000, and it is in order to make provision for that that we are asking for this money.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 8.—“Pensions”, £81,346, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 9.—“Provincial Administrations”, £10,770, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 12.—“Inland Revenue”, £8,000,

I do not rise to object to the extra money asked for for additional staff, or for the purchase of additional calculating machines. We all know that a very heavy burden has been placed on this department and they need all the help we can give them. The Minister of Finance told us that Mr. Wiggett was going to resign in a few months, and the Minister expressed his appreciation of Mr. Wiggett’s services. I should like on behalf of this side of the House to say that we are sorry to learn that Mr. Wiggett has reached the age limit, and I want to add that we on this side appreciate his services. We found Mr. Wiggett most approachable, also to the Opposition, and we have always found him willing to give us all possible assistance. I have pleasure in saying these few words about his services.

In regard to the expenses in connection with the collection of income tax there is a very large additional amount and I should like to have some more information about that.

The information is this, when a case in connection with an income tax assessment is taken to court, and the Government loses that case. we not only have to repay the money we have collected, but we also have to pay interest on it. During this year there were two very big cases in which the finding was held up for some considerable time, and as a result we had to pay a good deal more interest than we had expected.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 15.—“State Advances Recoveries Office”, £3,000,

I should like to know from the Minister of Finance what is the meaning of the ex gratia reduction in the purchase price of the farm Diepkloof, District Smithfield.

This is a case which the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) probably knows more about than I do.

Ask him to give the explanation.

No, I know enough about it to give an explanation and he will no doubt confirm what I am saying. This is the case where a farmer bought a farm from the Farmers Relief Board for £2,800. The farmer paid cash. He preferred to do that. If he had wanted to he could have entered into a two years’ lease, but he paid his purchase price in cash. Within a week of having done so a thunderstorm broke out and the dam was washed away. We felt that this was a case where we could give some ex gratia assistance.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 16.—“South African Mint”, £20,810,

Will the Minister please explain to us what is included in this amount of £1,700 under the heading of “Additional Expenditure”? I would also be pleased if the Minister would tell us why it had been suddenly decided to buy so much new furniture for an amount of £5,700? Was it really necessary to do so at this time.

I regard to the first point of the additional expenditure there are two reasons for the increase First of all we have to pay more under the Workmen’s Compensation Act than we had expected. The second reason is that after framing the first additional estimates we received two big orders for the striking of coins for other countries. We had to employ additional staff which is reflected in Item A, and that, at the same time, involved an increase in Item F. This also meant that we had to buy protective clothing for this extra staff; that is provided for in Item B. In regard to Item E it is not only a question of the purchase of new furniture; it also includes the maintenance of offices, equipment and machinery in the offices. As a result of the expansion of the work of the Mint we had to use certain additional buildings, and we had to provide for the equipment. That is why there is this increase.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 17.—“Union Education,” £30,809,

Will the Minister give us some information about the increase of this Vote?

In the main the increases are under Items A.1, B.3 —B.10, and C.2—C.10. This applies to the grants to various institutions. My hon. friend knows that we calculate the grants to our universities, university colleges and technical colleges on the basis of the revenue of those institutions in the previous year. For instance, when we make provision for the year 1943-’44 we have to do so on the basis of the income for 1942. At that time the institutions have not yet got their complete figures. They send us provisional figures, and on those figures we make our calculations. Later on in the year, when the institutions get their audited accounts, we review the calculations, and as a result we almost invariably have to provide additional funds on the additional estimates. The calculations are made strictly according to the formula. Those are the grants to which the institutions are entitled as a result of their increased income.

Is there no maximum?

Yes, so far we have applied the maximum of £100,000, but we have made provision here for special grants in regard to cost of living allowances and in some cases it has brought the amount to more than £100,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 18.—“Industrial Schools and Reformatories,” £23,950,

I should like to know from the Minister why he has been so much out in his estimate. There is an increase of £23,000. He there been such an increase in the number of people sent to industrial schools and reformatories? An additional amount of £9,750 is put down for stores. It seems to me there is something wrong with the estimate, or otherwise the number of people sent to reformatories and industrial schools must have increased very much.

The reason for the increase is threefold. First of all provision is made on this Vote for the increased cost of living allowance. That is reflected in Items A.1—B.1. But in addition to that we found it necessary during this year to open new institutions. For instance, we changed the institution at Tweespruit into an industrial school for girls, and it was then found necessary to undertake the establishment of a new school for boys. That was done because of the increase in the number of pupils sent to us by the Department of Social Welfare, to be taken up in those schools. As a result of the opening of these new institutions it is necessary to make additional provision for equipment and stocks.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 19.—“Agriculture,” £130,700,

We notice that on item B.8, Vaccine and maintenance, there is in increase of £24,000. We should like to know why there is this increase, and in that connection I want to put a few questions to the Minister. I want to explain to him that we have a lot of trouble in the past year getting vaccine against Blue Tongue. It has sometimes taken four weeks and more before the farmers got the vaccine and a tremendous amount of damage has been done. Now I want to ask the Minister whether this amount is intended to improve the position, and to ensure our getting vaccine when we apply for it. I also want to ask whether the Department could not erect a station at Grootfontein where the vaccine could be manufactured? It is in the centre of the sheep area. If it were manufactured there it would be very convenient. I understand that everything has to be manufactured at Onderstepoort today, and from Onderstepoort it has to be sent to Grahamstown, and I am told that last season a considerable quantity of vaccine was lost in transit. I don’t know whether that is true, but as there is this difficulty I want to ask whether it would not be possible to manufacture it at Grootfontein. So far as vaccine for horsesickness is concerned I know that many farmers have made application for it and that they were not able to get it at the beginning of the season. A few days ago I received a letter from our Farmers’ Association asking whether it would not be possible to have this vaccine made locally. I want to know whether the Minister can make provision in that direction.

In regard to point F.5 “Research: Low Temperature Dehydration,” a new amount of £500 is asked for here. I take it this in in connection with certain research work which is to be carried out at the low temperature station in Dock Road. The position is that the low temperature research institute in Dock Road was established to do low temperature research work, particularly in connection with fruit, and more particularly export fruit from South Africa to other countries, and also in connection with meat. I understtand that the low temperature research work has practically come to a standstill but I believe there is no real reason why this work should come to a standstill. Even though we are not exporting fruit at the moment very useful work can. none the less be done in respect of low temperature research. But there is a new thing which may be become very important to South Africa, and that is the question of the dehydration of fruit and vegetables, and I think this is going to have a great future in South Africa. We are on the look out for new markets for our products, and we shall be able to get those new markets if we are successful in dehydrating our fruit and vegetables. In the past we could not conserve these articles cheaply but under this new system we shall be able to do so, and new markets will be created for these products outside this country as well. A market will be created in this way for the farmers who produce these things, not just during certain times of the year but right throughout the year. In other words, surplus vegetables and fruit will be taken off the markets to be dehydrated, and afterwards they can be put on the market again. The position is that at Stellenbosch a fruit research institute has been established at considerable expense, but it has given the farmers of the Western Province great satisfaction. There is an excellent staff there which we can be proud of, and it is doing rally good work in regard to research into vegetables and fruit, they are doing it in a very scientific way which takes into account not merely the ordinary agricultural problems, but which brings the agricultural problems into conformity with economic factors; this is a most essential factor in making a success of an undertaking of that kind. But now we find, or we suspect, that the low temperature research institute in Dock Road is not going to continue the work for which it was originally established, namely low temperature research, but that that institute is also going to do work in connection with the dehydration of vegetables and fruit. It will mean that we are going to have two places where research work in regard to the same thing is being done within thirty miles of each other. Not only will that mean overlapping, but the two institutes will handicap each other. There is the difficulty today of getting materials to work which is a problem in itself, and if the two institutes handicap each other we may perhaps not achieve the best results at either of these places. As the institution in Dock Road was set up for low temperature research, I think, and I may say that that is the feeling of the farmers, that it should carry on with that work. It is most important, so far as the position after the war is concerned, that that research work shall not be stopped. I hope the Minister will look into this matter and will see to it that the low temperature research work is not stopped and that the research work in connection with dehydration is concentrated in one place. May I just say that very expensive apparatus is required for research work in connection with dehydration and it is very difficult to get hold of the necessary apparatus. It cannot be imported and it is difficult to make it in South Africa, so that there is a shortage of the necessary apparatus, and it would be a pity to have half of the apparatus at the one place and half at the other place. One place should concentrate on the work, and that place should be the one where the work can best be done.

*Mr. NAUDÉ: There are just one or two points which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and the first, is in connection with B.5 Compensation for Loss of Stock. The amount is increased from £1,750 to £9,750, and I should like to know whether that increase is due to the fact that horse sickness has greatly increased or is the increase in horse sickness due to the fact that the vaccine is not so effective as it used to be? Our people in the northern parts of the Union particularly have to contend with this disease, and we know how essential it is for the necessary vaccine to be available. I should like to know what has been done to make vaccine available. I also want to know whether sufficient vaccine will be available. Rightly or wrongly the old people believe in it. They believe that in a wet year malaria increases and horse sickness as well increases, and consequently it is a matter of the greatest importance to have ample vaccine on hand for the inoculation of horses. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said about the dehydration of vegetables. We in the northern parts of the Union are anxiously looking forward to something being done in that direction. The amount of £500 which is put down here is very small. People are encouraged from time to time to grow vegetables and in our part of the country they are doing so on a big scale. The people in our parts perhaps have the advantage of being able to produce vegetables in the middle of the winter, when other people cannot do so, but they are faced with the difficulty that their products cannot be carried over long distances. The position is that we have over-production sometimes, and at the same time, as happened last year, vegetables are practically unobtainable in Cape Town. If we could send cur vegetables to Cape Town under the scheme the hon. member for Humansdorp spoke of it would be most valuable.

Or, on the other hand, we might send vegetables to you.

That would not be so very necessary but the fruit that is thrown away here would be very welcome. Fruit such as grapes and so on. And then I notice that there is an increase of £8,500 under L.5. “Improvement of local marketing.” What is the explanation of that? What is intended by local marketing? Why is the amount to be increased to this extent? Has this anything to do with Municipal marketing? We know there are parts where there are no Municipal markets. I unfortunately have to admit that a town like Pietersburg, which is a big town, has no Municipal market. Is the intention here to make provision for Municipal markets and will the Department of Agriculture also be able to step in and see to it that there are proper marketing facilities up-country?

I want to reply to a few of the points which have been raised. First of all I want to say to the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) that the vaccine can only be produced at Onderstepoort. Onderstepoort is equipped for it, and the facilities are there, and the Department cannot produce the stuff anywhere but at Onderstepoort. In regard to the lamb sickness a building is being erected at Onderstepoort and a vaccine will be produced there which has already met with a certain amount of success, although it has not yet proved itself effective for all types of lamb sickness. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) raised a question, which was also touched on by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé)—he referred to the amount of £500 on these Estimates for dehydration research. This really is a new service. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the work is being so divided between Cape Town and Stellenbosch that Stellenbosch will get its due share of the work. It is a new step to try and apply dehydration to fruit and to foodstuffs. I agree with the hon. member that there is a wide field for development and that it may prove most important in overcoming difficulties we experienced when there are too many food products at certain times of the year and too few at other times of the year. In regard to the second question raised by the hon. member for Pietersburg with reference to the increase in the amount of compensation for cattle and stock, this is attributable to the fact that the Government has accepted the interim recommendation of the East Coast Fever Commission regarding the deduction of 8s. per 100 lbs. for expenses. This refers to the cattle which was slaughtered in the districts of Vryheid and Babananga as a result of an outbreak of East Coast Fever there. Instead of acting under the castle diseases Act, where an amount is laid down for compensation for every animal slaughtered, the slaughter was undertaken by the Food Controller against grade and weight prices, but 8s. per 100 lbs. was deducted in respect of expenses. But in consequence of the interim recommendation of the Commission this money has been repaid to the farmers concerned. The Commission recommended that this 8s. should be repaid to the farmer. It also recommended that there should be a new basis and that the basis should not be the slaughter value of the meat but the commercial value, so that if young stock or breeding stock was slaughtered more would be paid—that is to say, not the slaughter but the commercial value. It is felt that the interests of the individual farmers should not be sacrificed in cases of this kind where one is dealing with a countrywide evil and where the steps are taken for the good of the whole of the farming population. That is the explanation. It was also decided that the payment of the 8s. would be retrospective. The farmers who had already lost the 8s. got it back. In regard to local marketing it is not possible for me at this stage to make a statement on the subject of municipal markets, but I can give the hon. member the reasons for the increase. Various items have gone up. In the first place the reason is that the Treasury originally cut down the amount put down by £915. And the increase is further due to the appointment of additional staff required for the compulsory grading of meat and also for the increase in the work of the Food Controller’s organisation. An amount is also included there which is required for Government assistance in regard to the handling of agricultural products on the larger markets.

We in Natal are rather interested in the steps that have been taken to prevent the spread of nagana in Zululand, and I would direct the Minister’s attention to Vote B. 16 where an additional amount of £5,000 is to be voted in connection with the nagana campaign. I understand that a large number of game, running into several thousands, have already been slaughtered, and that no steps have been taken to recover any revenue from it by way of sale of carcases or hides, and the recovery of the bones for fertiliser. I would like to know whether it is contemplated that revenue may accrue by these means that would off-set expenditure. We should also like to know whether this increase of £5,000 in the estimates for the current year means that the campaign has been intensified, and I would like to hear from the Minister whether the prophecies that were made by some people in regard to nagana that the slaughter of the game would result in the dispersal of game in areas where nagana has not existed before, have been borne out. We would like to know whether nagana has spread due to this campaign, as it was prophesied it would, and whether cases of nagana have been discovered outside the area of the reserve, in areas where it was unknown before. I think an exhaustive answer on this point would satisfy the people of Zululand and Natal.

I should like to ask the Minister a question in regard to B. 5, compensation for loss of stock. I should like to know from the Minister what brought about the question of compensation for the loss of stock, and in respect of the increase of £8,000 in the estimates, whether provision is contained therein to pay compensation to Mr. Holland, who suffered severe loss as a result of defective vaccine being supplied to him a few months ago; and secondly, whether the Minister has received any compensation from the South African Railways as a result of the damage caused by the South African Railways in respect of certain property destroyed at Dohne Experimental Farm.

The Hon. the Minister did not reply to the question about a vaccine for horses. The Minister perhaps does not know that as far back as the beginning of November his Department at Onderstepoort, by means of a broadcast talk, informed the people that no further applications were to be made for vaccine for horses. The result is that we are running the risk of suffering heavy losses through horses dying. The position will become bad as from next month and since November the farmers have not been able to get any vaccine. I do not know what the explanation is. I should like to know whether Onderstepoort is required to inoculate horses for war purposes, or have they perhaps sent the vaccine out of the country? If that is so it is most reprehensible because I think it is the Government’s duty in the first place to see that the needs of the Union are provided for. The fact that the farmers have not been able to get vaccine since the beginning of November means that we are in danger of suffering heavy losses, and I hope the Minister will take steps to supply the farmers immediately with vaccine.

I should like to correct the statement made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in regard to dehydration. The facts are that, at the Low Temperature Research Department in Portswood Road, fish and vegetables are being dehydrated. Very frequently, in the process, the question of preservation arises, and it is perfectly true, as the hon. member for Humansdorp has said, that a good deal of the low temperature work of that particular department is not being practised at the present moment. But that preservation in relation to low temperature is essential. At Stellenbosch fruit only is being preserved. The facts are that as far as Stellenbosch is concerned the greater portion of the interest centres round production, whereas in the Low Temperature Research Department, the greater portion of the interest centres round preservation. I should like to tell the hon. member for Humansdorp also that the apparatus, as he has correctly stated, for this type of work, is very expensive and difficult to obtain, whilst in South Africa it is practically unmanufacturable. Most of the apparatus required for this kind of work is in the hands of the Lower Temperature Research Department in Portswood Read, and the people handling it are very expert in this particular type of work. I do feel, however, with the hon. member for Humansdorp, that it is a pity to separate the two.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the manufacture of vaccine. Some time ago we required vaccine for Red Water. I understand that unless the vaccine is used within twelve hours it is not effective. As a result the vaccine had to be brought by aeroplane from Johannesburg and then taken by motor car to my constituency. I further understand that it is not difficult to produce it, that it is a simple process. From George to Mossel Bay, Riversdale and Swellendam, one gets Red Water every year. These people need the vaccine. There is an agricultural school at Riversdale and I am wondering whether it would not be possible to manufacture the vaccine against Red Water there? If that could be done those parts round about Riversdale and further along up to Swellendam would be served without the vaccine losing its effectiveness, and without it having to be brought all the way from Johannesburg. It is no use sending it by post, it arrives too late. Nor can it be preserved because it has to be used within twelve hours of being manufactured. I also notice an additional amount here for the Guano Islands. I would like the Minister to see that steps are taken for an earlier distribution of the Guano. In my constituency it often arrives too late. People cannot use it if it arrives too late, and as a result they suffer losses.

With regard to the question of nagana, the £5,000 that figures in this vote represents a contribution made by the Natal Provincial Administration which is paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and is simply voted under this head; it has to be allocated to this service. With regard to the points that my hon. friend raised in reference to the eradication of nagana, he may recollect that about a week ago in answer to Question by his colleague, the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt), I gave very full information about the nagana campaign. In that question also the point was raised whether use should not be made of the bones and the carcasses, and I stated the reasons why it was not possible to do so. With regard to the Question of the spread of the disease by the dispersal of the game due to the slaughtering, my information is that the slaughtering is being done very carefully and under proper supervision, so that as far as possible the scattering of the game is prevented and there is no evidence that it has caused any spread of the disease outside the area in which the slaughtering is taking place, and where the disese is prevalent. In regard to the point made by my hon. friend the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren), I have given full details why there is this increase in the vote. If my hon. friend was not here, let me repeat: it was because the slaughtering of the stock in question did not take place under the Stock Diseases Act, but was carried out by the Controller of Food, definite prices being fixed for the meat, and 8s. per 100 lb. deducted for expenses. On the interim recommendation of the East Coast Fever Commission, this amount of 8s. per 100 lb. was refunded to the farmers concerned. The Commission also recommended that the basis of compensation should not be the slaughter value but the commercial value of the animal, so that due weight might be given to the case of young animals, so that the individual farmer who has to have his stock destroyed for the common good of all the farmers, will not suffer. With regard to the case of Mr. Holland which he has mentioned, the position is that that case is being investigated, and when the report is received I shall be able to go into it, and I may say that it is not included under this amount, so I do not think we can go into that question at this stage.

†*In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) the position is that the shortage is not due to the fact that the Department sent vaccine overseas. The position is that it is due to the large increase in the demand for the vaccine. There is a very much bigger demand than there was in the past, and it is further due to difficulties experienced in securing all the necessary ingredients required for the production of the vaccine. I just want to point out that the breeding of white mice is a necessary adjunct to the manufacture of this vaccine. Now, another point was raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) which I did not reply to earlier on. I do not know whether the vaccine can be manufactured at Riversdale but I shall look into the point raised by the hon. member and find out whether it is possible to produce the vaccine there.

The hon. member told the House something of the necessity for the additional vote of £8,000 in respect of compensation for loss of stock.

I have explained it twice; once in English and once in Afrikaans.

My purpose is to find out whether in a case of this sort, the claims are considered by the Minister’s Department before the authority is given in this House or later, because I know of a series of claims from the Natal Province that should be considered by the Minister.

This deals with stock slaughter in the Vryheid and Babanango districts only.

There are other cases that have to be considered as well. A number of stock were lost through being inoculated with vaccine issued by the Government. I merely wanted to know whether such cases should first be brought to the notice of the department with a view to their being considered and whether it is possible for compensation to be granted in those cases. Then, in connection with the matter of game destruction, I think the figures tabled by the Minister the other day show that some thousands of game had been slaughtered already. As I read the Minister’s reply, it is clear that hides had not been accounted for. If you assume that, say, three thousand head of game were wildebees or big game such as buffalo, you can be sure that the people who handled those animals would have made the best part of £2,000 from the proceeds of the sale, and I hope that if the Department wants us to vote an additional £5,000, some effort will be made to give credit to the Government for whatever recoveries they make either from the sale of hides or from the sale of meat. I cannot see why other persons should be allowed to benefit from the sale of the hides, and I hope the Minister will see to it that if that has been allowed in the past, it will be brought to an end and that some account will be given of the sale of hides of large game slaughtered.

I am amazed to find under Item F.5 that in respect of dehydration provision is being made for the niggardly additional amount of £500. I was always given to understand that dehydration was going to solve the tremendous problem of inland marketing, that it was going to be of great assistance not only to the producer but to the consumer. But what improvements can be obtained from the paltry sum of £500. It is obvious that private enterprise, as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has. pointed out, has seen the opportunities that dehydration offers and has entered that particular sphere. I should have thought that the department would have considered that it can pass on to private enterprise some valuable information, if it was prepared to spend a certain amount to obtain that information. I am therefore amazed at this state of affairs. Then I want to refer to Item L.5.: “Inland marketing improvement,” where an additional £8,500 is being voted in respect of salaries, wages and allowances. Surely this would seem to indicate a very lopsided state of affairs. It would appear that as far as increasing staff is concerned the department is prepared to spend a large amount of money, but when it comes to a matter which may result in a tremendous improvement in marketing conditions generally it spends very little.

I would like to thank the Minister for the provision he made in his estimate for an extra £5.000 in connection with “nagana research prevention.” The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has referred to the question of the disposal of the hides. I have no doubt that the Government is doing everything they possible can to recover all the hides they can. But I want to say this, that as far as my area is concerned, nagana is one of the most difficult problems that we have to face. It is the only pocket in Southern Africa where this disastrous disease exists. We have a peculiar position there in as much as we have a settlement of returned soldiers of the last war, a settlement where these settlers have for many years suffered from the incidence of this devastating disease on the one hand, and on the other hand we have a position whereby the Province of Natal under the Act of Union is faced with the preservation of the fauna of that Province, and I am very pleased that the Government did in October in 1942 institute a campaign whereby we can get to the bottom of this evil. Nagana in this country has cost the country thousands of pounds and if we pursue our efforts as far as research is concerned and if we continue the present campaign, I think we will eventually come to a state whereby we can not only save public expenditure, but whereby we can rehabilitate one the finest cattle areas in the whole country. In Hluhlulwe we have one of the finest cattle areas in South Africa. I am pleased to say that since the Government started to carry out its campaign in October, 1942, there has been a diminution of the disease, hut I want to point out to the Minister that while these game reserves exist, there will always be the danger of infection, and it will be the duty of the Government and of the settlers to combat this disease, and I shall do my best to see that the settlers play their part. I can assure you that my position as a politician is a very difficult one indeed for the simple reason that I have to keep the balance between the public who are shouting preservation on the one hand and the settlers who are shouting destruction on the other hand, and I am convinced that the line which the Government is taking in connection with nagana is the correct one. But whereas the people in Durban are shouting for the preservation of a few head of game they have no objection to advocating a policy whereby a few innocent little monkeys in Durban are destroyed when they steal a few bananas. I have often been accused of being a game destructionist on the one hand and a game protectionist on the other hand; I am neither. If after a series of years this experiment does not succeed and if we are going to throw public money down the drain, as we have for years and years, I am prepared to consider very strongly that the question of the game reserves be reconsidered because the cattle of this country are more important to the citizens of South Africa than a few head of game.

I want to say a few words about vaccine and maintenance. As the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has said, we have had a good deal of trouble with Red Water in the Transvaal, and especially round about Pretoria this year. We have that trouble there every day just now and the position is such that I have just been told by one of my constituents that we have to go to private chemists for vaccine for Red Water because we cannot get it at Onderstepoort. In view of the fact that, in a time like the present, when meat is expensive, we want to preserve whatever we have got, it will be appreciated if the Minister will do his best to supply us with these vaccines wherever possible, in the quantities required, and also right throughout the year, whenever it may be needed. I just want to say a few words about combating nagana. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) said earlier on that what was being done now was experimental. According to a report which I read in the Press some time ago it does appear to be an experiment. In this country, where we are doing out utmost to protect our natural heritage, and where we are spending large sums of money to protect the game of this country, it seems to be going rather far if we are asked to spend £15,000, and then another £5,000, for the destruction of game, while we admit at the same time that what we are doing is in the nature of an experiment. I am speaking merely as a layman, but as a lover of nature I feel we should do all we can to protect our game.

Is there no danger of this disease spreading to the other game reserves? Assuming it were to spread to the Kruger National Game Reserve. How many thousands of pounds would we have to spend then to destroy all the game in the Kruger Reserve? I now come to Item F. 5, Dehydration. This matter really is connected with Item L. 5, the improvement of our local markets. If we take into account the quantities of fruit and vegetables that are destroyed today and that get spoilt on our market, it becomes very clear how essential it is that we should not have a trivial amount of £500 for research work, but a very much larger amount.

If my hon. friend will look at the Main Estimates he will see what the total amount is; this is only an additional amount.

I don’t see anything on the additional estimates. I do not know how much there is on the original estimates but I want to emphasise that it is a matter of the utmost importance to the townsman as well as to the farmers that this dehydration process should be proceeded with as quickly as possible. This matter is connected with the improvement of our local markets. The position in the big municipalities is most unsatisfactory. I myself have had the experience of one morning getting 5s. 3d. for a box of tomatoes and the next morning only getting 1s. 3d., but in spite of that the housewife had to pay just as much as ever for her tomatoes. This matter should have the serious attention of the Minister and the Government, and if it is properly enquired into, and if an effective solution for these two problems is found, the friction between town and platteland will be removed, and the housewife will at the same time be able to buy fruit and vegetables right throughout the year at a reasonable price.

I was rather surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) in regard to the destruction of game in Zululand. I put a question to the Minister a short while ago, and the reply was to the effect that approximately 14,000 head of game have been slaughtered since this slaughter campaign started, and it is still going on, and we do not know how many thousands more head of game will be slaughtered before the biltong hunters are satisfied. I am very disappointed that the hon. member for Zululand treated the matter in such a flippant way and referred to a few head of game being slaughtered, and as to his remark about the monkeys in Durban, I think he is holding the wrong end of the stick. The people in Durban are not crying out for the destruction of the monkeys. On the contrary they are going to the extent of paying public money from public funds to provide food for the monkeys. I think the hon. member should withdraw the insinuations about the inhabitants of Durban. I was disappointed at the Minister’s reply to my question, although I apreciated the very frank way in which he did reply to the question. There was no evasion or anything of that sort, but I did expect him to say that the Department was making every use of the animals that were being slaughtered, that the carcasses were being sent to centres where there is a shortage of meat and that the hides were being used. Moreover I thought he would say that owing to the shortage of fertiliser the bones would be collected and handed over to the fertiliser factories. I must say that I was very disappointed in his reply, and I hope that he will now see to it that proper use is made of these carcasses. I personally regret very much that it is necessary to slaughter animals in this way. The great majority of the people in South Africa are horrified at this wholesale slaughtering. I personally think that some other means should be devised by the Department to cope with this nagana disease and that this slaughtering campaign should be discontinued. I hope that the Minister will see to it that these carcasses are put to proper use.

I do not know that the question of nagana can be profitably pursued any further under these additional estimates. I certainly do not want to try and settle the difference between the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) and the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt). May I say, with regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that they will be considered. I shall go into the two questions which were raised by him with a view to seeing if anything can be done. In regard to the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) I would like to say that I think it is hardly fair to say that the position in regard to dehydration is a lopsided one. If my hon. friend wants to compare the two items he should take the total amounts voted in respect of dehydration and not only the amount on the additional estimates.

This is a new amount.

It is a new amount, as the hon. member will realise from what I have said, because previously a certain amount of money was supplied from the Food Control Fund. It has not appeared under this heading before, and may I say further in connection with the remarks made both by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) and the hon. member tor Orange Grove as well as other hon. members who spoke on the importance of this subject of dehydration, that a very much larger amount will appear on the Supplementary Estimates, so that we are fully alive to the importance of developing this work, and I am glad to see that I will enjoy the support of members on all sides of the House for that particular service.

†*Only two other small points have been raised, and one is the question of guano— that was raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). Now, the position there is that the Department allocates the guano as soon as it is received; I will see to it that that policy is continued and that my hon. friend will get his guano as soon as it becomes available. The question of Red Water Vaccine was raised by the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel). I am informed that no such vaccine for Red Water is produced by chemists. I understand that what the hon. member probably means is a medicine which can be used for that purpose; it is not really a vaccine. I believe that all the points raised have now been replied to, and I hope the vote will be allowed to pass.

I only want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture whether the vaccine which is used for Gallamsiekte is also good for ordinary Galsiekte, and whether it is a preventive or just a cure?

I shall go into that question.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 20—“Agriculture (Assistance to Farmers),” £276,600,

I want to ask the Minister whether he has taken into account the fact that certain foodstuffs which contain mealies and also other substances have been transported by the Industrial Development Corporation, and I want to know whether those foodstuffs come under the same rebate as mealies? If that is not so I hope the Minister will approach the Department of Railways and ask them to carry those goods at the same rates. There is a great scarcity of mealies, and the farmers are very anxious to get these foodstuffs; I therefore want to know whether those foodstuffs will be granted the same rebates. Under item “J” Subsidy on Lucerne Seed, there is an amount of £1,000. In that connection I just want to say that I hope the Minister will not supply this Lucerne Seed only to certain parts but that he will supply it throughout South Africa. It is an excellent foodstuff and so far as raw materials are concerned there is nothing better to improve one’s land. I hope this subsidy of Lucerne Seed will be extended to all parts of South Africa.

It is applicable to all dry land farms.

In connection with this subsidy on Lucerne Seed I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he would be prepared to increase this amount somewhat, if it is found that it is not enough. I assume the amount put down here will be altogether too little.

It is only for this month.

I understand this scheme is not going to be put into operation soon, and I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to expedite it? In our area April is the only month in which we can sow, and if this scheme is not put into operation at once the position will be very difficult so far as the farmers are concerned.

I understand that this subsidy of 60 per cent. on lucerne seed is given with the object of improving the soil. That is why it is granted in those parts where the land is not under irrigation. But some of those dry areas cannot use lucerne seed and they use Rhodes grass for the same purpose. It is a pity that the grass should be so named because it is rather a good thing. We should like to have the same subsidy in those parts where we do not sow lucerne seed, for the purpose of improving the soil. I should like to know from the Minister whether that same subsidy is granted in regard to those other types of grass. If people in these other areas were to sow lucerne it would be no use, it would be a waste. I even feel that in many of these dry areas it is no use, but Rhodes grass can be sold in those parts where they don’t get much rain during summer. They use it for the same purpose as the lucerne seed is used for in the South Veld, and it seems to me that it is just as important that those people should also get this subsidy.

The Minister has just told us that this subsidy is only going to be paid to farmers who are farming on dry land. We are glad that the Minister has introduced this scheme. We know that it will produce good results as there is a shortage of fertiliser today. The farmers will now be able to fertilise their lands by sowing lucerne and I think we shall be able to improve our crops considerably as a result of this concession. But the Minister should also remember certain parts of the country where wheat is grown under irrigation, and there, too, when the soil becomes exhausted the farmers will have to resort to the sowing of lucerne. If the Minister restricts the subsidy to the sowing of seed on dry lands it means that those farmers will be entirely excluded from the scheme. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and see whether he cannot extend the subsidy to cases where the seed can also be sown under irrigation. I think he will find that it will not require too much money to also meet those farmers. Then there is also the case of farmers who sell lucerne hay. Often, as a result of drought, the lucerne gets very poor and those farmers have to buy lucerne seed to sow again. These people also need help. I am thinking of the farmers, and those parts of the country, where severe drought prevailed last year. As a result of that drought the lucerne farmers need a lot of seed. The seed is very expensive, and where the farmers could not get assistance under the Government scheme poor relief came to their assistance. If the church considers it necessary under those conditions to assist the farmers I think the State should do the same. I therefore want to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and see whether he cannot bring the other farmers under this scheme as well.

I would like to ask the Minister for a little information as to how this subsidy became payable on lucerne seed and what conditions are attached to the using of this seed? I have not heard this question discussed in the House previously or in any representative body representing agriculture, and it comes as a surprise to me that instead of being able to buy lucerne seed at the price of 50s. per bag we find the price has gone up three and four times, and the subsidy is available and payable only to certain classes of farmers. That means the one farmer will get his lucerne seed at a much lower price than before, and the other will not get it at all. I want to know how this question was decided and what the details are?

The various points which have been raised will be considered—those pointş include the question whether we can bring Rhodes grass under the scheme and whether we can extend the scheme. I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope to my hon. friend in regard to our extending the scheme, I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope to my hon. friend in regard to our extending the scheme to farmers on irrigation lands. There we have the difficulty that it is a commercial proposition. The idea is to save the soil in this way in cases where the soil has been robbed of its fertility by grain having been sown year after year. The idea is to apply rotation crops there and to restore the fertility of the dry land soil. We shall go into these various points, however, and see whether the scheme can be extended.

†With regard to the question raised by my hon. friend for Griqualand East (Mr. Fawcett) as I have just indicated the scheme has been instituted—the scheme of subsidising lucerne seed has been instituted as a form of crop rotation in order to restore as far as possible the fertility of the soil in areas growing winter cereals such as the Western Province, and in other parts of the country where the soil has been robbed of its fertility owing to farmers not having applied a scientific system of crop rotation, and therefore, subject to certain conditions, lucerne seed can be supplied under subsidy to certain farmers—provided they do not sell any hay. The lucerne is to be used for feeding their own stock so that in that way the fertility of the soil can be restored and the production increased. I am prepared to give the details to my hon. friend—I do not know whether he wants me to go into the details now.

Is the scheme in force?

Yes, it is in force.

†*In regard to Railway rebates I want to say that I had intended including this in my promise that I would go into the question of seeing whether we could assist my hon. friend.

The Minister did not explain to us whether on the Estimates for the current year provision will be made for lucerne seed. I hope he will provide an adequate amount of money.

This amount is only intended for the rest of the financial year— just for a few weeks.

Has the Minister any idea what he can give us for next year? A lot will be needed and I want to know whether our requirements will be provided for?

We are giving a subsidy of 60 per cent. and the requirements will be provided for under the scheme.

Then I am satisfied.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 22.—“Agriculture (Education and Experimental Farms),” £20,000,

I just want to put a question about the agricultural research institute in Pretoria. What connection is there between that institute and Onderstepoort? Do they work together and on what basis? I also want to know what the connection is between Grootfontein and Onderstepoort, and whether there is not certain amount of overlapping.

The Research Institute in Pretoria is run in conjunction with the University.

Yes, I know, but still they can work together.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 24.—“Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones,” £106,000,

A big amount of money is being asked for now—where is the Minister?

He is busy in Another Place.

Yes, he wants the money but we want the information. He wants a lot of money, and we want to say a lot.

I shall reply.

We don’t want to cast our pearls …

Before the swine.

I don’t want to cast any reflections, but I would prefer to cast my pearls before the Minister who is responsible for the Vote. I don’t want to raise any objections to the additional amount of £10,000 for the maintenance of telegraphs and telephone services. I am glad that that will be done. I wish it were more, but I am not allowed to move that. The reason why I wish it were more is that I hope this refers to the maintenance of telephones in my area so that they may be put into such a state of repair that at any rate one may be able to hear what the man on the other side is saying. I don’t know whether similar.

complaints exist in other parts of the country, but where I live, that is in Stellenbosch, and in the Stellenbosch area, our phones are practically useless to us. I have a telephone which is practically useless. One can often hear what the other man says but he cannot hear what I say to him. And then there is a funny noise and you hear him, but he cannot hear you. That kind of unilateral conversation is very difficult—it is very difficult to carry on a conversation of that kind. I understand that the trouble is that the apparatus is beginning to show wear and tear, the batteries are getting worn out, and I should like to know whether some of this money is to be used to put those telephones in order—and if it is the intention to use this money for that purpose then I give it my blessing.

I am sorry but I cannot assume the responsibility of accepting that blessing on behalf of the Minister of Posts. This amount is only in connection with cost of living allowances for the officials employed in connection with maintenance.

In addition to what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has just said, I want to point out that we are experiencing difficulty in connection with the branch lines to the farms.

The hon. member cannot go into that question now.

I am speaking on the subject of the amount to be spent on wages.

The hon. member will get another opportunity of getting this matter; this amount is not for wages but only for allowances.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 25.—“Public Works,” £27,700,

On Vote No. 25.—“Public Works,” £27,700, Will the Minister of Finance be kind enough to tell us what has happened at Paarl.

The history of the matter is that as far as we can find out a mistake was made, not by the Department but by the Tender Board. Tenders were asked for a certain building. Only one tender was received, which was particularly high, and the Tender Board apparently by mistake accepted it. The Department of Public Works was of opinion that it was not in its interest to accept that tender and that more satisfactory tenders would be received if tenders were again invited. For that reason it was decided that compensation (roukoop) be paid as provided for in the contract.

And were tenders invited again?

Yes, tenders are now expected, it is quite possible that the Committee on Public Accounts will still have to go into the question of the mistake which was made in regard to this matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 26.—“Government Motor Transport and Garages,” £6,200,

I hope the Minister of Finance is just as concerned about this matter as we are.

This comes under the Minister of Transport.

Then I hope the Minister of Transport will be just as concerned about the alarming way the expenditure on this vote is going up. I have in my hand the estimates of expenditure on Revenue Account for the year ending 31st March, 1939—that is to say the year before the war—and I think the Minister will be astonished to hear that the total expenditure on this vote in that year did not amount to £100,000. The expenditure was just £91,000. This year the Minister has asked for an amount of £226,000 and now we have to be told that this amount is not yet enough. We are asked to vote a further £6,200. That brings the amount to £232,000 in comparison with £91,000 for the year before the war. It means that the expenditure on this vote has gone up by 150 per cent. Is the service more extensive today than it was in those days, and are more motor cars required today than was the case then? We are continually being told about the scarcity of motor cars; we are continually being told not to use our cars. It seems to me that although the Government is preaching to us not to use motor cars, the Government itself is exceeding the limits. Why was it necessary since the beginning of the war to let this expenditure increase from £91,000 to £230,000?

I should like in the first place to explain that there has over the last two years been a very substantial increase in this vote for no other reason than that it has been the policy of the Government for the last few years to centralise transport in the Government Garage. In the old days it was custom for quite a number of departments to give what was known as Locomotion Allowances to individuals to run their own cars. They also got cars given to them, and they got an allowance to run those cars, but after trying the scheme out for some time the Government came to the conclusion that it was doing this business very extravagantly, and therefore it decided that in future, as soon as we could bring them all in, we would bring all Government work of that kind under the Government Garage—that is to say, all Government transport work would be done by the Government Garage where a proper check could be kept on the mileage done, and the abuse of Government transport be avoided.

When was it introduced?

It has been a very gradual business, because certain officers had the right to do it by contract and so on, and it has been a slow process, but speaking generally it has been going on since 1939, and that accounts for a great deal of the increase in this vote, but although the vote is increasing, the Government expenditure on locomotion is presumably not increasing. I dot not know, of course, what all the departments are spending at the moment, but otherwise the intention is to do away with this wasteful way of running Government locomotion, but in addition to that the hon. member will realise that owing to the very great increase in the cost of petrol, the cost of tyres, the cost of cars—the cost of everything is rising all round—the cost of the Government Garage has also gone up, and that accounts for the bulk of the additional expenditure which we are asking for. The rest, going back over three or four years, covers a wider field, but what we are asking for now is entirely due to the increased cost of material, the increased cost of upkeep, and also due to the fact that cars are getting old, in addition to which there are the increased cost-of-living allowances to the staff. The whole of the increase which we are asking for is due to the increases arising out of war conditions.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 27.—“Interior”, £45,000,

On this vote I want to move the following amendment—

I am therefore moving the deletion of the amount of £9,600 under sub-head (m) Internment Camp Expenses. On the motion for the House to go into Committee I already made a few remarks on this question. I raised two objections. My first objection was that our expenditure on internment camps was the highest in the whole world. My second objection is that although our expenditure is the highest in the world the Auditor-General in his report to Parliament said that the administration of stores and internment camp stocks was in such a hopeless condition that he had recommended the Government to appoint a Special Committee of Enquiry. That Committee made its enquiry and some of us have seen the Committee’s report. I can tell the House that it contained the strongest condemnation of the Department I have ever seen in writing. The only reply the Minister gave us that although the position was bad the Auditor-General was now able to report as follows—

All the Minister could say was that the position was somewhat better, as the Auditor-General himself said, but the Minister did not reply to our main charge, that the internment camps in South Africa were costing more than they did in any other country in the world. Here in South Africa the unit costs amount to 7s. 1d. per internee per day. While only 1s. 3d. of that money is used for internment stores we can say that all that money is used for administrative purposes, and we now find that although the administration costs already are so tremendously high we are again being asked to vote a further amount. The administration already is so unsatisfactory, yet we are asked for a further £9,600. Is the Minister not yet satisfied that this is the highest expenditure in the world for this purpose? Why is it necessary to spend about £9,600? I have a few unit costs here. To keep an internee in camp costs the State 7s. 1d. per day. I also have the unit costs to look after sick people in hospitals. One would imagine that a man in hospital would require very good treatment. The unit costs of a patient in hospital for mental cases according to page 117 of the Auditor-General’s report generally speaking, are less than 3s. per day per patient. That includes everything. The costs in our internment camps are so high that we understand the neighbouring States which sent their foreigners to our internment camps refused to pay when they were given an account of 7s. 1d. per day for their internees. They replied that the amount was unheard of.

They do not know our Government.

Now I should like to know from the Minister how many internees from neighbouring states are being detained in our camps, what are the costs, and how much we are going to lose if they refuse to pay? We shall be glad if the Minister will give us that information. We understand that we have got a certain amount back butthat certain amounts are in arrear and we are told, that they refuse to pay.

There are no arrears today.

Are there no arrears today at all?

There may perhaps be some small amounts for the current year, but they have paid these amounts which were due in the past.

So that that has been squared up. I should like to know from the Minister whether they have agreed to pay 7s. 1d. per day per internee, or have they been given a special rebate? I should like the Minister to tell us whether the Government is granting them a special rebate. I know that our neighbouring States have refused to pay 7s. 1d. Now I want the Minister to tell us whether, in view of their objections, a rebate has been granted? Do they pay 7s. 1d. or less. We would like the Minister to give us that information.

So far as the Internment Camps are concerned, we are only dealing with one item here. It is an item in connection with salaries, wages and allowances. What we are asked to do here is to make additional provision in respect of payment of people who are acting particularly as guards at the camps. We are not dealing here with the general costs of the camps. We are dealing here with the increased expenditure which has become necessary in the first place as a result of the increased cost of living allowances, and in the second place as a result of the increased pay of soldiers. If we were to accept the motion proposed by my hon. friend it would simply mean that those people would not get their money. Surely that is not what he wants? He moved this motion with a view to raising the general question. How far we can go into the matter is for the Chairman to rule. But all we have to deal with on this vote is the increase of pay and allowances for people who are employed in the camps. In regard to the more general question which my hon. friend raised, I want to repeat what I said before; apparently there were certain irregularities in the camps; apparently, according to the Auditor-General’s Report, responsibility for those irregularities had to be borne both by the Department of Prisons and by the Department of the Interior. So far as the present position is concerned the Auditor-General is satisfied. In regard to the past the Treasury have made it perfectly clear that we are not prepared to leave it at that. I hope the Select Committee on Public Accounts will assist us by taking action against the people who are responsible for the mistakes that have been made in the past. I hope we shall get that assistance, but so far the present is concerned the position has been placed on a satisfactory basis. Then the hon. member says that the expenses are particularly high, and he compares the internment camp costs with hospital costs, but a large proportion of the expenses in connection with the internment camps are in connection with the battalion of soldiers who act there as guards. That is by far the greatest item of the expenditure. For that reason we cannot compare the cost of the camps with hospital costs. The position is entirely different. So far as the other Governments are concerned I want to say that I am not aware of those other Governments having raised objections to the expenses in our camps on the ground of the unit costs being too high, nor do I know of any rebates having been made. I would certainly have known it if there had been a rebate because no such rebate could have been granted without my knowledge, as Minister of Finance. I am not aware of any such objections. So far as I can remember— I am speaking from memory—the amount which we received from other Governments this year for internment camps amounted to about £250,000, and I believe that that amount, apart from what can be regarded as current obligations, will square up their debt. In regard to next year the hon. member will see, if he looks at the Estimates of Revenue, that the amount which we expect to receive is £150,000. That is less than this year. That, however, is not due to a reduction in the fees which have to be paid, but to a reduction in the number of people we have interned. Many of these internees have been sent back to the country they came from, and for that reason we expect to receive less. But the hon. member will also be able to deduce from that that if there were such a large amount outstanding by way of debt which the other Governments have to pay to us, the figure on the estimates for next year would have been very much more than £150,000. Consequently the obligations so far as foreign Governments towards us are concerned, have been placed on a sound basis. They are carrying out their obligations. The number of internees has dropped, and in consequence we shall be receiving a smaller revenue from that source next year. I don’t think I can take the matter any further. We have this position, that the pay and the allowances of these people employed there must be paid, and I don’t think anyone wants to do these people out of anything. They must get what they are entitled to.

This is the second occasion on which the hon. Minister of the Interior is in the wrong place. I hope that henceforth he will have greater success than he is having here. It is a pity he is not in the House, because there are a few matters in regard to which we would like to have information. Perhaps the shadow Minister of the Interior, or should I say the “all-overshadowing” Minister of the interior, will be able to reply. What is the position in connection with Civilian Protective Services, the so-called C.P.S.? I understood that this was something of the past, and now an extra £7,000 has to be given to them for overcoats, raincoats or cloaks. We are now going to give coats for that which no longer exists. First of all we gave £5,000 in respect of coats, but we are now giving £12,000 to the shadow C.P.S. It seems very remarkable. It seems to be a bit of a ghostly affair.

You know, of course, that ghosts wear cloaks.

Precisely, but we should like to know why this money is being given, since the Minister has abolished the organisation. Then we get the Bureau of Information, the Bureau of “Misinformation.” This is nothing but a propaganda bureau of the Government’s. Someone called it the “Inliegtingsbureau” (the lying bureau). In any event, we do not like it at all. It is nothing but a propaganda bureau for the Government. We notice that salaries, wages and allowances are being increased, but under “Publicity” we used to spend £10,960, and that amount is now being increased to £18,960, nearly double that amount. What is this propaganda for? Why this enormous increase? Who needs this propaganda? It is nothing but a propaganda bureau for the Government. We would like to know why the amount for publicity is being doubled?

I am sorry that once again I have to act on behalf of the Minister of the Interior. I know that I cannot give my hon. friend the same satisfaction as my colleague could have done. But with regard to the Civilian Protective Services, the hon. member must not forget that there were two sections of activities, the so-called anti-aircraft services, which have practically been eliminated, and the civilian protective services, which still exists to this extent that the persons employed in that organisation are functioning to assist the police. Fortunately in many cities and towns of the Union there are still people who voluntarily render their services in order to lighten the task of the police. That section of the work is going on, and in that connection provision still has to be made, and the hon. member will see that in the main estimates for the coming year provision is being made for that purpose. These people are being provided with coats. Hence this amount. With regard to the Information Bureau, the hon. member asked on whose behalf the Information Bureau was undertaking publicity. I think my reply is “for the Union of South Africa.”

For the Government of the Union of South Africa.

It is making party propaganda.

Not principally.

There we have it now, “not principally.”

Not at all. It is propaganda for the Union of South Africa, which, of course, has such an excellent Government at the head of affairs. But the extension of the publicity service of the bureau is mainly in respect of the Continent of Africa. I think we are all agreed in regard to the importance of extending and strengthening the points of contact between us and the other states of the Continent of Africa, and it is in connection with publicity in that direction that this additional amount is being asked for.

I have here a pamphlet entitled “Africa Nova” containing a portrait of the Minister of Native Affairs as he apparently would have liked to look. Is that the type of thing?

Can the Minister tell us why internments still fall under “Interior”?

The reply is, of course, that in the main estimates for 1943-’44, internment camps still came under “Interior.” Monetary provision was made under that Vote, and since additional money is required for this year, it is still being dealt with under this Vote. It is a matter of accountancy, but in respect of next year provision is being made in the main estimates under “Justice.”

Under N (8) provision is being made for “Special war allowances.” What does that represent?

That is an item which appears on all Votes. Last year a special war allowance of 5 per cent. was granted to all our civil servants in receipt of a salary up to £635. The hon. member may know that the same was done in connection with the Railways, but there it was done under a different name.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 28.—“Public Service Commission,” £1,600, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 29.—“Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-Minded,” £34,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 31.—“Public Health,” £52,930, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 32.—“Labour,” £33,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 33.—“Social Welfare,” £220,350, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 36.—“Deeds,” £5,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 37.—“Surveys,” £5,000. put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 38.—“Irrigation,” £21,700, *Mr. NAUDÉ: May I ask the Minister what the reason is for this large increase from £1,000 to £13,000 in the amount in respect of “Vaal River Development”?

There is also an increase as far as Loskop is concerned. This is in respect of certain losses which were sustained there.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 39.—“Justice,” £3,250,

It is a pity the Minister of Justice is not in the House. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can say what the reason is for the additional amount of £250 under E.

That was a case where the Minister of Labour appointed a conciliation board under the Industrial Conciliation Act. The employers protested, and the employees had to defend the case. The employees were then practically called upon to defend the decision of the Minister of Labour. The judgment of the court went against the employees. They had therefore to pay the costs.

What judgment was this?

Distributive workers, commercial workers.

Was that in connection with the strike?

No, it was before that time. This partially led to the strike. Since the employees had to take steps to defend the decision of the Minister, we thought that it was only fair to meet them in this matter and to bear half the costs.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 40.—“Superior Courts”, £13,200, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 41.—“Magistrates and District Administration,” £24,400,

I should like to have information in regard to the new item : “Expenses of messengers of the court.”

In the past the position was that the profits were fairly high, and provision for gratuities to deputy-messengers, on their retirement, could be made out of the profits. Latterly the profits have fallen considerably, and it is necessary therefore to make provision for this sum.

Why does it state here “nonrecurrent”? Will it not be payable next year? What will happen if the funds are insufficient?

Then we shall have to come to the House again.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 42.—“Prisons and Gaols,” £44,000,

Can the Minister of Finance explain the necessity for this large additional sum of £44,000? A few weeks ago we voted an extra £56,000 for prisons and gaols on the first additional estimates. A further £44,000 is now being asked for on the second additional estimates; in other words, an additional £100,000 is being asked for in respect of prisons and gaols. Prisoners have been released on a large scale since the beginning of the year. In view of the fact that the gaols have to a large extent been emptied, why is it that these additional sums of £56,000 and £44,000 are being asked for? Did something go. wrong with the calculations? One would have been able to explain this if there had been a sudden increase in the number of prisoners, but the gaols were emptied.

The expenditure under this vote falls mainly under two heads, namely, “salaries, wages and allowances” in the first place, and in the second place “miscellaneous provisions.” Those two items at a time like this are subject to considerable increases. There is an increase, for example, in the cost of living allowances. Then there is the fact that there has been a rise in the price of foodstuffs and rations and all sorts of other things. In view of that the increase from £800,000, the original amount which was voted under this vote, to a little over £900,000 is not an excessive increase.

But here we have the item “rations and fuel” which, in the first instance rose by £20,000 and is now being increased by a further £15,000.

Let me explain. It is the policy of the Treasury, in the First Additional Estimates, to allow the departments as little as possible. There is always a tendency on the part of the departments to ask for as much as possible under the First Additional Estimates in order to make sure that they will have sufficient funds, because otherwise it is necessary for them to ask for approval at the end of the year for unathorised expenditure. It is therefore the policy of the Treasury to give them as little as possible under the First Additional Estimates. In this case the Department of Justice was given too little, and it is necessary therefore to make provision for this additional amount.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 43.—“Police,” £53,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 44.—“Native Affairs,” £83,000.

I should be glad to have some information about this revised estimate for “Grants to needy ex-members of the Native Military Corps and to needy natives who rendered service with the Union military forces during the Great War 1914-1920.” If the increase of £12,000 asked for here is for the latter group, that is, needy natives who rendered service during the Great War, then I have nothing more to say, except that I am glad that even at this late date, the Government is making some sort of provision for the natives who gave their services in the Great War and have now fallen on evil days. If, however, this additional amount of £12,000 is being voted for the first of the purposes listed here, that is for “Grants to needy ex-members of the Native Military Corps,” I am not nearly so happy about it. I think there is something seriously wrong if at this stage we have to make grants of this sort to meet the case of needy ex-servicemen from this war. I have noted with considerable anxiety the way in which members of the Native Military Corps are treated by the Government when their services are no longer needed. I believe it is still the practice that when the Department of Defence has decided to dispense with the services of any soldier for one reason or another—and I am talking now not of the very considerable number of native ex-servicemen who have been discharged without an honourable recommendation to the public, but only of those who have got a so-called honourable discharge—I believe that when the Department of Defence is dispensing with the services of members of the Native Military Corps that it still does not provide these men with that security against unemployment and need which it provides for other sections of the army. That is to say, it does not keep them on the establishment until work has been found for them. They have to seek work for themselves, and in many cases the only assistance they get to keep them from destitution is a periodic dole of £1 from the Native Affairs Department or from the Governor-General’s Fund. I do not consider that is the way to deal with any section of the army. That is exactly the thing we promised not to do. We promised that this time there would be no forgotten men, that the men who offered their services in this war would be cared for. If in fact we are at this point, having to put thousands of pounds on our estimates in order to meet the needs of ex-servicemen who are not able to keep themselves afloat, it is a very bad omen for what is going to happen at the end of the war. I want to know whether this revised amount is to meet the needs of those people, the people who are serving in this war, rather than the people who served in the last war for whom no provision was made in the past. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some information.

This vote hardly raises the question of the treatment of native volunteers. All we are doing here it to make similar provision for natives to what we make for Europeans. We make provision for Europeans by way of the War Veterans Pension. All we are doing here is to make similar provision for natives. That provision only applies to those who are over the age of 60, or being under the age of 60 are unable, owing to infirmity, to undertake regular work. It is only that limited class that we are dealing with here.

Are they people from the last war?

Yes, they are mainly people from the last war, but there may be some from this war, though I think there would be very few natives over that age who could be considered. I think my hon. friend is correct in inferring that the money is mainly for people from the last war. There may, however, be some from this war who qualify.

In connection with the assistance which is given to natives, I am very concerned about the fact that usually the natives have to fetch their allowances at the stores, with the result they do not always get good value for their money when they buy food at the stores.

I am sorry, but that cannot be discussed under this vote.

I wonder whether the Minister would give me the indulgence of saying in effect how much is the measure of pension to be awarded to those indignent ex-servicemen from the last war. Is it to be 10s. or £1? Or something for the urban areas and a different amount for the rural areas, with no classification, or a very small one, for the native territories. I should like to know that, and I want to thank the Minister for having told us what the £12,000 is for.

The scale is £1 a month for natives in the scheduled or released areas, £1 10s. a month for natives in the larger urban areas, and £1 5s. for natives resident in other areas.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 45—“Commerce and Indsutries,” £69,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 46—“Transport,” £1,000,

I shall be glad if the responsible Minister will give us a little information. The Minister is regarded as Minister of Transport, but recently in discussing the estimates he said that he was not Minister of Transport. There is some confusion as to the correct position in connection with the new name of the new department. Will the Minister tell us precisely what the present position is, so that we shall have clarity in connection with the new department for which the Minister of Railways and Harbours is responsible. What is the exact position?

I would like to explain for the benefit of hon. members generally, that it is quite true that until the Bill we passed in this House the other day, goes through the Senate there is actually no Minister of Transport as such, but under the provisions of the Part Appropriation Act there is a clause which reads as follows—

Now the Law Advisers hold the view that although the Department of Transport has been legally established in terms of Section 41 of the South Africa Act, that action does not constitute in itself the statutory authority contemplated in the above proviso of the Part Appropriation Act. In the circumstances nominal provision has therefore to be made in the additional estimates so that we will be authorised to make financial provision for the running of the Department in the Part Appropriation Act. After the 1st March we have to make financial provision in the new Estimates for 1944-’45. Otherwise, we shall be in the awkward position of having no funds with which to run the Department.

It is a token payment.

Yes.

What are you going to do with the money?

It will be absorbed; it is a payment in advance against our expenditure. It is only a token amount, a token provision to validate our position in regard to the Part Appropriation.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 47.—“Directorate of Demobilisation”, £1,000.

I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Defence in connection with the return of professional people, doctors and others, and he told me that I should put this question to the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation. Provision is now being made for a Directorate of Demobilisation, and I should like to have details from the Minister in regard to the scheme under which professional people can get an advance or an allowance of £750 when they return to their normal civilian positions. Many of these people have already returned, and it is necessary for them to make a start immediately. They should not have to be without employment on their return and given this allowance only at a later stage. I should like to know from the Minister whether these people can immediately apply, or what the procedure will be.

Since a certain amount is being asked for in the Estimates under this Vote of Demobilisation, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will take the House into his confidence in connection with the question of demobilisation. Since this amount is being asked for I think this is a very opportune time to do so. The first information which, in my opinion, the Minister can give us in that connection, is what steps will be taken in connection with persons who, in the meantime, are being retained in the camp before they are placed in employment. The impression one gets is that the time which elapses between the date of the person’s return and the date on which he is placed in employment, is a very lengthy one; in other words, that there is something wrong with the placing of demobilised persons. The general impression, quite correctly, is that a number of persons who could easily be placed in employment remain in the camp at State expense, and furthermore that there are numbers of persons, namely, coloured persons, who remain in the camp at the expense of the Government and who refuse to accept the type of work which the Government is prepared to give them. Instead of that they prefer to remain idle in the camps at the expense of the State. This matter is going very far, and the sooner we have a statement from the Government the better it will be. The general impression is that numbers of coloured persons, more particularly, refuse to return to the farms to take up employment there, and that the Government is powerless in this matter. Those coloured people are in receipt of full wages from the State coffers, and they know that the Government cannot get rid of them; that the Government is saddled with them. They also know that there are factors which prevent the Government from throwing them on the street. When one realises that labour is unobtainable on the farms, and one looks at the numbers of coloured soldiers who are kept in the camps, awaiting employment, one gains the impression that those people are facing the Government with an accomplished fact. The Government may be prepared to send them to the farms, but it dare not do so, because these coloured soldiers are staying in the camps at State expense, and they prefer that. The sooner the Minister can make a reassuring statement, the better it will be for the country. Unless it is denied, one gains the impression that the process of demobilisation is far too slow; that large numbers of coloured persons simply refuse the work which is offered to them; and even those who were enticed from the farms by military stations are reluctant to return. When the time arrives to demobilise on a large scale and an equally long period elapses between the date of the person’s return and the date of his accepting employment; it is going to cost the State a great deal of money. I do not know what the Government’s plans are in connection with those people, and whether there is any way of forcing them to leave the camp to take up employment on the farms. But something will have to be done, and it is just as well that the Minister should make a statement now.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus)) started to deal with this matter at the beginning of his speech, and then all of a sudden he switched over to coloured soldiers. But before doing so he said that the soldiers were idle in the camp at Government expense. I feel that he is casting an unfair reflection on our soldiers, which is absolutely unnecessary.

I said very clearly what I meant, and if you had listened you would have known what I meant,

It is a remarkable fact that as soon as he sits down, he denies what he has just said. This is the third time that we have known the hon. member to do that. Of course, it does not surprise me, because we know that even today the Opposition does not know where it stands.

I can only make a clear statement. Having done so, I cannot give you brains to understand what I say.

I know a little shorthand, and I have sufficient sense to understand and to write down what the hon. member says. We asked him to speak up so that we could hear what he had to say. There was a time when it was said that only vagrants were joining the army, and now it is being said that they are idle in the camps at Government expense. I want to protest most strongly against that reflection which is being cast on our soldiers by the people for whose safety they fought. The fact is that while the Government is busy with a demobilisation scheme, the soldiers themselves are engaged in seeking employment. I can testify to that from experience. Soldiers frequently come to us and ask whether we cannot assist them to obtain employment. I have given letters to soldiers in the camp so that they could be given an opportunity, accompanied by me, of meeting prospective employers. I think, therefore, that it is unfair to cast such a reflection on our people. On the other hand, perhaps we should expect that of hon. members on that side. I should also like to say that we can expect the Minister—I do not believe that it can be done on this occasion, because here we are dealing with a very restricted case— but we have the right to expect a statement from the Minister in regard to this matter. At the time of the general debate I made an appeal to him to make a statement in connection with this matter as early as possible, without creating the impression, of course, that the war is over and that general demobilisation must take place. The hon. member for Moorreesburg went on to say that these people do not want to take up employment on the farms. But neither the hon. member nor other hon. members who represent those constituencies, have given any indication to the soldiers as to what they are going to pay them if they do take up employment on the farms. They have given no indication as to the conditions of service which will prevail if the Minister sends these people to the farms. On the other hand, however, we find that there are business men in Johannesburg who have already started to do their share in assisting the returned soldiers to find employment. There is a member in this House, namely, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Gray), who has already given them an opportunity of opening a business. That is an example to us, and if that example is followed, I feel convinced that more people will come forward to give the soldiers a chance. Those of us who have supported the war will fall or stand by our soldiers; we will not treat them as they have been treated by hon. members of the Opposition who undermine the soldiers and who want to prejudice them. This side of the House wants to give them a decent means of livelihood. We want to give these people a decent means of livelihood, and not the starvation wages which the Opposition offers. We notice that one moment they get up and plead for the returned soldiers, and the next moment we hear just the opposite from them. In spite of their contradictory statements, we want to give them the assurance that the Government will fulfil its obligations towards the returned soldiers. One moment they say that the Government shoulô fulfil its obligations towards the soldiers, and the next moment they condemn the Government. We hope that the Minister will make a statement in this House in no uncertain terms. We on this side of the House are prepared to do our duty towards the returned soldiers, and in that way to counteract the misleading statements made by members on the other side.

It is almost impossible to make oneself clearly understood to the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy). We have been trying to do it from the beginning of the session, but he has not yet learned his lesson. The hon. member started by reproaching me, and towards the end of his speech he raised the same complaint. My complaint is a twofold one. The first point is that there are large numbers of European soldiers who are waiting for employment, and that the business people who encouraged them to enlist are not giving those people work. I complained about the European soldiers who are kept unduly long in the camps, while people like the hon. member for Johannesburg (West), who encouraged them to enlist but did not go themselves, are not giving them employment today. The hon. member finally agreed with me, but he started by reproaching me. Then I also complained about the number of nonEuropeans who are idle in the camp and do not want to work on the farms. They are drawing State money in the camp. Does the hon. member not agree with me? I do not hold it against the European soldiers that they are in the camp; I hold it against those home-front people who stayed at home and who are not giving the soldiers employment now that they have to be demobilised. With regard to the coloured soldiers, I think the position has become scandalous, and I want to ask the Minister to make a statement to the country in connection with the position of the coloured soldiers who are being demobilised. The number of Coloured soldiers to be demobilised is becoming greater and greater, and the Minister’s difficulties will become greater and greater. If things go oh in this way, it will give the coloured soldiers the impression that they can remain idle in the camps at State expense. We must show them that the time has arrived for them to return to the farms from which they came.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) has suggested that I should take the opportunity of making a statement in regard to demobilisation and of the Government’s position in regard to demobilisation. I agree that such a statement is necessary and I feel that this House is the proper place in which to make such a statement, but I do not feel that this particular vote is the appropriate vote on which to make that statement.

Why not?

I do not think this is the proper time because certain plans are still under consideration, and this House will have the opportunity within the next two or three weeks of discussing the matter fully.

You are putting it off again.

No, this House will have the opportunity of discussing the matter fully when we get to the appropriate vote in Committee of Supply. And I hope when we get to that stage to give the House full particulars about the Government’s demobilisation plan. I shall therefore confine myself to the question put to me, with this exception, that I would inform the House that the Director-General of Demobilisation (Gen. Brink) has been heavily engaged for some time past in working out the various plans which he is putting before the Government in regard not only to the setting up of a demobilisation organisation, in regard to dispersal depóts, etc., but in regard to the proposals which the Government will have to consider on the question of re-establishing and rehabilitating exvolunteers in civilian life. The matter is not one which brooks of light treatment. We shall have to deal, when the matter is under consideration, with the whole problem of re-establishing our service men and women in civilian life. It is a great problem, and in tackling that problem the Government feels that it is a matter in which it should have, and undoubtedly will have, the cooperation of all men and women of goodwill in this country, and in formulating his plans, the Director-General of Demobilisation is making arrangements to have the co-operation of civilian bodies in carrying out the plans of the Government. The details of these plans will be given when the Committee discusses this matter in more detail. Now, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has asked me some questions regarding soldiers in dispersal depóts. He has suggested that men are kept in dispersal depóts for unnecessarily long periods. Well, the Government has laid down a policy in regard to the discharge of men from dispersal depôts. That policy is a clear one. A man is sent to a dispersal depót when the army has no more use for his services—his medical category may be such that he cannot be usefully employed on military work, he may have been disabled, or he may suffer from some illness. Now, the policy which is followed is this. If that man has preenlistment employment to go to, he is discharged immediately to go to that pre-enlistment employment. If he has no preenlistment employment then, if he is not in receipt of a pension, he may not be discharged until he is offered employment which in the opinion of the local Re-employment Committee is suitable in all the circumstances of the case.

What happens if he refuses to take that job?

There have been cases where a man has been offered employment and has refused that employment, and has been offered other employment and has refused again. Now, if the Re-employment Committee—which is an entirely impartial committee—consisting of Government officials and civilians—if that Committee is satisfied that his refusal of the offer is unreasonable, that man is discharged. If he is offered reasonable employment and if he refuses to take that—if he unreasonably refuses to accept that, then there is no option but to discharge him.

Is farm labour considered reasonable employment?

Every case is treated on its merits. If the service man is in receipt of a pension, then the Re-employment Committee has to be satisfied before it recommends his discharge, that the pension is reasonably sufficient to maintain him. If it is not, he is kept in the dispersal depót until such time as he is offered employment, the emoluments of which in conjunction with his pension are reasonably sufficient to maintain him and his family. I say again that every case has to be treated on its merits. We have gained a good deal of experience. It may well be that in the plans which have been worked out, certain changes will be made in the system of dispersal depôts, but what the Government is committed to is ensuring that every service man, before being discharged, is offered reasonable employment.

Are the numbers in the dispersal depôts available?

I can tell my hon. friend this, that roughly speaking—the Committee knows that a large number of men have already been discharged from the army—I think it is well over 40,000 Europeans, and of those who have been discharged approximately 65 or 66 per cent. have gone back to their pre-enlistment employment. Another 28 per cent. have had employment found for them, and there is a balance of about 8 per cent. of cases which have been proved difficult for one reason or another. Many because they have been disabled and have had to be retrained for civilian life. There is a residue of some people who have refused work.

We have been given to understand that there are about 2,000 non-Europeans waiting for employment.

I have not got the exact number of nonEuropeans awaiting employment before me but I am almost sure that the number of 2,000 is excessive. I can tell my hon. friend this, that in order to assist the coloured ex-volunteers to return to work, either to their pre-enlistment employment, or to some other employment, we have recently opened another dispersal depôt for non-Europeans at Graaff-Reinet, and we may have to open another one in the Western Province near Worcester. There are a number of these depóts, and they are established at such places as to bring these men near their homes. Then the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) put a question to me regarding assistance to professional men, and he asked what the Government intended to do to assist professional volunteers to return to their professional work. There was a scheme under consideration which had some notice given to it in the Press, under which it was suggested that professional men might be granted a loan up to a maximum of £750 at 4 per cent. interest to enable them to re-establish themselves. That scheme has not been proceeded with because the question of assisting professional men in conjunction with the question of assisting all other types of ex-volunteers has been under close consideration by a committee for four or five weeks. I am not therefore able to answer my friend this afternoon, but I can see the type of man he has in mind, and that type of man is one who will be dealt with in the scheme which will be announced by the Government at a later stage.

I should like to ask the Minister what the intention of this new Directorate of Demobilisation is towards native ex-volunteers? That is a matter which has been concerning many of us with increasing force in the last few months as increasing numbers are being discharged from the Army. In the past, as I have had reason to mention earlier, the practice has simply been to turn the native volunteer out of the Army when the Army is finished with him, and he has been left to find his way back into civilian life sometimes with the aid of charitable assistance from the Native Affairs Department or from the Governor-General’s Fund, but no attempt has been made to impose the responsibility for getting the native ex-volunteer re-established on anybody. Now, as the proportion of discharges is increasing, this matter becomes one of increasing urgency, and I would suggest to the Minister that there is great danger that the assumption is going to be made that because the bulk of the native volunteers have come from the native reserves, they can simply be thrown back on the native reserves, and automatically be reabsorbed there. But that is not the case at all. Even though the great proportion of native volunteers did come from the reserves, they were to a large extent dependent on urban labour before joining the Army. Now, they will be even more dependent on urban labour when they leave the Army. Their outlook will be changed, and they will not be the rural people they were before. Now this matter is already causing a considerable amount of trouble, especially in Johannesburg. Natives have been discharged, they have gone to the reserves and they have drifted back to Johannesburg. And then when they come to Johannesburg or to the other big towns, there is nothing done to assist them to find jobs. The position is going to be even more difficult in the future than it has already been. I trust the Minister will take this matter into serious consideration and will set up machinery whereby the native volunteer will be provided with some sort of defence against poverty and unemployment. I hope he will see that the native is provided with the same sort of defence against poverty and unemployment as other sections of the community leaving the Army, and I trust he will give us some sort of assurance on that.

I am glad that the Minister did say a few words today in regard to this matter. Since the beginning of the Session we have repeatedly asked him to make certain statements in this House. He did say a few words today. I should like to ask the Minister what his attitute is in connection with the demobilisation scheme, of which we still do not know anything, and what his plans are with regard to those soldiers who have been discharged from the army, who have left the depóts and taken up employment, who worked for a month or two, and who then became unemployed as the result of the action of War Supplies. I have here a letter from a person in Johannesburg from which it appears that there are approximately 200 ex-soldiers who were discharged from the army, who were then placed in employment, and who lost their work owing to the regulations of War Supplies. They registered their names with the Department of Labour and were later re-absorbed in certain works by the Department of Labour. As the result of the action taken by War Supplies they again became unemployed. I want to put this question—and it is the fourth time that I am putting this question in the House: What is the attitude of the Director of Demobilisation in connection with those men; is it their intention to deal only with the men who still have to be discharged from the army? What about those who are already walking the streets in our country?

What has this to do with War Supplies?

Let explain to the Minister how War Supplies sets to work, and how that department causes unemployment on a large scale amongst those people. Great numbers of men who left the army are absorbed in works which are engaged in the manufacture of war material and the manufacture of war supplies. War Supplies then come along and instruct the manufacturer concerned to discontinue certain work immediately, with the result that the people who are employed on those works have to be discharged immediately. When the manufacturer then asks for permission to manufacture something else which will enable him to retain those people, War Supplies refuse to give its permission. They refuse to give the necessary permit, with the result that in my constituency and in Johannesburg and in various other constituencies, men are repeatedly discharged a as result of that irresponsible action on the part of War Supplies. Even today we hear of demobilisation, and the Minister wants to concentrate mainly on the men who still have to be discharged. We know that nearly 50,000 have already been discharged. Many of them did not return to their pre-war positions but were thrown on the mercy of the dispersal depôt. The dispersal depot did its best to place those men. But time and again War Supplies have come along and closed some factory or other, with the result that those men were again thrown on the streets. We urge, therefore, that private concerns should retain discharged soldiers for a least a year or eighteen months. As a result of the action of War Supplies, those people are continually thrown on the street. This is the fourth time that I raise this point in the House. I think the Miniser owes a reply to the House on this question.

Perhaps the hon. Minister will tell the Committee what this £1,000 is for, because it would appear that this debate is going too far.

This amount is similar to that on Vote 46.

It is a token vote to enable services to be provided by the Director-General of Demobilisation.

The Minister has explained that the soldiers who return are taken to the dispersal depot and kept there until they are offered reasonable employment. I want to put this to the hon. Minister. Returned soldiers complain that they are being offered employment on the roads at meagre wages.

I have to rule that the hon. member is out of order after the reply of the hon. Minister.

On a point of order; are we not dealing here with the establishment of a special division? If the hon. Minister had said that the position here would be the same as that of the Ministry of Transport, and according to the explanation of the Minister of Transport we are dealing here with the establishment of a new department. Here we are dealing with the establishment of a new section, and I contend that since we are dealing with the establishment of a new division, it is in order to discuss the functions of that division.

The Committee is only concerned with the establishment of the division.

I am not surprised at the attitude adopted by hon. members of the Opposition in regard to this particular item. Indeed, I have not been surprised at any stage in this House at anything that came from the Opposition in connection with the soldiers ….

Order, order! The hon. member cannot go into that. I have already ruled that this question cannot now be debated. The hon. member will have an opportunity under the Main Estimates to discuss this.

Perhaps I might reply briefly to the two questions which have been put to me, one by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) in regard to ex-volunteers who may be refused facilities by the Controllers. Cases have been brought to my notice of exvolunteers who have complained that they have applied for certain facilities, possibly to purchase a motor car for their business or tyres for their business, or that they be permitted to do certain work, and that such permission has been refused. Those cases have been brought to my notice.

I am talking about employment. They were thrown out of employment as a result of the action of War Supplies.

I understood from the hon. member that he was dealing with the question of War Supplies, that the people were not allowed to take up certain employment.

No, they were thrown out of employment. On a point of explanation; the point I made was that many of these men when they are sent away from the dispersal depôts obtain employment in factories where War Supplies are manufactured. Very often the Director of War Supplies issues intructions to stop the manufacture of a certain type of article, and that automatically brings about unemployment in that factory. The point I made was that in spite of a request on the part of the factory concerned to be allowed to manufacture other goods, they are unable to obtain a permit to do so with the result that these men have to be discharged and they are consequently thrown on the streets time and again. Every now and then War Supplies is the cause of these men being unemployed because of their instructions to stop the manufacture of certain supplies. In my own constituency 36 returned soldiers are still unemployed, and they have been unemployed for over two months as a result of the action of War Supplies, and in Johannesburg the figure is over 200. It is in that respect that I wanted to ask the Minister what the attitude of the Director of Demobilisation is.

The case mentioned by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) is analagous to the case with which I was dealing, namely, the case of a man who may be deprived of employment because he cannot obtain certain necessary articles which may be under control. When a certain number of these cases were brought to the notice of the Director of Demobilisation, I discussed the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, and we have arranged between us a system under which a certain section of the Director of Demobilisation will make representation to his ministry, when any case arises, and that case will be gone into on its merits. If it is an ex-volunteer who states that he requires tyres for his business, that case will be fully investigated, and it will be sympathetically dealt with. When it comes to the question of closing down certain industries under War Supplies one cannot generalise. It may be necessary for the war effort that certain manufacturers have to stop and it may not be practicable to allow another manufacturer to be substituted, and in that case, hard though it may be on the individual soldier, the task then is to see that that ex-volunteer who is involuntarily deprived of his employment receives other employment. One of the difficulties in regard to the Director of Demobilisation has been this, that the Director of Demobilisation has nothing to do with securing employment for ex-volunteers. That is the function of the Department of Labour. If the ex-volunteer did not receive new employment, the Director of Demobilisation is naturally looked to as the body which has to see to the welfare of returned soldiers, and it is very difficult to do that if you have no responsibility to provide employment. Under the new arrangement which has been made we hope to overcome that difficulty by providing the necessary machinery for cooperation with the Department of Labour. But as things have stood, the Director of Demobilisation has been powerless in this matter, because it has not been his function to deal with this matter. So far as the natives are concerned, I can give the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) the assurance that the position of the natives is engaging the attention of the Directorate at the present time. It is a matter which is under discussion between the Minister of Native Affairs and myself, both in his capacity as Minister of Native Affairs and in his former capacity as Chairman of the Civil Re-employment Board. There is a dispersal depôt for natives in the Transvaal. It is administered by the Director of Non-European Services, but native volunteers are not kept in dispersal depóts until such time as employment is found for them.

They are turned out, are they not?

A system was instituted under which the natives who wished to remain in the dispersal depót were given that option, and I am told that the average native soldier prefers to go home as soon as possible after his discharge. My information is that less than 2 per cent. of those dealt with in dispersal depóts have intimated that they require re-employment. Those are the figures given to me, but admittedly the problem is a difficult one, and in the organisation of the Directorate of Demobilisation special arrangements are being made to watch the interest of the native ex-volunteer, and the remarks of the hon. member will be borne in mind in the discussions which are taking place at the present time.

I am glad, Sir, that you allowed the Minister to go more fully into this matter. It seems to me that this is a matter of importance, because this amount relates to the taking over of the work of the Civil Re-employment Board by the Directorate of Demobilisation. I should just like to point out to the Minister that he did not reply to my question in connection with farm labour. The figures which he gave us a month ago did throw some light on this matter. He then replied that the number of individuals who had left the Army had reached the figure of approximately 70,000, namely, 40,000 Europeans, 8,600 coloureds, and 21,400 natives. Of those 40,000 Europeans there are 800 Europeans who up to a month ago were still being kept on, and for whom no employment had been found. It is in connection with those people that we have cause to be concerned. If out of 40,000 Europeans discharged from the Army there are 800 who cannot be placed, it reveals a serious state of affairs having regard to the number of soldiers who have already been discharged who are walking the streets on pauper rations. If out of those 40,000 Europeans there are nearly 1,000 who cannot be placed, and having regard to the fact that there are large numbers in the country who have to get alms from the magistrate, and others who have to do manual labour for 5s. 6d. per day, it reveals a serious state of affairs. But I want to confine myself to the coloured soldiers and the question of farm labour. I want to repeat, if it is correct, as the Minister says, that there are 2,350 coloureds ….

I must remind the hon. member of my ruling. I do not think the hon. member can go on in this way.

May I just point out that you allowed the Minister to reply, but he did not give a full reply, and I want to ask him whether he will now give us a full reply.

The hon. member may put his question briefly.

My question is this: While there are 2,350 soldiers in the depôts who are awaiting employment, I just want to point out to him that the farmers in the platteland are at their wits’ end; they have no farm labourers.

I do not wish unduly to extend the debate on this vote, although it is important to us that this Directorate should be established on the right lines. I just wish to draw the attention of the Minister to two points that arise out of his reply to me. According to my information, even where the native volunteer elects to have work found for him ….

I am sorry I cannot allow the hon. member to pursue that course.

As I understand it, this Directorate is now being instituted for the first time. I am anxious to be sure that as constituted it is going to cover the field that a Directorate of Demobilisation should cover.

All that the Committee is considering is the establishment of this Directorate, not the policy which has been pursued or will be pursued.

Is not the policy linked with the establishment of the Directorate?

The hon. Minister has explained that this is purely a token vote.

Does that mean that we can only discuss the policy on the estimates proper.

The hon. member can only discuss the necessity for the establishment of this Directorate.

May I then put this point that is related to the necessity for the establishment of this Directorate. The native soldier, as I have tried to explain, has had no body which has been responsible for his interest, so what I am trying to put to the Minister in respect of the purpose of the Directorate is that the Directorate should become a body that is responsible for the native volunteer who is discharged. I want to suggest that when a native volunteer is discharged ….

Order, order! I am sorry I cannot allow the hon. member to pursue that.

I think it is quite correct that there should be such a body. I shall tell you why. In the past there have been many difficulties, and if there is no such body, we shall have a repetition of the position which we had in the past. Let me say what happened in my own constituency. A man was discharged from the army. He could not obtain employment, and he had to break stones at 5s. 6d. a day. When he could no longer do that, he was told to go. This man later went to the magistrate of Hofmeyr, and all he could get was pauper rations.

The hon. member is out of order.

I am only discussing the desirability of having such a body. Am I not allowed to discuss the desirability of establishing this body? I should like to prevent things like this from happing in the future.

The hon. member is out of order.

On a point of order, may I draw your attention to the wording “establishment of a Directorate of Demobilisation incorporating the functions of the former Civil Re-employment Board.” Have we not got the right to discuss the functions and the work of the previous Board?

No, there will be an opportunity to discuss that on another vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

Expenditure from Loan Funds.

On Loan Vote A.—“Railways and Harbours,” £1,000,000,

I should like to ask the Minister of Railways to explain to us why this £1,000,000 is so urgently required. Last year £3,400,000 was voted on loan account, and the Minister is now asking for additional £1,000,000. I shall be very glad if he will explain to us why it is so urgently necessary to have this £1,000,000.

The details of this £1,000,000 will be better dealt with on my additional estimates which come on after this. I may say that this is primarily due to work in certain docks and work in connection with new lines that we are speeding up.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote B.—“Public Works,’” £21,436, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote E.—“Irrigation,” £30,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote H.—“Forestry,” £34,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote J.—“Agriculture,” £116,000,

I notice that there is an increase of £116,000 on this vote. This amount is in respect of “advances, grants and general assistance to farmers.” I should like to have a little information as to the reasons for this increase.

There is a long list of items. These are loans which were made to various bodies for assistance to farmers. One item deals with advances in connection with grain, grain seed and artificial manure, £1,000; loans for assistance to bona fide wheat producers, £30,000; tractor schemes, £6,900; loan to the Deciduous Fruit Board, £75,000; a further loan to the Deciduous Fruit Board of £9,000; then there is a certain amount in respect of assistance to the Klein Karoo Drought Relief Scheme, grain seed to Oudtshoorn and Calitzdorp; a loan to the Deciduous Fruit Board in connection with the dehydration of vegetables, £45,000; and a further loan to the Deciduous Fruit Board of £51,000, and also a loan in connection with seed for peanuts. These are the big items which are included in this amount.

May I ask the Minister whether provision is not being made for a further subsidy on artificial manure?

The £30,000 includes that.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote S.—“Printing and Stationery,” £100,000, put and agreed to.

I move—

In moving this motion I would like to emphasise that practically in every case where increases are shown, those increases are due to increased labour and other costs and necessary expenditure resulting from increased turnover. This applies to all services—general, running and traffic, cartage and catering, road motor and tourist services. In all these working costs and turnover have risen so far above the annual estimates that it is necessary to come forward and ask for approval for these additional estimates by the House. One item, No. 17, covers the National Road Transportation Council, and I might just mention that specially. The purpose of this National Road Transportation Council is to co-ordinate and rationalise all classes of motor transport and to rigidly control the use of vehicles owing to the difficult position that has arisen as a result of the short supply of these. It is of the first importance that we, with the very limited supplies of transport vehicles at our disposal, should have a very careful priority established to see that these vehicles are put only to proper use. The second item to which I think I might refer, because it is different from the others, is the contributions that have been made to Cavalcades. I would expect that some opposition might be shown to this Vote for the reason that the Cavalcades are connected with war purposes; but I should like to emphasise this, that there has not in the past been an exhibition or demonstration of the kind which is indicated by these Cavalcades that have not in fact been supported by the South African Railways. It is part and parcel of the South African Railway policy to take stands in such exhibitions, to advertise themselves and to take the opportunity to advertise the services they can render. I have a recollection myself on one occasion at Wembley in London of partaking of a meal in a South African railway dining car, and at that exhibition there was quite a substantial stand for the South African Railways. The same remark applies to the Colonial Exhibition which I attended in Paris, I think in 1937. We also had quite a large stand at that exhibition. So there is nothing new about the Railways taking part in these exhibitions, and the principle having been established, there is no reason why we should not take the same opportunity in connection with these Cavalcades that are being held in different parts of the country. There is only one other point I should like to make, and that is to avoid confusion in the mind of the hon. member who raised the question in another debate. There may be some confusion in the mind of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) in view of the fact that he asked what the expenditure asked for in the Loan Vote was for. I explained that, but seeing that the Loan Vote is in excess of the amount shown in my own Estimates, I should like to explain how this comes about. Only £261,000 is asked for in my Estimates, although we are borrowing £1,000,000 from the Treasury. The reason is that when we estimate in the early stages of the year for our capital and betterment works, we have to estimate how much will be capital and how much betterment works. As the work of detailed financial allocations progresses it is often found that our estimates are not strictly correct. As it is not permitted that we should apply funds voted for betterment works to capital expenditure, if we have over-estimated in respect of the Betterment Fund we have to borrow additional money from the Treasury to cover the extra amount required on the capital side. So only the sum of £261,000 borrowed under the Loan Vote is used for new capital expenditure. The other is the reversal of an entry from betterment works to capital works, due, as I say, to an adjustment in the original estimates, something which is always liable to occur.

The Minister is asking for additional funds to carry on with his work. I could not understand him very well; he spoke very fast, and I did not want to ask him to repeat what he had said. But I rise to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister. The Minister may think that the Railways belong to him, but when I buy a ticket to travel on the Railways I do not want to be pestered every few minutes by persons and officials who come to my compartment wanting to sell tickets in connection with the Liberty Cavalcade. We have brought this matter to the notice of the Minister on a previous occasion, but he told us that that was not done. I can tell him that it is being done. When I last travelled by train a girl with a collection box came up to me to collect. What is more, they get these funds by a misrepresentation of facts. She told me that she was collecting for the widows and orphans of railwaymen. I told her that that was not so, and I again asked her on whose behalf she was collecting. She gave me the same reply, and I then pointed out to her that the collection box was for the Liberty Cavalcade. I asked her whether she had heard of it, and her reply was that she knew nothing about it. She assured me that she was collecting for the widows and orphans of railwaymen. I then told her not to go about spreading this story; that it was not the truth. I have no objection to people collecting funds on the stations. But when I travel by train, they have no right to disturb me by asking me to contribute to a cause with which I do not agree. I also want to say that in my opinion it is not right. If a Railway official wants to do these things after his official hours of duty, if he wants to assist in street collections in our towns, I have no objection. But it is not right to use Railways for that purpose, it is not fair. I can well understand that the Minister of Railways is very anxious to collect funds, but he cannot use State money to pay the wages of people who make those collections. The services of his employees ought not to be used for collecting funds. I do not know whether he is aware of it, but I want to assure him that that does happen on the train. The Minister also told us that everything in the garden was lovely. Our expenditure is continually increasing. A million pounds here and a million pounds there is put into some fund or other, but I want to tell him that that will not be enough when bad times arrive.

Once again I should like to raise a matter which I have raised on a previous occasion, and to which I have not yet had a reply from the Minister. Up to the present there has been no change or improvement in connection with the collections which take place for the Liberty Cavalcade. The individual who collects on the railway station in Cape Town is still there. I asked the Minister to find out whether it was correct that in January this individual was paid for approximately 160 hours’ overtime. When he goes on duty he is not called upon to clock in as in the case of other employees. He simply signs a book or a paper, while the other people have to clock in. He has a little wagon and a barrel, and it is his habit to stand as near as possible to the people on the platform, and to keep on talking so that it is impossible for anybody else to carry on a conversation. He is one of the most presumptuous persons whom the Minister could have got for this type of work. I want to ask the Minister whether it is his practice to pay overtime to people who do that type of work. I should also like to know from the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that this individual, unlike other employees, need not clock in, and that his services are being used on the railway station to the annoyance of other people. I think the Minister will admit, in all fairness, that as a business man he would not allow one of his clerks, in his private business, when there are clients in the shop, to shout and to carry on the way this person does when he collects for the Liberty Cavalcade. If the Minister wants to hold a Liberty Cavalcade, let him do so, but let him and his officials do so after official railways hours of duty. The Railways do not belong to the Minister and his officials. They belong to the people of South Africa, and they belong as much to members on this side as to members on the other side. It is only by chance that the members on the other side are today in power, and that that Minister is the Minister of Railways. The Railways do not belong to members on the other side, and I want to warn the Minister that if this man carries on on the Cape Town station the way he is doing at. the moment, there will be trouble. There are people who are sick and tired of the way in which this fellow carries on, and if trouble does arise and the people lose their patience, the Minister will not be able to say that he was not warned. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. If he wants to hold a cavalcade, let him hold it with the assistance of people who share his views. But do not disturb the people, the general public, who want to use the railways.

One can only be completely amazed at the blunder which has been made by the Opposition in again bringing forward a complaint this afternoon, a complaint which we have heard on previous occasions, in regard to the Cavalcade and the collecting of money on Railway property. I ask myself whether any one of them can give the assurance that money has never been collected for the Opposition party on the Railways in Railway time, on railway stations or in workshops and on trains or any place where Railway personnel is to be found.

While you were still a Nationalist, did you ever do anything like that?

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) is thinking of lost pastures He is probably still thinking of the time when he roamed about Scotland paying attention to a pretty girl. Hon. members on the other side want to make the country believe that the Afrikaans-speaking members on this side of the House are neglecting their duty towards Afrikaans organisations, that we are not so-called true Afrikaners. I would still like to hear what the definition of a true Afrikaner is. Let me say that it is a well-known fact that Afrikaans organisations, cultural associations, etc., exist in connection with the Railways, and there is no objection —nor has the Minister any objection—to their holding meetings in Railway buildings. Has the Minister on any occasion said that they were not allowed to do so? No, these trifling things are singled out in order to make propaganda. What is more, if members of the Railway staff are willing and feel that they want to assist in collecting funds for the benefit of their collegues who are at the front and their dependants, how can that be held against them? Is it right to attack the Minister about it in this House? These are nothing but wild stories which are being raked up to make propaganda. With regard to the allegation that these people go about with handcarts, I want to say that I have spoken to them, and they do not do it during Railway time. It is alleged that these people are paid for it and that they collect funds in Railway time, that instead of working in the interests of the State, they are engaged in collecting funds. In one of their newspapers they recently made a fuss over a bottle of whisky which was raffled in connection with the Cavalcade. I think the Minister of Justice could almost dispense with detectives today. I think he should appoint the Opposition members as detectives. But it will then be a detective service for the raking up of wild stories. Those people work for the cause because they believe in it, not bcause they feel that either the Government or the Minister is forcing them to do so. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and the hon. member for Mossel Bay know that no member of the staff is forced to contribute or to take part in the collecting of funds. He is at liberty to stay out of it. The allegation that he is forced to take part can be regarded, I think, as an illustration as to the value of the statements made by the other side of the House. I personally have spoken to these people, and there is no truth in it. Why all this fuss then? We on this side of the House do not attack the Reddingsdaadbond. If people collect for the Reddingsdaadbond it will not be held against them. If the hon. member for Mossel Bay wants to exert himself in that connection we shall not hold it against him This is a free country. But why attack the people who sympathise with another cause? Why attack them on the floor of this House? I feel that it is unfair. But what is more, it is only done for political propaganda, and because these funds are being collected for the soldiers of this country. That is what hurts them. Even this afternoon one could infer from the interjections which came from that side how they want to protect the soldiers of South Africa—as they would have us believe. These are the same people who not so long ago said that the soldiers were vagrants, that the Government was wasting money on people who had never in their lives done a stroke of work.

The hon. member must not go into that at great length.

I shall not do so, Mr. Speaker, but when there are interjections like those we have had today, one cannot help …

The hon. member must not allow himself to be side-tracked by interjections.

The true reason for the attack on the hon. Minister is that this money will be used for the soldiers of South Africa and their dependants, and I hope that that will be remembered not only by this House but also by the electorate, and that it will be remembered more particularly by the soldiers when they return to civilian life. There is another important aspect of this matter which is perhaps being lost sight of. It is difficult to judge sometimes whether our friends on that side are democrats or what they really are. It sometimes looks as if they are in favour of a dictatorship; but let us take it for granted that they are in favour of democracy. Why then do they attack the freedom of the individual? They want to restrict the freedom of the individual. The Railway official and the civil servant who try to do something for the soldiers, are not to be permitted to do so. I want to ask the hon. member for Mossel Bay whether he did not take an interest in this matter when a certain young lady made an appeal to him to make a contribution to the Cavalcade funds. I should like to see the counterfoil of the cheque. We shall not allow ourselves to be misled by this propaganda.

The hon. member who has just sat down has either a very short memory or a very convenient memory. During the previous debate he proved how conveniently short his memory was when it came to his own actions. He has now tried to assist the Minister, but I am afraid that he helped him from the frying pan into the fire. There are a few items in connection with which I should like to have a little information. With regard to the line which is being constructed from Hercules to Koedoespoort, provision was made last year for £263,723. Now the Minister is asking for an additional £21,000. I want to ask the Minister why the calculation fell so far short of the amount required. I hope that the Minister will also make a statement in connection with Head 5. We know that there is a war measure which empowers the Minister to make available harbour facilities for defence, and in that case the Minister does not require prior permission nor is it necessary specifically to vote money before the work is commenced. The Minister is now asking for an amount of £103,000 under “Harbours” in connection with war services for 1942. I should like the Minister to explain this. To what extent and how often did he make use of this special power which was given to him under the war measures? I think it is in the interests of the country and of this House that the Minister should explain this, and that he should also tell the House where this so-called harbour is, and whether the Central Government is contributing anything in this connection. Do the funds come out of Loan Account, out of the Improvement Fund, or where do the funds come from? Then I should like to raise a matter in connection with the catering service. I put a question to the Minister in connection with crockery, and he gave me certain information. Every year a large amount is deducted pro rata from the salaries of stewards in respect of crockery which is broken. I have been told that it has happened that a steward, three months after being taken off a saloon on which he worked, has received an account for a few pounds to be deducted from his salary. I know it sometimes happens that people deliberately break things on the trains, and according to the Minister’s statement the stewards are responsible for making good the losses.

Under which item does this come?

Under “Catering,” Item 409 on page 7. An amount appears under that item in respect of catering services. I think that is unreasonable. The steward himself is not responsible for the breakage of these things, but if a certain quantity is broken during any month, the stewards in the dining saloon are apparently charged pro rata in respect of breakages. The steward may not have broken a single cup or glass, but nevertheless he is called upon to contribute pro rata in respect of breakages.

I personally have seen soldiers, for example, take glasses and deliberately throw them out of the windows, and it also happens that civilians do so. The stewards are then called upon to pay. The Minister says that if they can prove that the passengers broke the crockery, the passengers must be called upon upon to pay. But in this case it cannot be proved. I want to ask the Minister to adopt a more sympathetic attitude towards the stewards. These are men who work from early morning till late at night, and it is unfair to make the staff pay on a pro rata basis for breakages which take place on the train. There is great dissatisfaction in this connection. A steward may have been off a certain dining saloon for three or four months, and then find that £4 is deducted from his salary in respect of crockery which he is alleged to have broken. These people only draw £14 to £15 per month; they have to work long hours, and are not paid in respect of overtime, and yet these deductions are made from their salaries. I think it is a scandal.

I do not want to comment on the tirade which we have just had from the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy), in which he tried to make out that we were against the soldiers. Since the Reddingsdaadbond has been mentioned, I just want to read a letter which was sent on behalf of the Railway Administration to the various system managers—[Re-translation]—

This emanates from the General Manager’s office. Since the Minister allows work to be undertaken for the Cavalcade on Railway property, and, moreover, since he makes contributions on behalf of the Railway Administration, we want to ask the Minister to see to it that his officials do not go too far, that they do not take this matter too far in the case of people who do not sympathise with this cause. It is all very well in the case of those who are in sympathy with the case; we have no objection to that. If those who sympathise with the cause want to organise amongst themselves and collect money we have no objection, and we shall not prevent them from doing so, nor even comment on it. But then we want to ask him to tell his officials that they must not disturb those people who do not sympathise with the cause, whether they be officials or members of the public. We also want to ask him to be good enough to cause the instruction which I have just quoted to be repealed. The Minister said that it was customary for the Railways to support undertakings where they could advertise on behalf of the Railway Administration. We have no objection to that. But it is a striking fact that the Railway Administration has never deemed fit to make use of Afrikaner functions for the purpose of advertising. Never in the history of the Railways. We feel that the Minister should instruct his personnel to act with discretion. Not all of them, but some members of his staff go too far; they feel that they are being protected by the Minister. I am convinced that if the Minister knew the true facts he would not approve of this. Then, as I have already said, we ask him to withdraw that instruction, so that officials who sympathise with the Reddingsdaadbond, and even other bodies, may have the privilege of hiring Railway institutes and recreation halls belonging to the Railways for functions of the Reddingsdaadbond. In the second place, I want to ask the Minister to furnish me with information on a number of points. In the first instance there is “Coaching stock,” Item 302, “Electrical lighting.” The original estimate was £68,432, but an additional amount of £30,926 is now being asked for. That seems to be an abnormal increase. Surely the lighting on trains has been reduced to a great extent. There is hardly sufficient light to enable one to put on a collar, and one cannot read a newspaper or anything of that description. It is very difficut to shave in the light which is provided. In this connection I want to ask that a little more light should be provided in the main line compartments as soon as circumstances permit. Then there is Item 3 (1), “Commissions.” Originally an amount of £3,500 was placed on the estimates, and now an additional £3,200 is being asked for. The amount is practically being doubled. A little further down we get Item 335, “Goods and Livestock,” £104,000. There an additional amount of £87,000 is being asked for. What has caused this enormous increase? On Page 6, Item 354, “Compensation,” there is £3,300 on the original estimates, and an additional £2,900 is being asked for. On Page 7, Item 405, the original amount was £287,000, and an additional £135,000 is being asked for. Was that caused by a larger turnover in “provisions, liquors, etc.”? Then Item 420, “Laundry.” Originally £14,300 was asked for, and an additional £8,300 is now being asked for. What caused this increase? Then there is Item 424, “New construction stores.” What is that? Originally £15,000 was asked for, and now an additional £15,000 is being asked. On Page 10, under “Tourist service” an amount of £1,650 was asked for in respect of salaries and wages, and an additional £1,000 is now being asked. That seems to be a very large increase. Then there is Item 496, “Hotel accommodation,” originally £45,000, and now an additional £40,000 is being asked for. These are a few items in connection with which I should like to have a little information. We can then come back to these matters at a later stage.

On page 7 an amount of £171,000 was voted in respect of salaries, wages and expenditure in respect of dining saloons. I should like to deal with that for a moment. This deals with a class of worker on the trains whose cause is seldom pleaded. These people work very hard. It almost seems as if their work is regarded as inferior, but we can never under-estimate the value of the work performed by these young lads. Their hours of duty are extremely long. We know that in the case of trains which come down from Johannesburg, they work seventeen hours per day, and I hope that the Minister will give his attention to the question of their wages.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 16th March.