This Commerce and Industries Vote is very important, especially at a time such as we are passing through. We have to cater for certain essentials, commodities which are necessary for us, and which we cannot produce in this country. An hon. member on this side yesterday, in passing, remarked that there were certain things which were still allowed to come into the country, and that they were brought in on an unusually large scale, while other goods, which we really required, could not be obtained. All kinds of luxury articles are allowed to come in. We can go to the shops and buy anything there which the women in the good old days needed to make themselves young. We can buy everything that is necessary from top to bottom, but the essential things that are required to keep things going in the country are unobtainable. There are a great many articles which we need in this country, but which we can no longer obtain. I take it to be a fact that the Minister of Commerce and Industries has to issue permits, or that he is responsible for those permits which have to be issued, to enable people to import goods. Does he issue permits to anyone who wants to import such goods?

They cannot get permits to import cosmetics.

I want the Minister …

The hon. member must continue in the language in which he commenced his speech.

I feel particularly bilingual today, because I want the Minister to follow me. I have a great respect for him. He is an old man, and I want to talk to him as a child would talk to his father. But it really seems that the time has come for the child to give his father some advice, and to tell him that he must not act like a child, but like a middle-aged man. I want to give the Minister some advice in the interests of the country, and also in the interest of the existence of his own party. It is time he put his foot down and prevented t he importation of these luxury articles until such time as the essential things required for the continuation of the country’s activities, such as farming, have been provided. These goods should receive preference. Did the Minister give such preference in the past? He cannot have done so, because we find today that these other goods are still coming in—all these trivialities which are not needed and which one can do without are still coming in. There are a great many things which we can do without —we can even manage to get on without some of the imported foods—things which are not needed to build up our physical strength, but the Minister and his advisers have not thought of these things. They know that we are at war, but they seem to imagine that we can just carry on in the same way as we used to do in the good old Voortrekker days. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) mentioned baling wire as an instance, and told us that this particular commodity was unobtainable today. We are told that it is not manufactured here. There is very little shipping space, but, if that is so, why then are permits issued for certain luxury articles, while at the same time we are unable to obtain these goods which we urgently need to carry on our farming activities? I want to draw the Minister’s attention to these facts. I know that he is a fairly reasonable man, and I am convinced that he must have been a very progresses man at one time. I don’t say that he is a rich man today; still, he can manage to come out. Now, I want to ask him to assist the farmers in the way he used to help himself in the past, and only to issue permits for the importation of goods which we cannot obtain here, and which are necessary for the carrying on of our industry. That is the advice which I want to give the Minister. I want him to consider the expenses which we have today in regard to plough shears and other things which we used to import. These things are expensive, and they are almost unobtainable. I want to remind the Minister of the fact that our farmers are paying their debts, but they are not paying their debts out of luxury and out of surpluses. They are paying their debt out of their poverty and their needs. We are not talking here about rich people; the rich pay for everything they require out of their surpluses, and out of their abundance. The cheque book farmers who are sitting on the Benches opposite know that is so, but on this side of the House we have the poor farmers, the men who have to struggle, and who have to fight for an existence.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

The hon. member who has just interrupted me is the owner of some beautiful mules. I have no such fine animals. I have to plough with donkeys, whereas the hon. member ploughs with mules which took prizes at our agricultural shows. Let him give me his mules to do my ploughing, and I shall produce just as much as he is producing. I mention these matters in all seriousness, and I hope the Minister will take steps to prevent any goods from being imported in future if they are not really required for the carrying on of the farming industry and other essential activities.

The greatest disappointment I have had in regard to these estimates was when I saw a reduction on the vote “Fisheries.” Not only is the Minister not prepared to spend more money, but actually this year the amount set down is to be reduced. An explanation is necessary in view of the attitude which the Minister has adopted all along. I just want to read to him what he said at the opening of the Aquarium in December, 1940. I just want to remind him of that. He said this—

And then he goes on to deal with the export market, and his concluding remarks were these—

Those are very fine sentiments, but what do we find? The Minister himself is very much in favour of the industry. Now he explained to us yesterday that his department is overworked—the department is overworked on account of war legislation and war measures. Let me remind the Minister that the Fisheries Act was passed in 1939. Nothing very much has been done since this Act was passed—and I really believe that nothing ever will be done unless we get a more sympathetic administration towards it. I do acknowledge that the Minister’s department and all the officers of the department have their hands full, but that is no reason why they should neglect this industry, one of the most important primary industries in the country—and if they cannot do it let someone else do it.

You want the New Order.

It would be a good thing if you could bring a New Order into that particular department. I do not think the Minister and those associated with him realise the importance of the industry.

They don’t realise anything.

It is more important today because we want to augment our food supplies, and that can be done by putting the Fishing Industry on a sound footing.

The agricultural industry comes first.

The Minister said yesterday: “I am going to assist the fishermen by providing money for them to buy nets.” That is not the type of assistance we require. What we require is attention to be paid to distribution—we want the output to be increased, not only so far as the trawlers are concerned, but also so far as inshore fishermen are concerned. And I claim that apart from anything else from the value of fish as a food product there is no greater waste than there is in this industry, and every other country would have made better use of its vast potentialities than we have done. In connection with the byproducts, very little has been done in providing fish oil, which we can produce here. Fertilisers, and all these things, and fish meats. In connection with fertilisers we know that we can augment our supplies considerably by using the waste from the fishing industry. And let me remind the Minister that he did have a fertilising factory on the West Coast—they went out of business because they were not looked after. Even at that time the industry did not receive the attention which it should have received from the department. And furthermore, there could be a very fine industry developed in producing leather from sharks’ skins. We had that industry here and I am quite sure that it could be brought back to life again. And then, take seals’ skins for furs. This country sells in the neighbourhood of £60,000 per year in seals’ skins, which is all revenue to the country, and yet there is a miserable sum of only £8,000 on the estimates for the whole of this industry. Fish glass and other things can be produced, which cannot be imported—and we must have these things in this country. Until such time as the department sees fit to look after that industry properly we cannot expect any great progress. There is absolutely no life in the organisation, it is neglected and no interest is taken in it. Is it because the Seat of the Administration is 1,000 miles away from the seashore? It may be that. I think it does have some effect on the action of the department. [Time limit.]

I was not surprised last night to hear the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) pay a tribute to the Minister on his Department’s administration, because if there is one thing that has become clear lately in regard to the administration of the Department of Commerce and Industries it is that merchants and industrialists have been doing very well as compared with the farmers, and that is why one can expect the Minister to be congratulated by the merchants and the industrialists. They have been allowed to make big profits, but when the farmers also had a chance of making profits the Minister immediately stepped in and fixed prices, and in some cases he fixed them at a very low level, without taking any account of the real needs of the farmers and of the country. When a complaint was made about the price of potatoes the Minister told us in this House that if he could sell his potatoes at 25s. per bag he would be very pleased—he told us that he himself was a farmer. I then asked the Minister why, if he thought the farmers got 25s. per bag, he did not give the farmers the assurance that they would get that price? The farmer does not get 25s.; there is no guaranteed price of 25s. That is the difference between the way in which the farmer is dealt with and the way other people are dealt with. The farmer is not given an opportunity of making a profit. The farmers are prevented from getting a higher price, and I actually know of cases where farmers have been obliged to sell their potatoes at a loss. When the price of potatoes was fixed I made it my business to go to the public market at Oudtshoorn and I found potatoes being sold there up to 6s. per bag.

And in Aliwal North the price dropped to 5s. 6d. per bag.

The farmer cannot sell at that price. But this sort of thing is happening continually with farming products—one day the price is a bit high and the next day it goes down again. We have these fluctuations and we have to take into account the average price, and when the Minister fixes a maximum price he should make sure that the average which the farmer gets will be a reasonable price, and if the Minister fixes the maximum so low and does not at the same time see to it that there is a maximum, I can assure him that the average is going to be low, as we have in this particular instance. The Minister says that that is a thing of the past, but I want to draw his attention to the effect this is going to have in these unusual times if the Government does not take steps to see that the farmers have a gauaranteed price. If the Minister acts in the same way as he did in regard to potatoes then he is doing something which is not fair to the consumer and not fair to the producer either. It would be much better if the producer could know that he was producing at a fixed price, as is the case now in regard to wheat. The result is going to be a revival of the production of wheat. The farmers know what the price is going to be. It is perfectly true that the price was fixed for the last two years but that price was so low that it really did not encourage the farmers to grow wheat. With the new price which has been fixed there will be a certain measure of encouragement. If we feel that the fixing of the wheat prices acts as a stimulus for production because the price has been fixed at a more or less reasonable level, why should we not do the same in regard to other products as well? The Minister in not fixing the prices for other products is neglecting his duties as a farmer. We know that merchants and inustrialists have made abnormal profits in regard to the sale of certain commodities. I asked the Minister last year to step in wherever he found speculation taking place in certain commodities, and to fix prices. I mentioned the price of fencing material among other things, and also building materials. At that time there was no fixation of prices, and the people who had imported those goods were allowed to charge any price. Abnormal speculation took place, and the Minister afterwards fixed the price of fencing wire and building material, but by that time the profits had already been made. But when the farmers were also given the chance of making a little bit of a profit as a result of the increased demands, the Minister immediately stepped in and fixed prices. I also want to say this, that so far as imports are concerned the Minister should allow himself to be advised by people who know something about these matters. It seems to me that when he appoints a Committee like the Priority Committee which has to advise him in regard to the goods that should be allowed to be imported, he appoints impracticable people—people who have no judgment and no knowledge of these matters. He falls back on people in Johannesburg and places like that who are not acquainted with the general conditions prevailing in the country. What is the result? The result is that an absolute need for certain essential materials is created. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) mentioned baling wire as an instance. These people were of opinion that less wire should be imported during war time, so they argued that because prices were high during war time the farmers should not fence their farms, and for that reason they restricted the importation of wire, but they were too inexperienced to realise that wire is not only needed for fencing purposes, but also for other requirements. The result is that there is a shortage of baling wire. Not only is it expensive, but it is scarce, and in consequence lucerne, for which there is a great demand in the towns, cannot be sent away. The result of that is going to be an absolute shortage of milk in the large towns, for which the Minister will be responsible. There is other material too which the farmers require, and which they cannot import today, simply because the people responsible have not got the necessary practical knowledge. Take a commodity like copper, which is required in connection with our water supplies. Those people argued that a place like Cape Town in time of war can do with 10 per cent. less. They did not think it was a commodity which was absolutely essential in regard to water supplies and other needs, and the result is that the whole country has to suffer. I charge the Minister with allowing himself to be advised by inexperienced and incompetent people, and I say that the Minister should see to it that that position is put right. We cannot expect any Minister to have a repository of all the wisdom in the world. We do not expect the Minister i to do everything personally. He must be advised by other people, but then he should see to it that the people who advise him have the necessary knowledge and experience, and I repeat that the Minister should in future use greater judgment in selecting men to advise him on matters of this kind.

There is a question of outstanding importance which the Minister i of Commerce and Industries dealt with in the course of the debate yesterday on his vote; that is the question of the Social and Economic Planning Council, probably the most important body that has ever been selected to deal with the future well being of this country. I must confess to a sense of disappointment on the Minister’s choice of a representative from the Province: of Natal.

His choice of the whole lot is wrong.

We learn that Senator Brookes has been chosen, I suppose to represent Natal—he is the only Natal resident mentioned among the appointments notified, but so far as Natal is concerned, Senator Brookes cannot be said to represent that Province. True’ he is a devoted missionary working unselfishly among the natives, but as a representative of Natal or its philosophy, I must say that every Natal man would spew him out of his mouth—he would not accept him as a representative of the Province of Natal.

What is Natal’s philosophy?

In a recent republican debate in this House the views of Senator Brookes had been quoted repeatedly by the republicans in support of their case.

What has that to do with economics?

I am dealing with the gentleman’s qualifications as a man. In regard to that, his philosophy belongs to the Pretoria University, of which he was a professor, and the Pretoria University represents a philosophy which is the antithesis of that held by the people of my Province.

Your Province indeed!

Insofar as his academic qualifications are concerned, there are many men in Natal who would be chosen before him in that sphere alone.

Where are they?

Then we have to realise that most important duties will devolve upon this Commission; among other things it has to investigate and make representations for promoting the planned development of the resources of the Union and its internal and external trade, as well as the prosperity and well-being of the population as a whole. Among its other responsibilities it is said that this Council is to examine and make recommendations on schemes and suggestions made from time to time to improve the social and economic standard of the various sections of the community.

What about the British Empire?

I don’t think the British Empire will be very much affected by what the hon. member says. I am dealing with a very unfortunate appointment, and I venture to say that no more unsuitable appointment could have been made in view of the importance of this Council, and I hope the Minister will realise before he goes any further with the work of this Council that we desire another appointment to be made in addition to that of Senator Brookes. If Senator Brookes is chosen for his knowledge of the needs of the natives one offers no objection to his being coopted to the Commission, but if he is to be the sole representative for Natal, we shall be in a parlous state.

He is not there as a representative of Natal.

Who then is the representative of Natal?

Nobody; there is no representative of the Cape either. Senator Brookes is there as representing the native section …

You surely do not want Natal to be completely unrepresented, and that is what you have done. Insofar as Natal is concerned that Province will consider that for the matters which are to be considered by this important Council it is completely unrepresented, and it has a right to be represented—the industrial future of Natal is as important as that of any other part of the Union. The future well-being of its people matters just as much to us as they matter to the wealthier and more expansive Provinces, and we are not content to submit to the frowns of the Minister and his impatient dismissal of this matter by the words “He does not represent Natal.” We know he does not. The Minister never spoke a truer word, but we intend to have someone on that Council who does represent Natal, and if not, the Minister will hear more about it.

Now he is gettingnervous.

Now I wish to supplement what was said by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) about the difficulties of price control where the raw material is produced by the farmer, and the processing of that material is in the hands of a co-operative society also representative of the farmer. In the case of the production of bacon in Natal, the largest factory is the Estcourt Co-operative Bacon Factory, and their difficulties have been rendered acute since the controlled price has been fixed for bacon. 1s. 3d. was fixed at a time when baconers were procurable at 5d. and 5½d. per lb. live weight. Immediately afterwards the price advanced to 6d. and later the factories decided to pay 7d. to the local farmers, and to supplement the supplies they had to buy from the Johannesburg abattoirs at 8d., resulting in the baconers costing them 10d. per lb. live weight by the time they arrived at the factory. This makes it impossible for them to come out on the controlled price of 1s. 3d., and the most careful economies have been effected—no fat salaries to directors, and yet is is impossible for them to sell bacon at the meanest possible profit at less than 1s. 8d. The matter is under consideration of the Minister and I have had advice today that another factory which is in a somewhat similar position to the Estcourt factory in that it has no paid directors at all—and that factory points out that the present price of baconers makes it necessary for the controlled price to be advanced. The hon. member for Weenen yesterday, through inadvertence, mentioned that a price of 1s. 7d. would be sufficient. But I have had telegrams indicating that 1s. 8d. is the lowest price at which bacon can be manufactured and sold to the public under present conditions. [Time limit.]

I again wish to draw the Minister’s attention to this subject of the price control of potatoes. The Minister fixed the price at a maximum of 25s. Last year the farmer had a bit of good luck in getting a little more than that. Some farmers got more and the Minister thereupon fixed the price, and he probably thought that in doing so he would protect and benefit the consumer, but where the Minister made his mistake was in not fixing a minimum price. Potatoes are not to exceed 25s. per bag, but if potatoes fetch 4s. 6d. per bag on the market the farmer also has to be satisfied. As soon as the farmer gets a reasonable price for his products the Minister steps in and fixes prices. I want to ask the Minister of Commerce to draw the attention of the price controller to the fact that all these factors have to be considered before prices are fixed, and that he should not only fix a maximum but a minimum price. As things are today we have this position, that as soon as the market is a little bit over supplied the buyers have the chance of bringing down prices even to 5s. per bag, and the farmer cannot come out on that. Now I want to touch on another matter. Last year I discussed the prices of raisins, sultanas and dried fruit generally in this House—those prices have been fixed. The farmer gets so much and so much is allowed to the packers for their expenses in connection with the packing. We pleaded with the Minister last year also to fix prices for the consumer up country, because the retailers up country put their prices so high that they sometimes made as much as 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. profit on this particular commodity, thus making it impossible for the consumer to buy these products because the price was too high. We have to turn to the up country markets for our dried fruit and raisins. We have a population which will possibly be able to buy all we produce if the prices are reasonable, but the prices in the retail trade up country are such today that it is only people who have plenty of money who can afford to buy these products as luxury articles, but the man who has very little money to spend on domestic requirements cannot afford to buy our goods. That is why we say that the prices of these goods should also be fixed so that the consumers may be allowed to buy these commodities at a reasonable price, and the dealers should not be allowed to make a 75 per cent. profit on a product out of which the farmers only make a precarious living. I don’t want to talk about the importation of goods as toilet requisites and so on which are not really essentials. Quite enough has been said on that subject, but I want to put up a plea with the Minister and I want to ask him to see to it that if there is shipping space available essential things should be brought into this country, such as implements for farming purposes, which the farmers need to enable them to carry on and produce the needs of the country. The wheat farmers have a fixed price now and I feel that the Control Board has done the right thing in fixing prices for first, second and third grade wheat. The wheat farmers now know exactly what they are going to get for their product, but it is no use the wheat farmers being allowed a fixed price if they are unable to obtain plough shears and the necessary implements at reasonable prices, or if they are not able to obtain them at all —because they require those implements to make it possible for them to produce their wheat. I feel that if there is one matter the Government should give its attention to it is this, that the farmers must be given the opportunity to produce, because if they are not given that chance the Government’s war effort will fail. I sometimes feel that I would not be very sorry if the Government’s war effort did go wrong, but I know that hon. members opposite are very anxious for the war effort to be successful, and I can assure them that they will not meet with any success unless they see to it that farming conditions are placed on a sound basis. For those reasons I shall be pleased if the Minister will give his serious attention to these points that I have raised.

During this debate, the hon. Minister has heard a lot about fish and still more fish; in other words, the cry has been food, and yet more food. In 1939 I took the trouble of spending about nine months in research work in the interests of our fishing industry. In the same year I sat on the Select Committee of the Sea Fisheries Bill. The result of these efforts were given to this House in a speech which I made here (during March, 1940) on the Sea Fisheries Bill. I made certain recommendations in that speech, and I regret to say that not one of those recommendations was put into effect. Subsequently a small commission was appointed to advise the Minister as to ways and means of putting these provisions into practice. I do not know what the recommendations in that report were, but I do say this—and I say it with every confidence—that I am perfectly certain that none of the recommendations in the commission’s findings was not contained in my speech in this House. If the Minister wishes to call my bluff, I hope he will lay the recommendations of the commission on the Table of this House. I asked the Minister on a previous occasion to put the recommendations of the commission on the Table of this House, but he would not do so. But, then, who listens to a back-bencher? A back-bencher is the lowest form of Parliamentary life; no one takes any notice of the back-bencher, but we do hope, in the course of time, to become front-benchers. I sincerely hope that on this occasion the Minister will grant me a sympathetic hearing. Before I proceed to ask the Minister certain questions with regard to his own efforts to further the interests of the fishing industry, I should like to point out to him how other countries are tackling their food problems during these critical times. For the Minister’s information I am not prompted in my observations by a single person in the Minister’s department; my observations are obtained by the reading of overseas fishing publications; I am a regular subscriber to the “Fishing Gazette” of the United States. Here I have the latest annual review of 1941, in which the Hon. Harold Ickes, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, writes an article, in which he says—

He goes on further to say—

In the same article the writer goes on to say—

By way of interest, at the time I recommended in 1940 in my speech before the House that the department should have at least six fisheries patrol vessels, in conjunction with the fishing industry. I dealt with the question of patrol boats. I doubt whether those boats are obtainable today. However, with a slight alteration, they could have been used as torpedo carriers today. Other speakers at the time pooh-poohed the idea of the usefulness of such vessels. We could have got those vessels then, hut today the time is past. With regard to our food in South Africa, I must say that we are wasting our food resources. In my speech before this House I made mention of the number of sea birds on our coasts, and I said—

Why it has not been done I do not know. I went on to say—

That is what it is costing the country in food values to supply the farmers with guano fertiliser. I further said, during the course of my remarks on the Bill, that the Government should grant financial aid to the fishing industry, and that very much good would accrue to the industry if that were done. I finally concluded by saying—

Let us look further afield now. I went to the trouble of writing for this report from Ceylon. There they have the same troubles as we have, and they say in their report of 1941—

Further on they say—

They say further—

We must remember that their conditions are very similar to ours—

And that, after all, is the intention of the Government, to increase our food supplies. They go on further to say—

Again I wish to point out an interesting feature with regard to the potentialities of our fishing industry, in so far as fish oils are concerned. I quote here from the official journal of the Department of Commerce and Industries. We all know that in our own waters there are various kinds of fish, of which stock fish is the commonest. This journal says—

Now if only one of the fish species in our waters can produce four times the oil exported by Newfoundland—and our waters are very rich—just imagine the potentialities of our fishing industry. Then there is also an extract from the Canadian Fisherman of October, 1940. [Time limit.]

Several members have already raised the question of baling wire, and I feel that I shall also avail myself of this opportunity to say a few words on this subject. It is clear that the position has become impossible. Before the war a small roll of baling wire cost 7s.; baling wire is made out of iron scraps and it is about the poorest quality of wire obtainable on the market. If it has been out in the rain for a month it is rusted right through. It has gone up today to 50s. per roll and we cannot get any more of it. It is the Minister’s duty to step in and see to it that control is exercised over the price, and that he lays down a maximum price so that the farmer is not exploited by speculators. The Minister was very quick about fixing a maximum price for potatoes, but when it concerns things which the farmer needs, then he does not bother his head. The farmers along the Olifants River, Vicolsdrift, and other irrigation schemes, are now using wire which has already been in use. They are buying old wire and they are using it, but even that they can no longer obtain today, with the result that the farmers cannot do any more fencing. It will affect the whole of our railway service, because the lucerne traffic is the biggest of all, and what will happen to dairy farming in Cape Town then? The Minister will still be able to drink his cup of black coffee, but tea won’t taste nice without milk. And what about the children? If the Minister does not make some plan there will be no food for the cows, and there will be no milk for Cape Town. I know that the shipping position has become difficult and that we depend on other countries for our wire. Can the Minister not devise some scheme to have it manufactured in this country. We have got Iscor, which has been in existence for years. Does the Minister want us to understand that Iscor has not advanced to the stage yet when it is able to manufacture these commodities which are the most inferior of any on the market? Is it impossible to do so; I cannot believe it. If it is not possible to manufacture baling wire here, then Iscor is not justifying its existence. It is not merely a question of wire, but there are many other things which the farmer requires in connection with agricultural implements which Iscor should be able to produce. Surely the iron and steel factory was established with the intention of providing for the needs of the country? I have been wondering whether this iron and steel factory of ours is actually manufacturing as much as a button or a pin. I do not think the Minister can mention one single item which has been manufactured by Iscor. Everything is imported from overesas. Are we so small—we boast of our big iron and steel factory, but it does not produce anything that is of any practical value to the country.

Only V signs.

Does the hon. member mention V signs as something of value to the country? If so, then I am afraid that it does not even manufacture them. I am glad that factories have been established at Vereeniging, where agricultural implements are being manufactured on a small scale, but those institutions have not yet made sufficient progress. The country is getting short of automatic binders, mowers and farm machinery, and the country will ere long be without food, as a result. At the beginning, hon. members opposite thought that the war was only going to be a six months’ affair, and that must be the reason why they did not provide for the future. I was always pessimistic about it, and I said at the time that I was afraid the war was going to last ten years. It was regarded as a joke and I was laughed at. If our troubles and our needs are as bad as they are today, only after three years, what is the position going to be after ten years? And there seems to be very little chance of an early peace. I, at any rate, don’t expect it. The world is divided into two opposing camps; who is going to make peace? I am afraid we are very far off peace yet. What is the position going to be in a few years’ time? The Minister must see to it that practical requirements are manufactured on as large a scale as possible. I know that the Minister takes an interest in the country, and he should realise that the farmer cannot produce if he has no implements. The soldiers have to be fed, clothed and supplied with all kinds of necessaries of life. If importation stops, all requirements will have to be manufactured here, and if the farmers do not produce, it will be impossible to continue the war. From that point of view alone it is essential for the Minister to pay attention to this matter. He cannot wait until disaster strikes us. By that time it will be too late to start producing. The Minister must give his attention to the matter in good time and if he wants to see the war through he must give his urgent attention to these matters. I warn him. [Time limit.]

Last evening we had the interesting and indeed instructive spectacle of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) spreading his wings like a beneficient eagle and swooping through the broad open spaces of a brave new world of industry that is to be. Indeed, he said that it had already been, but it had sort of slipped through our fingers, and it might slip through again. His feathers got considerably ruffled by what we might call a south-easter, the south-easter of over-production. The hon. member knows how to obviate that and was good enough to give us the information. He quoted impressive or rather depressing figures showing that the cost of wages was far too high. He had other still more depressing figures setting forth that the production was far too low. And what he puts forward as a basis for a new world is the reverse of this; he wants things the other way round; he wants more work for the masses and less wages. Now I would like to refer the hon. member to a country very much in the news, a country where his ideas are acted upon. I am alluding to Japan. There the costs of production are exceedingly low, the worker is very dutifully obedient, and industrious, and is paid very little. His output is very great. Japan has consequently been able to establish very large overseas markets in South Africa as well as in other places. I expect that if the hon. member looks around in Johannesburg he will still find stores which sell goods made in that way. The result is that the people in Japan en masse live on rice. I would ask the hon. member whether that is also included in his prospectus. Does he expect the South African people to live on rice, with possibly a hot potato on Sundays as a special treat? I would moreover suggest to the hon. member, whom I respect personally as much as I distrust his economic views—I would remind him that the factor of wages is by no means the controlling one in this question of high prices. I think I had better include the Minister in that also, who seems to be misguided equally on that point. I would ask him and all other reasonable men—I stress the word “other”— whether it is the high rate of wages which is responsible for the present record price of gold. Are we expected to swallow that? Is it the high wages paid to operatives that is responsible for the exceedingly high prices of garments? Is it the high rate of wages responsible for the high price of potatoes— 32s. to £2 a bag in Durban? If so, won’t there be a terrible drop in wages after the convoy has gone on and the price falls again to 15s. a bag? I submit that the high cost of wages is by no means the sole factor in the high price of our products. Greed for profit is a still bigger one, and that I will say was clearly admitted by the hon. member for Hospital in his remarks. We cannot have our cake and eat it, and there seems to be a yearning towards that consummation in the hon. member’s speech. I would ask this hon. member and the committee, to whom do we propose to sell the products, which I am sure will be excellent. We shall have to sell them, whether they go to Kenya or Tanganyika; we shall have to sell them to the masses of the people. Now, sir, are the masses of people going to buy goods unless we give them the money in the form of wages to buy them with? The tragedy of South Africa is not the 20 per cent. of highly skilled workers, or the 10 per cent. or the 5 per cent., which is nearer the mark, the tragedy is and looks like continuing for some time the 80 or more per cent. of the people who have nothing at all to spend.

Quite right.

That is the real trouble, and I hope that this Committee of Reconstruction will look these things fairly in the face. I repeat, it is the low spending power of the masses of the people that is the trouble. You cannot have it both ways. If you want to sell your stuff you must give the people the money, including the nonEuropean, the money to buy the stuff with. The last speaker said that at the end of the war the old competitive spirit will come back. I am quite sure it will, but I hope we will get rid of some of it once and for all in South Africa. He said there would be no difference after the war except that materials would flow a little more freely. I want to say to this committee that there will be a difference. The masses at the end of the war would not submissively and obediently take what they are offered. In commerce and industry and in other respects we are asking for a fair deal all the way round and we warn the House that the cutting down of wages will be a cutting down and not an uplifting of the people.

I am glad that I am getting another chance to say a few words. I can quite understand why the Minister is so keen on having old people in the Cabinet. He plays on our sentiments, because the Afrikaners always respect people with grey hair, and then we have a man here like the Minister, who is really courteous, but my difficulty is that he keeps silent, and that he does not answer our questions. Last night I put certain questions to him, and now I have to repeat those questions, because he has not answered me, but before doing so I want to say this to the Minister: He said that he was pleased that he had finished with the question of price control, and that that matter now came under the Minister of Agriculture, but I want him to advise the Minister of Agriculture and tell him how he got himself into a lot of difficulty for having only fixed maximum prices and not minimum prices, too. If he does not do so, the Minister of Agriculture may perhaps follow his example, and he may land himself in the very same trouble that the Minister of Commerce has landed himself in. I do believe the Minister will do so. It is this Government which has laid down a policy of price control. We were under the impression that all that was intended was to fix a maximum price for the traders in respect of goods bought and sold, and that there was no intention of fixing maximum prices for farming products. The Minister told us that the regulations only gave him the right to fix a maximum price, and not a minimum price. Who drafts those regulations? Who passes them? Is it not the Minister himself who does so? The Minister is now hiding behind his own fortress, and he says it is somebody else’s business. I want to know who made those regulations? If it is not the Minister who made them, then I say it is no more than right that he should see to it that other regulations are put into force to provide that the farmer will be paid a minimum price for his products. Why has not the Minister done that yet? I am convinced that the Government does not want to show any sympathy so far as the farmers are concerned? I hope the Minister of Agriculture, who is going to take over the question of price control, will in the first place consider the question of what is in the interest of the farmers, and I hope he will so amend the regulations that the farmers will get a minimum price for their products. If Committees are appointed to fix maximum prices, especially so far as the farmers are concerned, then I feel that the farmers should also be given a say on those Committees. I feel that those Committees should consist partly of farmers—not all the members should be farmers, but some of the members should be, and they must be practical farmers. The farmers will then have a say in regard to farming products. Now, I want to ask the Minister on whose recommendation he appointed the present members of those Committees? Were the names of those people suggested by his party, or by an organisation of farmers? Were their names suggested by the Agricultural Unions, by the Co-operative Societies, or by any organisation of that nature? I want to know from him how those Committees were constituted, and who recommended the members of those Committees? I asked the Minister yesterday whether he had consulted the Agricultural Department about the fixing of the price of potatoes; whether he had consulted the other boards, and how he had arranged this whole matter? He did not answer me. I told him yesterday that even if I had to stay here until the end of the year, and until next year—unless the Government used its steam roller, I would continue putting my question until I got a reply. The Minister in his reply said that he would be very pleased if he could get 25s. per bag for his potatoes. Let me tell him what my experience has been. I sold a couple of hundred bags last year. I bought those potatoes in August at £1 5s. per bag. We had no rain, so the stuff I put down started to rot. In December the rains came, and I planted. I only had 30 per cent. left. Of that 30 per cent., 5 per cent. came up. I lost the whole of my crop, and I could not sell anything. I was not the only one, the people round about me all had the same experience. The Minister has not the slightest knowledge of farming, otherwise he would not have given me that answer. He may be a very good commercial man, but he has very little knowledge of practical farming. He is a cheque book farmer. He writes out his cheque and he loves walking about his farm, and naturally he loves eating his own potatoes, even if they cost him £5 per bag. I feel that it is an injustice to the farmer to have only a fixed maximum price of 25s., and no minimum. Now, I want to know from the Prime Minister what the maximum price of seed potatoes is? There is another aspect of the matter which I also want to refer to. The Minister fixed the maximum price at 25s., and those potatoes can be sold by the dealer for £1 10s., that is to say, at 5 lbs. for 1s. Do hon. members realise what happens? The dealer buys one bag of patoes for 25s., and another bag of lower grade potatoes at 15s. Then the average price works out at £1, and he sells those potatoes for 30s., and makes a profit of 50 per cent. That is how the middleman is protected. I don’t blame the Minister. He is a merchant, and he naturally looks after the merchants. I want the Minister to remember what I told him yesterday. I don’t get up merely with the intention of keeping the consumer down. I am here to protect the consumer as much as the producer, but I say that both sides should be protected. I contend that if the Government goes on as it is doing now things are bound to go wrong. When we come to deal with the Minister of Agriculture, we are going to be annoyed with him, because he is a young man, and he represents us. If he applies the same principle and refuses to give us a minimum price, then I shall continue to agitate as much as I can and as long as I live, and I shall continue to object to the way he is treating us. I am concerned about conditions in South Africa. [Time limit.]

I think I had better reply to some of the points that have been made this afternoon. In the first place I would say that I am sorry that so many of the speakers this afternoon were not here yesterday evening when I replied to nearly all the points that they have made today. We are merely having the same debate over again. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) tells me that we are giving shipping space for cosmetics, lip-stick and so on, and do not give licences for more important products.

They get preferential treatment.

Cosmetics are not allowed to come in at all from those countries for which licences are required, and I pointed out last night that the reason why certain commodities of this type come in is that they fill up the boats which are already laden down to their mark, but this can only be very light goods. Now, I would tell the hon. gentleman, as I did last night, that all imports from countries other than Great Britain and the Dominions have priority licences. There is no such thing as a man being able to get a licence for cosmetics, so that these things can get onto a ship before agricultural implements for instance. The priority for agricultural implements is very high—I don’t know whether you call it very high or low, but after war supplies and railway supplies, and things like that, agricultural implements come pretty well next. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) read what I said in 1940. Well, I don’t mind people turning up past speeches, and as regards the speech I then made, I entirely endorse it. I had forgotten all about it, but I was only too glad for the hon. member to read it again because it made me feel that I was right then, and I am right today. His suggestion that I and my department are not sympathetic to the fishing industry, is a travesty of the facts. The position is that those who are enthusiastic on the fishing industry, and I was an enthusiast in 1940, must wait until some of the more vital things are dealt with and finished with. It is impossible today either to get the staff or the money or anything else to develop that industry as it should be developed.

That means that it will never be done.

It certainly will be developed and I am sorry that circumstances have prevented it from being developed as we should like. I told the hon. gentleman last night that the Food Controller has set up a committee dealing with methods for increasing our food supply, and we have arranged for Dr. Von Bonde to go onto that committee and lend them a hand as far as he can. We are dreadfully handicapped with regard to this industry, because the Seaward Defence have practically taken all our trawlers, and they have taken the Africana, our research ship, and until we can get those back, it is very difficult for us to increase and develop our fishing business. The hon. member mentioned that there was a fish fertiliser factory on the west coast, and he said it had gone insolvent or had gone out of business because it was not properly looked after, presumably by the Government. Mr. Chairman, I deprecate this idea, that everybody who wants to put up a factory for making boots, or fertiliser, or anything else, has got to be spoonfed by the Government. It is not the Government’s job. If a man puts up a fish fertiliser factory he has got to run it himself and make a profit out of it himself. There is no reason why, if a man puts up a fertiliser factory and makes a loss the Government should have to pay that loss. If there is a profit, it does not go to the Government. We have to become individualists, we have to stand on our own feet, and this business of running constantly to the Government to help to run any fancy factory is never going to make this country prosperous.

What about the iron and steel?

I come next to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux), who took up the prices of potatoes again. I said last night perfectly clearly that I took the entire responsibility for fixing the price of potatoes. I don’t mean to say that I never talked to anybody about it, or never said anything to anybody. Perhaps I did not get as much sympathy as I wanted and the result was that I said I would fix the price, and I did fix the price. You can kick me as much as you like, but don’t kick anybody else, kick the man who is responsible. The member for Oudtshoorn complains that I did not control the maximum price for commercial men while I did that for the farmers. As a matter of fact, the only case in which I fixed the maximum price for the farmer was the price of potatoes, but I have fixed the prices of thousands and thousands of articles as against the commercial man, so that it is unfair to say that I have favoured the commercial people in preference to the farmer. Then my friends have taken up this question of baling wire. If they had been here, last night, they did not listen to my reply.

We listened, but we want you to do something.

Oh, the hon. member was here last night. Well now, it is impossible for me to do anything with regard to baling wire.

Why, where there is a will there is a way.

I agree, we could send our fleet of mine sweepers and fishing boats over to the United States and say to President Roosevelt: “Unless you give us baling wire we will scuttle your country.” I can imagine the hon. member being admiral of that fleet. The bottle-neck in regard to baling wire is that they are not producing it today, and it is not the shipping difficulty at all; if we could get it down to the wharfs, I am almost certain we could get it on board the ships.

Why cannot Iscor manufacture it?

Well, in the course of the next few days I hope to bring a Bill before the House, in fact members already have it, in connection with Iscor, and one of our developments is to put down machinery for manufacturing wire, all kinds of wire, but we have not got it now, and so it is no use hon. members worrying me about it. You cannot get baling wire unless we get it from America. We will do our best, and if anybody can suggest any method by which we can get it, I will do anything I can. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) suggested that the merchants, those wicked merchants, have warehouses full of baling wire and they won’t part with it. They are holding the farmers up to ransom. I hope the hon. member will send me in black and white one case which he is perfectly convinced I can prove, and I will see that that man hands out his baling wire and hands it out at a reasonable profit on the price he paid for it, but it is no use making rash general statements; let us have the facts and we will go into them and see that anyone who profiteers in that way will be severely dealt with. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn suggested that I have only one advisory committee for imports.

No, I did not say that. I was talking about your Priority Committee, and said they were not giving you the right advice.

I have advisory committees for steel, paper, agricultural implements, fertiliser, etc., all separte committees, but I have not a committee for dealing with different varieties of fertiliser. I do not ask the steel experts to advise me on the importation of different classes of superphosphates. I am sorry the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is not satisfied with the representation on the Planning Council from the point of view of Provincial interest. When are we going to get away from these Provincial interests?

When you recognise that they are part of the Union.

These men and women were selected because we thought they were people of outstanding, of wide knoweldge, who would be able to appreciate the problems of this country, and if the hon. member suggests that the members of the committee are so small-minded that they would give poor little Natal a raw deal, well, the case is hopeless. In appointing these men we never thought about Provincial representation. The hon. member seems to think that Senator Dr. Brookes was appointed to represent Natal. He was not appointed to represent Natal. This is a social council and it was very necessary for a man with a knowledge of native questions to be on that council so as to give advice on native problems. He happens to live in Natal, that is all. The other point was a rather more practical question, viz. the price of bacon. I understand the price controller is putting up the retail price of bacon, and that will enable the factories to carry on in Natal. I am not quite happy as to the reason why the price of baconers has gone up from 6d. to 9d. Perhaps when speculation passes the price of baconers will come down. Now the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) raised the question of potatoes. Well, I have finished with potatoes. He also raised the question of dried fruit and the profits made by retailers. I do not think that is fair because the price controller is very strict on these prices, and he is at the present moment investigating the prices, and the whole question of dried fruit, so I hope one of my hon. friends on that side of the House will tell the hon. member for Worcester that his mind can be entirely at rest on that score. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) gave us a very interesting speech in regard to fisheries.

I have not finished yet.

I am sorry. He complained that I would not put the report on the Table. The hon. member can see the report if he will come to my office. I have no objection to his seeing it. Then he brought up the question of the rapacity of sea birds which were consuming the fish. Well, let me tell the hon. member that there is a long standing feud between the fishery section of my department and the agricultural department on the question of sea birds. The agricultural department want the guano and we want the fish, and up to the present, the agricultural department being in possession, have insisted in sticking to their birds. The hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) seemed to say that it was suggested last night that there should be a cutting down of wages. As a matter of fact it was just the opposite. When I replied to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) I said it would be unreasonable to suggest that that should be done.

That was the point he made, that wages were too high and you agreed with him.

No, I said if you want to produce goods at the price that Japan does you have to reduce everything, including wages. And then I said that so far as we were concerned in this country it would be unreasonable to suggest it.

You talked about the price structure being too high.

We have to appreciate the fact that our price structure is very high, and without protection of some kind we cannot stand up against nations which have a very low price structure. Well, I have now dealt with all the points and I hope hon. members will agree to the vote now being taken.

I think I can honestly say to the Minister that he was very mild in the structures he passed on the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), but personally I think it is deplorable when a matter of vast South African importance, the formation of a council such as the Minister has told us about is dealt with, a matter of the greatest importance—that anyone should attempt to introduce into it a narrow parochial provincial aspect. The hon. member for Illovo told us about the philosophy of Natal. I don’t know what he means by the philosophy of Natal, but if he means that they are different from anyone else in every sphere, whether it is commercial, political or industrial, in matters of sport or anything else, then I can understand what he means, but from any other point of view I cannot understand it. And I would suggest to the hon. member that it would be refreshing to a degree if on occasions we could expect a real South African outlook from that portion of the House. I wish to return to the attack so far as this fishing industry is concerned. I cannot allow the Minister to get away as easily as he endeavours to do. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) has told us about this marvellous longforgotten speech which the Minister made on the occasion of the opening of that aquarium, a speech which to every fisherman must have brought a ray of hope that at last something was going to be done, but alas, it has so far been impossible to translate that speech into action. I admit some of the difficulties with which the Minister has to contend. I admit it is true that many of our trawlers have been taken away for other purposes, and used for other things, and that shortages of several other things make the position difficult, but none the less there is much that could be done, there is a great deal that could be achieved in trying to instal a little life into what is now almost a moribund industry, an industry the potentialities of which are so enormous that it is amazing to me that a man of the business acumen of the Minister should not take a great delight in looking after the developments of his industry which has such tremendous potentialities. But the fact of the matter is that our Minister is not fish minded, and we have to endeavour to make him fish minded.

It sounds very fishy.

Now, the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) has made an excellent speech on the subject of fish, and, although he is as far away as Boksburg, he has shown how a man who has fish on his heart can really bring to bear all sorts of intelligent matters and criticisms—helpful criticisms—to help the Minister. He was worried because he was a back-bencher, who had no opportunity of making himself heard. Let me remind him of the quip that being a Front Bencher is nothing to live up to, but it is something to live down, and I hope he will take heart of grace and still pursue the matter of fish, and see whether he cannot make the Minister feel in the way he does. The Minister got up and told us proudly that they were going to sell canned snoek to America. He must not take credit for that. It is a war measure entirely due to the efforts of the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) and myself. We found out the potentiality of canned snoek—that it was a most excellent pack which we could produce in this country in a way not only creditable, but highly palatable, and we managed by supplying this to the Army to work up a genuine demand for this. And that is only one of the many varieties of fish which we can can. That is only one of many things which we can do to encourage the fishing industry. And I would like to try to persuade the Minister to realise that in this fishing industry he has something really worth his while. If his department is really as busy as I know it to be—it is almost worked to death—let him second Dr. Von Bonde, and let him form a new department of his own, and have the opportunity to see what can be done with fish, because I believe that in times when you talk about shortage of food and other troubles here, you have a possible outlet, a possible method of nutrition for the people which has not even been exploited yet, and I do suggest to the Minister that it is well worth his while, from the national point of view, to endeavour to get a little fish minded. Let him eat as much fish as he can himself—they tell me fish is frightfully good for the brain —and the more fish the Minister will eat the greater the opportunity for this industry. But, seriously, this is an industry which is really worth while, and I do commend it to the Minister’s closest consideration.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), on the way he criticised the Government, and also the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) on not being afraid to draw the Government’s attention to the mistakes it had made. It is necessary that the Government be criticised. The Minister comes here and tells us that it is too late now, that he had never thought of it, and that there is too little, but has he no advisers? Did he never think that these things might be necessary? I cannot understand how the Government can be so short sighted. Could not they have anticipated that a whole lot of things would not be obtainable in the near future? That is what has happened. They never looked ahead. Every day we hear rumours about a possible shortage of food in the near future. What has the Minister done? What has the Government done about taking precautions? Nothing. Now the Government’s own supporters come here and draw attention to the mistakes they have made. Take the fishing industry, for instance. I differ from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, South (Mr. Hirsch)—I know the Minister eats a lot of fish, and that is why he has such a good brain, but he looks at matters only from the point of view of trade—he has never thought of the necessity of giving attention to the people’s food supplies. All the Minister has done is to fix the price of potatoes, and there he made the biggest mistake he has ever made. He imagined that if he fixed the price at a maximum of 25s. the farmers would get 25s. Potatoes are sold today at 6s. per bag in Cape Town. Does the Minister imagine that the farmers will ever again sow potatoes under such conditions? Meanwhile the middleman is making 300 per cent. profit. I know that Mr. MacDonald is a good man, but he is not sufficiently practical. The control he has exercised has not been practical. The Minister has failed hopelessly. We know him, but I must say that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry has made an even greater failure of what he has taken up. His advisers have no time for the farmers—they only have time for certain elements, for the middleman and the speculator. With all their price control, they have created an impossible position. I want to warn the Minister that he cannot go on in the way he is doing, and if he wants to keep his seat in the Cabinet he must look ahead. One would imagine that if one continued making mistakes one would learn something in the long run, but the Minister has learnt nothing. The Minister says that if a man wants to start a factory, it is his own business, yet the Minister wants to make war! Afterwards there will be no clothes and no food left. What will he do then? The Minister says that it must be left to private initiative to establish factories. He is the man who has plunged us into war. I must say I have a good deal of respect for the Minister. He is a kind, dear, old fellow, but he should remember that he is responsible for the control of everything in the country, and he has made a hopeless failure of it by his short-sighted policy. In regard to the Minister of Agriculture, we shall settle with him; we know what he has done in the past. We are glad that he is much better in health, and feels fit again to come to Parliament. We, as the country’s producers, can no longer be satisfied with the way things are carried on. A price of 25s. per bag is fixed, but the farmers have to be content with 5s. or 6s. It seems to me that the Government does not know anything about the mistakes it is making. Well, if they are tired, let them give us a chance, just for one month. I don’t want to boast, but there will be enough food. All we have to do is to see to it that things grow, but it seems to me that those Ministers over there are all half asleep; they do not even feel inclined to go on with the war. Give us a chance, and we shall soon make peace, and then we shall produce and develop the country.

I think it is generally agreed both inside this Committee and outside that the Minister’s statement last night on the constitution of the economic planning Council is a very important one. I personally welcome it because it indicates the intention to commence — at all events—putting into effect the very important recommendations of the Third Interim Report of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission. I must say, however, that I am also one of those who regrets that the Minister has not seen his way to make this a permanent body. With regard to the personnel, subject to that limitation, if I may be allowed to say so, the choice seemed to me in most instances to be very good indeed, and I was very glad to hear the reply by the Minister to the objection voiced by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) to the appointment of Senator Brookes. I am sorry the hon. member for Illovo is not here while I am making these remarks. As a matter of fact, the Commission especially stressed that interests should not be represented on the Planning Council. In Paragraph 226 of this report appears the following passage—

That is what this Report emphasises. As the Minister said, Senator Brookes was included because he had a knowledge of the conditions of the majority of the working people of this country—the native people, and the hon. member for Illovo’s objection to him on the ground, as far as I could gather, that he had not been sufficiently energetic in wagging the Union Jack, which was apparently in his view a qualification for inclusion in the Economic Planning Council, does not hold water at all in my opinion. But in view of the recommendation that interests should not be represented I must say that I think—I don’t know the gentleman personally— but I must say that it disturbs one somewhat to see a prominent banker on that Council, and also prominent representatives of agricultural interests. I have no doubt that they are men of considerable knowledge, but the whole idea was to appoint people of experience and knowledge not having any special interest in any branch of the national economy. However, as I have said, the constitution of this Council, is a very considerable step forward in the right direction. The duties of the Council presumably will be those indicated in the third interim report of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission, and as conceived by that Commission, the first duty is to secure a rising national income in the only way that can be done, and that is by expediting the industrialisation of the country. And also we gather from the report of the Commission that in order to do this it is necessary to make fullest and most efficient use of the labour supply of this country. The Planning Council will be dependent on the Government in carrying out its policy because it is an advisory body and it is not contemplated to give it any statutory powers. What I want to emphasise in this connection is this, that the fullest utilisation of the labour resources of this country means a very radical change indeed in the policy of this country, more particularly in relation to the native copulation, and I want to express the hone that that fact is fully realised by the Government, because the Commission details the obstacles to industrialisation and those obstacles boil down to wrong and harmful policies in relation to the native population of this country who constitute the majority of the labour force. As I read the report, there are three main obstacles referred to in the way of the development of the resources of this country, and the first one which is emphasised is the low consuming capacity of the population. In Section 106 of the report the commissioners say—

Now it is clear enough from the report of the Commission that one of the reasons why that market is so limited is because of the low earning capacity of the majority of the population to which they refer—and that majority of the population are the native people. That is made doubly clear in Section 173 of the report of the Commission where the following passage occurs—

So it is emphasised that the industrialisation of the native population and their employment in semi-skilled work at semi-skilled wages is an essential for industrial development. And also in that same paragraph the commissioners point out that lack of mechanisation is one of the obstacles to development, and one of the obstacles to the more efficient employment of the native population. There are, I think, it can be said, two main stages in the industrialisation of a country, the first which establishes light industries, and imports the equipment by the export of raw materials, agricultural or mineral products. The second stage is when it develops its own resources and commences the establishment of heavy industries. South Africa is mainly in the first stage of that development, and the report emphasises that the time has now arrived for the country to enter upon the second stage. In the first stage it is natural that emphasis should be laid on the employment of cheap labour because the primary industries depend largely on the export market as against the home market. The situation alters when an attempt is made to build up local industries because then there must be reliance on the local market and the local market can only be developed through raising the purchasing power and earning capacity of the local labouring population. In those circumstances I want to submit this to the Minister. [Time limit.]

I hope that the news from Durban which I saw this morning has not escaped the attention of the Minister of Commerce and Industries. It is reported that 80 two-pound loaves of white bread were dumped into the sea outside Durban because they could not be imported without paying heavy Customs duty. It was also stated that a few months ago a ship expecting troops had 600 loaves of white bread on board, and owing to the prohibitive duty this bread could not be landed and handed over to charitable institutions, so it was thrown overboard. Is there no official in Durban to whom sufficient authority is given to make a decision in a case of that sort, or is there no man with guts enough to tear all that red tape to pieces, to act first and ask permission afterwards?

It has nothing to do with my vote.

It is a question of these duties—it is a matter which comes under Commerce and Industries.

I have nothing to do with the imports into the Union.

This apparently is a trade restriction and it should be dealt with by the Minister. Well, I don’t know, and if it does not fall under the Minister I hope the information will be conveyed to the Government that things of this kind should not be done. This bread could have been handed over to charitable institutions instead of being allowed to drift down into the sea to be eaten by the sharks, and that at a time when the food controller tells us that there is a shortage of food in the Union. Now I want to say a few words about the fishing industry. I notice that the provision made for fisheries is very much less than it was last year. We expected an expansion of that department. We notice that the salaries are very much less in the coming year than they were the year before. We notice also that far from there being an expansion of the Department of Fisheries there has been a contraction, and all this in spite of the fact that we were promised wonderful expansion when we passed the Fisheries Act. Another aspect of the whole thing is that the travelling allowances and subsistence allowances are not sufficient to allow of your senior officers making any inspections or any plans whatever. They must be caged up in their offices in Pretoria just reading reports and sending out reports, and doing absolutely nothing in the way of furthering an expansion of the fishing industry. I appeal to the Minister that he shall expand the department and provide money for his senior officers to travel round and have a look at things. I want to mention that the whole expenditure on fishing harbours appears to be concentrated on the Western Province, and no other part of the country seems to have a look in. I mentioned this matter two years ago, and I reserved the right to bring this matter up again when the then commitments of the Government in this regard had been satisfied. I want now to mention the case of Fort Shepstone, and an old agreement with the Natal Government, under which a fishing harbour was to be fixed up there. Apparently that was one of the places recommended by the Commission, and I understand that an estimate was prepared which contemplated that the costs would be £250,000. I think that is quite a mistaken idea. I think a fishing harbour there could be constructed for far less than that. When I see sums of £100,000, or approximating that amount, expended on places here in the Cape, I think the undertaking given to the old fishermen at Port Shepstone could be carried out at a very much lower cost. I commend an investigation of this matter to the Minister.

Before this vote is allowed to pass I feel it my duty to mention the oil industry at Ermelo. This subject has been brought up repeatedly, but in view of its importance I make no excuse for doing so again this afternoon. Last session the Minister promised an investigation by a departmental committee. This committee was appointed and has completed its deliberation, but as far as I know the report of the committee has not been made available. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether the committee has in point of fact reported to him, and whether any action is to be taken as the result of such report. What we particularly require is that the Government should lay down a long-term fiscal policy in regard to this industry, for past changes in policy have had serious repercussions as far as this particular industry is concerned. All we ask now is that the Government give the industry the assurance that for a fixed term of years their position will in no way be disturbed. The provision of cil, especially at the present juncture, is a matter of such paramount importance that no emphasis is necessary. When the second reading of the Base Metals Bill takes place, I hope to deal with the matter at greater length, and I will confine my remarks this afternoon to an enquiry as to what has happened about the committee I have just referred to. It will be interesting to learn from the Minister whether he is in a position to give us any further information, and whether he is able to promise security of tenure to our indigenous oil industry to enable it to exploit its natural resources to the full.

I notice that the Minister has a vote of £5,000 for an investigation into the development of industrial resources, and I would like him to tell us something more about what he is planning on that vote.

What vote are you talking about?

On page 77. I see that the Industrial Development Corporation, in its annual report, states that it has spent much of its time investigating a number of applications and the industrial problems of this country. I want to know from the Minister what he is planning here in connection with this vote of £5,000 for the development of industrial resources, because £5,000 at this stage seems to me to be very little in the way of investigating such an important matter as this. The Agricultural and Industrial Requirements Commission has laid great emphasis on this question of industrial expansion and pointed out that South Africa holds great potentialities for industrial expansion. Just now the Minister said that industry had to stand on its own feet, and could not be spoonfed by the Government. But, Mr. Chairman, there are many aspects of this report, which I submit are matters for Government attention, and perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us that some of the points he is going to investigate are points brought up in this report. There is a wonderful opportunity for industrial expansion, but I do not know how we are going to expand industries if the Minister is going to take up the attitude he has taken up this afternoon, when he said that industry is not going to be spoonfed by the Government. For instance, this report says the Commission is convinced that industrial expansion can be secured if manufacturing industry is made more selfsupporting by reducing the present high cost structure, a point which was referred to last night by the hon. Minister. The report goes on further to point out that it is very essential that the present high rate of skilled wages should not be increased until the low-rated wages have been brought up. The report lays great emphasis on this point. The Minister has pointed out that the high cost structure is due to the rate of skilled wages, which had come about initially, because the gold mines had established a high basis for skilled wages. The mines have been able to establish this by reason of the fact that the high wage of the skilled man is supported by a ratio of one to eight in respect of skilled to unskilled workers. Eight lowly-paid men therefore support one highly paid man. In industry the same ratio does not exist. Instead of being one to eight, it is more like one to one-and-a-half, or less than oneand-a-half, and therefore secondary industry is loaded with a very serious problem, because it is not in the favourable position to average out the high skilled wages over a large number of low-paid unskilled employees. We seem here to run into a cul-de-sac. I submit that the Government ought to consider this matter carefully, and especially at a time like the present, when we are increasing wages all round under the Factories Act. There seems to be a general tendency in progress to increase wages. I hope the Minister will tell us what he is going to do in connection with this vote.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to delay this vote, but I do want to tell the Minister that I have a detailed scheme of my own for putting the provisions of the 1940 Fisheries Act into operation, and if he cares to have it I will submit it to him later on. But I do want to stress the urgency of doing something at once for the fishing industry. In the next six months the United States of America will still be able to supply nets, boats, etc… to keep our industry going, but unless we act during the next six months I am afraid the industry will have to wait until the war is over. I submit that this is a most important industry from the point of view of our food supplies, and it behoves the Minister to do everything in his power within the next six or seven months to get this industry going. I should like to ask the Minister what he has done since the Fisheries Act of 1940 was passed. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has accused the Minister of having been fast asleep since 1940. I am not prepared to go so far as that, because I don’t think the Minister has been in a cataleptic state for the last two years, but I would like to know from him whether he has approached the Minister of Finance for the necessary funds to put the provisions of the Act into operation? I know that the funds required are globular sums, and I make a conservative estimate of £2,000,000 will be necessary. Expenditure will largely be taken up with cold storage plants at various fishing centres, and one in Johannesburg to handle the catches. Finally, I would like to stress this one aspect of the fishing industry that when the war is over it will provide a splendid avenue of employment for our returned soldiers, that is, of course, if we give it the necessary impetus now, and do not delay longer than six or seven months. I am afraid if we wait longer than that this industry will not get the necessary encouragement which it richly deserves. To my mind, Mr. Chairman, the only way in which we can assist the industry is to get the necessary gear from America before it is too late. I commend that point to the Minister’s attention, and emphasise the fact that he must get the necessary funds to put the provisions of the Fisheries Act of 1940 into operation.

I should like to avail myself of the half-hour rule. At the beginning I just want to say that I do not want to criticise the Minister, but I want to tell him that we on this side of the House think about agriculture. I want to tell him at the beginning how disappointed we are in the Economic Board which has been appointed. We thought that if such an economic board is appointed, it would consist of the brain of South Africa. We thought that there would be no political appointments; we thought that commerce, industries and agriculture would be represented on that board by the best brain in each case. We thought that the board would consist not of an advisory body, but of a statutory body which will have powers to take action in the future. What do we find today? We only have an advisory board. We know what advisory boards are. An advisory board is a temporary one, and it is only used to cover the sins of the Ministers and of the departments. I am on such a board, and I know that the moment there is any trouble, this board is called together, and what is done then is merely to put up a smokescreen in order to defend the department. This economic board which has now been appointed is with no other object at all than to conceal the sins of the Government and of the departments. The farmers on this side of the House feel that we want a totally different policy. We feel that we want an economic farmers’ board, an agricultural board which will fit in with the main economic board. The agricultural board will then be a link between the main board and agriculture. And so we thought that since we desired to appoint such a main board, there would be a link between industries, commerce etc. The idea was, of course, to bring about a link between all the industries. The position in this country is unfortunately that everyone goes his own way. We would like to have those links. But we ask the Minister whether it cannot be done in such a way that we can have an agricultural economic board, an economic board consisting of representatives of the various branches of agriculture. We ask that this board will not be constituted on the basis on which this board has now been appointed, but that representatives will be appointed by the sectional representatives of the country; the Wheat Board, for example, will be represented on it; the Mealie Board will be represented on it; the Wool Board must be represented on it; the Meat Board must be represented on it, and all the sectional bodies which constitute part and parcel of agriculture. The agricultural board will have a link with the main economic board, as I have already proposed. To our disappointment, however, nothing has been done in that direction. We feel that there should definitely be no party politics in agriculture, and that can only be brought about if the organised bodies appoint their members without intervention by departments or governments. We find that departments are very autocratic today. We find that very little notice is taken of what the farmers or agricultural unions do. The resolutions which are passed by the agricultural unions are simply thrown into the waste paper basket. We therefore want a board which will be permanent, consisting of people who are paid for their services, people who can draw up plans in collaboration with the department, and who can be of assistance to the Government in their proposals. We want a board where politics will have no part, but which will work in the interests of agriculture as a whole. Our idea is, as was proposed by my hon. friend yesterday, to have a main economic board. The main economic board will consist of representatives of the brain of the various divisions, commerce, industries etc.; the brain of commerce should be on that economic board; the brain of industry should be on that board; the brain of agriculture and the brain of mining should be on that board. We want a board which consists of the brain of the country. We do not want political appointments as we had in the past. The Agricultural Board will consist of the various branches of agriculture. That would assist the Minister a great deal; it would assist the departments a great deal. We would be able to represent the practical side in each case. And on the whole one would have an agricultural policy which will not be a temporary policy, but a policy which will exist for a long period, and which will be able to give guidance in the agricultural sphere. I want to make a few other remarks. There are people who thought that this side of the House was against the appointment of boards. That is not our idea at all. We are not at all against boards, but we say that the constitution of those boards is wrong. We say that it is the farmer’s product which must be handled, and that he should therefore have the first right to see to it that his people are on the board. The representatives of the consumer should be there in order to look after his side of the matter, but the middleman must be eliminated; he must only act as the distributor of the article. One finds that in a country such as Australia. Australia is a country where the Government depends on the primary producer. For a certain period, gold also played a role there, and later its importance disappeared altogether in Australia, and they then had to switch over completely to an agricultural policy. Their agricultural policy was determined by the Government, and in this country we have never yet had an agricultural policy. There has only been a disintegrating process to keep the price of the farmers’ products on as low a level as possible. We ask the Minister to learn a lesson from Australia. If one cannot store one cannot control either. There is no doubt that if you allow your produce to be handled by people not connected with the producer, there will be abuse, and we therefore ask that the first thing which the Minister should do, should be to see to it that there are cold storages, if he wants to handle meat. If he has no cold storages I am afraid that his whole scheme to control meat will be a hopeless failure. We know with what difficulties he is confronted in this respect. Today the cold storages belong to private companies, companies which did everything in their power in the past to drain us; then, too, we have cold storages which are connected with the rings in Johannesburg. But we ask the Minister to eliminate all those exploiters; we ask him to take over the cold storages and to take control of their supervision. When we come to the fixation of the price of meat, we have to be very careful. The price of meat is at a fairly good level today, and we only ask the Minister, when the time arrives, to fix the price of meat, to see to it that we get a proper minimum price for meat. I am sorry to say that the old system whereby the boards were constituted, was a hopeless failure. We on this side of the House have warned for months and years that the constitution of these boards would be the ruination of our Control Boards. We had that during the past few months. Two of the farmers on the boards backed out, and nothing is being done today. There are some of them who are so concerned about the war that one of the members said this: “How dare we talk about meat today if we have to win a war?” That is the type of person who is on these boards today. I feel that the constitution of those boards ought to be taken into review, and that other people should be appointed to the boards, so that the meat producer will have his legitimate place on the board. The cold storage person must be put in his place; he must not control the produce of the farmer, but the farmer himself must control his produce. Take wheat, for example. Wheat and mealies are today sold through one channel. That is our policy. We feel that the one channel policy is altogether justified. It is our policy that we should sell through one channel, but I again want to ask the Minister, if he wants to encourage the production of wheat, why he did not fix the price of wheat on a better basis last year? The Wheat Board did say that the price should be fixed at 30s., but the principal board said that that was too much. We feel that 30s. is not enough. The Minister cannot import wheat at less than an average of 29s. today, and I think, therefore, that the farmers are entitled to get even more than 30s. I now want to go into the wool position more fully. I feel that we are dealing here with a Minister who is very lax in regard to the second biggest industry in the country. The wool position is such that we ask the Minister, month after month, to put on the Table of the House the contract which he entered into with Great Britain. That contract has never been put before us. Now for the first time we get that contract. Do you know when that contract was signed? On the 26th February 1942. This wool scheme was in the air all these years. There was no contract, as we we were told from time to time. This contract was signed on the 26th February, 1942. It was signed by Mr. Attlee, and the most ridiculous thing of all is that on the 27th February of this year, Mr. Waterson wrote thanking the British Government for the wonderful agreement it had entered into. You will remember that at first the Minister told us that the scheme was the same as that of Australia. He said that. At first he did not deny it, and later on he denied it. We said that according to this basis he could not have the same contract as Australia. Here we have it now; here is the evidence. Here it says very clearly that there is no guarantee, just as we have always said. The contract says that in South Africa they sell wool on the type basis, and we told the Minister that there could be no guarantee on a type basis. It does not take a clever man to be able to realise that. We criticised the Minister because he did not adopt the same scheme as Australia. The Australian scheme is on a flat rate—on a fixed price. Australia saw to it that her wool growers are properly protected, and that they got a decent price, or a fixed price. But what about this Minister which we have? Did he do anything with a view to ensuring that to the farmers of South Africa? I know that the Minister of Agriculture knows very little about wool, and I cannot blame him for it. But his advisers told him, of course, that he must accept this type basis in order to attain an average price of 10.75d. for wool. I just want to say this, that if the Minister of Agriculture had rather gone to the farmers themselves, or if he had gone to people who had knowledge of wool and of the wool trade, they would definitely not have advised him to accept that type basis. We have already said to the Minister on previous occasions, and have shown him that as the result of his negligence, we lost £1,000,000 on our wool. We challenged him to give us the figures, and we challenge him again to give us those figures. During the last year when we had an open market for our wool we received £12,000,000 for our wool clip. Under the British scheme we barely got £10,000,000. We therefore received £2,000,000 less on our wool clip than we received when we had an open market. I ask the hon. Minister now in all honesty, whether it is right and fair to allow the cheque of the wool farmers to be reduced by £2,000,000 within one year, notwithstanding the fact that all the farmers’ costs and costs of living have risen during that time. I think that everyone will admit that in this respect we farmed retrogressively with our wool and not progressively. On this point, too, we have more than once asked the Minister why he did not maintain the open market as long as it was possible to retain the open market. We again ask the Minister today why he did not keep the market open as long as it was possible to do so. The Minister explained to us here what his difficulties were, but we nevertheless maintained that it was possible to retain an open market, and it is now clear that we were right. Last year America bought no less than 150,000,000 lbs. of our wool out of 240,000,000 lbs. That represents nearly 500,000 bales out of a little more than 800,000 bales of our wool clip. We can see, therefore, that that statement on the part of the Minister was altogether wrong, and that our statement was right. What do we find now? Up to the present 180,000,000 lbs. of wool have already been sold to America. Where does the argument then come in that we would have had no market overseas if we had not entered into this scheme? It was possible for us, therefore, to maintain an open market. But there is another point which we want to raise in connection with this. Uruguay sold wool up to 32d. per lb. Why should Uruguay get that price for her wool, while the farmers of our country are not even getting an average of 10.75d.? I shall tell the House why. It is Uruguay has an open market, and America and other countries buy wool there. Now some people say that we have not that type of wool. That is wrong. No, our wool is precisely the type required by America, and I shall prove what I am saying here. Last year America imported 160,000,000 lbs. of wool from Australia, and she imported 150,000,000 lbs. of wool from us, as I have already stated. She imported that wool from us because we have the right type, that is, the finer type of wool. I think that I have now proved beyond all doubt that if we had had an open market, as Uruguay has, then America amongst other countries would have competed here for our wool. Everyone with sense will realise that if America could pay one half-penny less for the wool than the price she has to pay to the British Empire, she would prefer to buy the wool from us. This wool is also shipped by American ships. At the time the lack of shipping accommodation was mentioned as an excuse for the necessity of entering into this agreement, but we would not have had that difficulty in connection with America. It is quite interesting to go into this wool contract which the Minister has placed on the Table. The Minister told us that after the war we would get a share of the profits which were made. But this contract also says that there may be losses. Before I deal with this point, however, I want to touch upon another matter in pursuance of Section 1 (b) of the contract. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture why he repealed a regulation last year which he had no right to repeal, namely, that speculators would be allowed to sell their wool on the market under this contract. We understand that the British Wool Agreement prohibited that, but we find nevertheless that the Minister has repealed that regulation. Now we find that it is laid down in this section of the contract—[Retranslation]

Why is the Minister now allowing speculators to buy wool and then to sell it on the market? If the Minister has our interests at heart why then did he first promulgate that regulation and later repeal it? Now he says that he had no alternative under the Act. I say that he could definitely have done so under the powers vested in him, and according to this agreement it was expected of him to prevent that type of thing. The contract further says—[Retranslation]

In other words, our wool would have been sold on the type basis, and not according to the fixed price or flat rate as was applicable in America. If you study the speech which I made on this matter on a previous occasion, then you will find that I proved that if Australia had had the type basis, she would have lost no less than £5,000,000 on a clip valued at £55,000,000. If that type basis had been applied to the wool of Australia, then Australia would have received 11.1 per cent. less for her wool. That type basis was applied here, and if we place the scheme on the Australian basis and if we compare our type basis, we find that we lose more than £1,000,000 per year. What is more, Australia has the definite guarantee that she cannot lose, whereas we have no guarantee. Now we ask the Government to remedy that negligence on its part, which may cause losses to the farmer in South Africa, and to compensate the farmer for it. We ask the Government to make available the £1,00,000 or more than £1,000,000 which was lost in one year, and to compensate the farmer for the losses he now suffers. But there is another point which I want to raise. A little while ago the Minister held it against me that I said here that we wanted a better price for our wool, and that we ought to agitate in order to get it. What right has the Minister to hold that against me? The price we receive under the agreement results in our wool cheque being £2,000,000 less than it was in the year 1939—’40, and what right has the Minister then to tell us that we should not ask for more than this basic 10.7d. per lb.?

Why then did you want to hang me when I entered into the agreement of 1939—’40?

We know all the sins of the Minister. We asked the Minister here whether he would grant us the fixed price, the flat rate of Australia, but the Minister then immediately turned round and rejected the flat rate, and he came forward with a new scheme of his own. It is said clearly in this agreement that if during the period of the agreement the flat rate price of Australia, which is fixed, is increased, then our price will also be increased. That is guaranteed. For that reason I say that we should agitate for a higher price. I got into touch with certain people, and they are agitating in Australia for a higher price. The existing price in their currency is 13.45d. per lb. In our currency we are receiving a price under this contract which is barely 10d. It is less than 10d. per lb. In any event, we are not getting more than 10d. per lb.

How do you assess that?

I explained it here last time; must I do so again?

But at the time you were at together wrong.

No, I was not wrong. But if the Minister tells me that I was wrong, then I challenge him to give me the figures. Does the Minister allege that we received an average of 10.75d.? Does he deny that our wool clip was sold for approximately £10,000,000? If we had got 10.75d. then our wool clip should have been sold for approximately £11,000,000, and I challenge the Minister to tell me that we received more than £10,000,000 for our wool clip. The Minister can no longer tell the people today what wool is and what it is not. He can no longer tell them what an agreement is, and what it is not, nor can he tell them what the value of wool is. Those days are past. We know where we stand, and we want the money to which we are entitled. The Minister held it against me, and he holds it against the farmers that we are pleading for a higher price. The Australian farmers have this advantage, that owing to their currency, they are receiving an average of 13.45d., and it is said clearly in this contract that if the Australian farmers agitate for a higher price, and they get a higher price, then we shall also get a higher price. I am now going to the platteland, and I am going to tell the farmers that they should ask for a higher price. That is now being done by the farmers in Australia, and when we start with such an agitation we shall see whether our Minister is going to help us in our effort to get a higher price. It is no use the Minister sitting in this House with a feeling of satisfaction, while the farmers in the country are being ruined. He must assist the farmers in getting a higher price. On a previous occasion we spoke about the under-valuation of our wool, but I shall return to that later. The Minister further told us that this contract would operate for a year after the war. Now I find this provision in the contract— [Retranslation.]

The Minister said here that the contract was valid up to a year after the war. There is no such thing in the contract. It only says here that there can be negotiations as to whether there will be anything of the kind. I would like to refer to this matter in order to point out to the Minister that we, as farmers, do know something about the position. With regard to the valuation of the yield of wool, I am very sorry that the Minister mentioned the names of the members of the Commission which he appointed to consider the matter. It always makes it very awkward for us to talk here once names have been mentioned. The Minister mentioned those names in order to indicate that we were not right in the statements which we made here. Now I would like to say here that the Minister made a very big mistake in mentioning those names. These are honourable and good men in their respective professions. But those people have not the time to devote six months to experiments to ascertain these things. Take a person like the Secretary for Agriculture. He is a person for whom I have the greatest respect, and why should his name be dragged in by the Minister of Agriculture? The Minister of Agriculture may have sufficient time to sit on Commissions, but has the Secretary for Agriculture the necessary time to make such investigations? The same applies to the head of Onderstepoort, Professor Du Toit, who is one of the greatest men in the world in his profession. Why should the names of those people be dragged in in connection with the valuation of the clean yield of wool? They have no time to devote their attention to such things. For that reason I am sorry that their names were dragged in. We made tests over a period of two years. These were not merely a few samples, as the Minister called them here; they were definitely tests in great numbers. We took 700 samples which were tested according to the humidity test. In the case of 95 per cent. of those samples it was shown that there was an undervaluation of the wool. In the case of 5 per cent. there was not an undervaluation, and that 5 per cent. consisted of locks and of the lower grades. Let me tell the Minister that there were cases where some of our best clip was undervalued by no less than 10 per cent. If the Minister says here that the tests which were carried out took place with small quantities of wool, then I can tell him that tests were made with 50 fleeces belonging to one farmer. They tested each one on its own. Then they were mixed and the average test was taken. That is what we did, and why should the Minister say here that we cannot make those tests in order to estimate the clean yield of the wool? If the whole world had been foolish, or if South Africa had been foolish, why did the Minister not make proper plans in order to obtain a proper valuation of our clean wool? But does the Minister want to tell me that people can sit down at a table and talk and then decide on such things, or does he want to tell me that the report drawn up by them can be of more value than the result of 700 tests? No, let me tell the Minister that that type of thing no longer counts with the farmers. We believe that the 700 tests are of greater value than the discussions which take place occasionally around a table. We can only make proper tests by doing research work in connection with the wool itself, and by testing the fleeces. The Minister must be careful in telling the wool farmers this type of thing nowadays. There are another few matters which I want to deal with. One of the members of the same commission brought out the report that in respect of the years 1938—’39, 1939—’40, and 1940—’41 there was a rise of 2 per cent. in the clean yield. I want to say clearly that if it were not for the agitation which was afoot in the country, then there would not have been an increase in the valuation of clean wool. [Time limit.]

I am concerned about the position of the grain industry in the country, and when I say grain industry I am speaking mainly, but not exclusively, of the wheat industry. The Government wants us to produce more, and quite rightly so in existing circumstances. If the demand for increased production is not complied with we may, in view of the developments that are taking place in the world, be faced with a tremendous food shortage in the Union, so the Government has intervened and has fixed the price of wheat for next year in order to encourage the production of wheat for next year. I am very grateful to the Government for having taken that step because it will contribute towards establishing greater stability in the wheat industry and the grain industry generally, but may I be allowed to say that I can only hope that climatic conditions, and together with climatic conditions everything connected with the wheat industry, will be favourable this year, because if conditions are not favourable, even the fixed price of 30s. per bag will not make it possible for the wheat farmers to produce wheat next year at that price, with the continuous increase in the costs of production which is going on today. If it is a favourable year, naturally they will be able to do it, but if the yield per bag of seed is not high, then, because of unfavourable climatic conditions and other circumstances which may result in a low production, they may not be able to do what is expected of them. I assume, however, that the Government will favourably consider the position if those conditions should arise during the year and if the Government is asked to take some steps to meet the position. Another aspect of this question of the wheat industry which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is that of securing the necessary implements needed in the production of wheat. In spite of the fact that the price of wheat has been fixed on a reasonable basis, which will create greater stability and give more encouragement to the producers, the farmers are nervous and anxious to know whether, if they produce in accordance with the requirements, they will be able to secure the necessary implements, the necessary requirements which they need for their production. Now, I want to ask the Minister, although I know it is very difficult for him to do so, to give us some reassuring statement in regard to this aspect of the matter, and I want him to tell us that the Government will do all it possibly can to try and make it possible for us to obtain all our requirements for the production of wheat. We are aware of the fact that certain of our requirements are manufactured in this country. Certain implements are manufactured here, such as plough shears, and even ploughs, and other farming requisites which we need, but large quantities still have to be imported. Japan today is in occupation of a great many of our previous sources of supply in the Far East. Bags come from Calcutta. We know that Calcutta is threatened. Our twine for binding purposes largely comes from Manilla. Manilla is being blockaded, and nothing can come from there. The Far East to all intents and purposes has been cut off, or, at any rate, it has been cut off to a dangerous extent, as a result of the position which has arisen there, and a large proportion of our requirements has to be imported from those countries. Shipping is extremely limited. We have already experienced difficulties with shipping to obtain our necessary requirements, and the position will probably become even more serious unless things take a different turn, of which we know nothing at the moment. What about fuel for our tractors, our threshing machinery, and our cutting machines? America is our main source of supply, and America is manufacturing nothing but war supplies today. All manufacture of tractors, machinery, and motor-cars has been stopped. Is the Government making any arrangements about these matters, and is the Government keeping a watchful eye on the position to see to it that when our machinery is worn out we shall be able to get our requirements from some other source? Or are any arrangements being made to try and manufacture these goods in some factory or other which is already in existence in South Africa? And I also want to point out that we are taking steps in this country to guard against waste. We find that everything is being collected to prevent waste in any sphere of work, and quite right, too, but what is being done to prevent waste in regard to goods such as bags, for instance? Dozens of millions of bags are needed for the requirements of this country, and I want to know whether any steps have been taken to guard against the waste of bags which can be used again? Large shipments of bags have to be imported. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent annually on the importation of these goods. The importation requires a lot of shipping space, and a lot of money, and I want to know whether arrangements are being made to watch against the destruction or unnecessary damaging of bags to prevent any waste, so that those bags in future, when we need them, may be used over and over again, if the day should come when those other places from which we get our supplies are no longer able to send us what we need? Are any attempts made to ensure our getting the necessary phosphates for fertiliser? We have factories producing fertiliser, but we know that they have to import the phosphates. We have not got the stuff here for the manufacture of fertiliser, and I want to know whether the Government is having the necessary research work done to find out whether we cannot find the necessary phosphate ore here, in the event of our being cut off and unable to import the necessary ore into this country? Enormous quantities of bags are used for fertilisers. Those bags can only be used once, and then they are simply eaten up —destroyed by the fertilisers. Is there no process, or cannot some process be created, or cannot efforts be made to find some process, to try and restore those bags? We know that the bags can be used again if the fertiliser is turned out immediately, and if the bags are submerged in water, so that the acids can be removed. Are any attempts being made to try and do this with these bags, so that we may have bags when they can no longer be imported on a large scale? There is a terrible waste going on in this regard. We know what is being done at the moment to prevent waste in this country. I am not going to discuss all these matters now. I know that care is taken to prevent waste in a number of small matters, and it is quite right that it should be done, but that waste is significant in comparison with the enormous waste on a huge scale that goes on in regard to bags, not to mention other things. We are manufacturing twine in this country. Are any means being investigated to extend this manufacturing process, and to see to it that we can meet all our own requirements if necessary? Cannot we grow the necessary shrubs or substances from which those bags are manufactured? Has the Government done anything in the direction of doing the necessary research work in that respect to see whether we cannot manufacture all these things ourselves? If the importation of bags and twine, and all these goods which are indispensible for the production of grain is completely stopped or cut off—has the Minister ever thought what can be done to supply the wants of the farmers if we have not got the necessary factories to manufacture these goods ourselves, and if we have no supplies coming into the country? Assuming these essentials become unobtainable. What are we going to do to try and produce the necessary food for the people and get the food to the people? Has the Minister given any thought to that aspect of the matter? Is this serious matter having the Government’s attention? Assuming we are forced to carry on without bags and without twine; assuming that emergency should arise—what are we going to do to protect our people against the consequences? [Time limit.]

On a previous occasion I drew the Minister’s attention to the wheat question and to the condition of the wheat industry. Unfortunately the Minister was not too well at the time, and I therefore want to touch on a few of those points again today, and I shall be pleased if the Minister will be kind enough to reply to my questions. I pointed out at the time that according to the Wheat Commission which the Minister had appointed to enquire into the wheat industry a really serious position of affairs had arisen in the wheat industry. I quoted the figures at the time and I pointed out to the Minister that according to the figures quoted by the Commission in connection with the costs of production of wheat—and I may say that the farmers put their costs of production even higher—it appears that for the year 1938—’39—that is the last year for which the Commission gave the figures, apparently because it is the last year for which it had the figures for its investigation—not less than 53 per cent. of the Union’s wheat crop was produced at a loss. I pointed out that since that time the production had increased very slightly as a result of the higher price of wheat, but on the other hand we had also been faced with a considerable increase in the costs of production, and according to the findings of the Commission in regard to the increased production costs—with which the great majority of the farmers do not agree because they are of opinion that the increase was more—but according to the Commission’s figures about 33⅓ per cent. of the latest wheat crop was produced at a loss. I think the Minister will agree with me that that undoubtedly is a very undesirable state of affairs. If we look at matters in that light we can quite understand why the wheat farmers are in such a precarious position. The price has now been fixed at about 30s. per bag. Let me say at once that we are grateful to the Government for having decided at last to give the wheat farmers a price which at any rate will enable the majority of them to continue producing wheat and to show a profit under existing conditions, but I also want to say at once that I am afraid that the price of 30s.—which I am correctly informed is the price which was recommended by the Wheat Board last year, but was turned down by the Minister— will not be sufficient to cover the increased production costs for the coming crop, because the costs of production have again gone up during the current year. I assume that the price of 30s. is based on the increase of 4s. 3d. per bag in production costs, as found by the Commission. Since that time there has again been an increase. If, therefore, the Minister has allowed a price of 30s. for last year, it would have been a reasonable price, but I am afraid that in view of the further increase in production costs which have since taken place the Minister will find that even at this price many farmers will still find it difficult to come out. Now, there was another matter, too, which I brought to the Minister’s notice, on which I would like to have some information from him. I brought this matter to the Minister’s notice last year, and asked how the Minister could explain the fact that although during certain years wheat was considerably more expensive than today, bread none the less was cheaper than it is today. I again want to quote the figures— I want to quote the figures showing the wheat price and the bread price during the last war. Take the year 1915. The price of wheat that year was 29s. 11d. per bag, and the price of bread was one-third of a penny per lb. less than it is now. The next year, 1916, the price of wheat was 33s. 2d. and the price of bread was still one-third of a penny per lb. cheaper.

Is the hon. member now quoting the figures which he quoted during the Budget debate?

Yes.

The hon. member cannot go into that question again.

I don’t intend pursuing it any further. Anyhow, I mentioned the figures and I should like to know how the Minister reconciles those facts. We have also brought this matter to the notice of the Minister of Commerce and Industries. He and his colleagues promised us that they would appoint a Commission to enquire into the matter. They did appoint a Commission, and I have carefully studied the report, but nowhere have I found an explanation of this anomaly. From another source, however. I have been told that the explanation given by the department is this, that as a result of the Wages Act and the increases in wages—the milling industry and the baking industry come under the Wages Act—the expenses of those two industries have gone up considerably. It is said that that probably is the reason why we used to get a much higher price in the past for our wheat, although our bread was cheaper. That is the only explanation I have been able to get for this anomaly. If there is any other explanation I shall be pleased to hear from the Minister what it is, but if that is the explanation then I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks it reasonable to expect the farmers alone to carry the increase an increase, which has taken place in the industry of the bakers and the millers? Is it reasonable that the farmers should bear it, because that is what it amounts to, if we study the position carefully? In the past the farmers used to carry the increase in the production costs of the millers and the bakers. I do not think it is reasonable to expect the farmers to bear it alone. Why is not that burden divided between the farmers, the millers and the bakers? Even that to my mind would not be just, because I fail to see why the farmers should bear a share, but if the burden is divided equally among the three groups then it may perhaps still be possible to defend that attitude, but as the position is now it seems to me that the farmers are expected to bear the whole burden, and I do not think that that is fair. If there are other reasons I shall be pleased to know from the Minister what they are, but that is the only reason which people, who are well informed, have been able to give me to explain why the price of wheat was high in those days, and why the price of bread was lower. Now, there is another question I want to ask the Minister. What is the attitude, what is the idea of the Government, in regard to the Wheat Control Board? What do the Government and the Minister think should be the status of the Control Board? Is the Control Board there solely for the purpose of advising the Minister, and can the Minister simply ignore the advice of the Control Board whenever he thinks fit to do so? That apparently is what happened last year? Last year the Control Board recommended that the price of wheat should be £1 10s. per bag, but the Minister refused to agree to that recommendation. If that is the procedure, then I want to know why we have a Control Board at all. One would assume that if we have a Board on which the millers and the bakers are also represented, and if that Board recommends a price of £1 10s. per bag, it should at any rate have very good reasons for making that recommendation. What has induced the Minister to ignore their recommendations and not accept them? If that is the policy in regard to the Control Board, then I do feel that the Board is becoming useless and superfluous, because one of the important reasons for the establishment of a Board surely is that it should recommend to the Minister what prices ought to be fixed, and surely it should advise the Minister what to do, and if the Minister can simply ignore those recommendations, then I want to know what is the use of such a Board. I am afraid that the Minister’s policy will contribute greatly towards undermining and damaging the authority and the status of the Control Boards. The trouble is that many farmers will afterwards become opposed in principle, to the Control Boards, although the bulk of the farmers have no objection to the principle, whereas they do object to the way the Control Boards are compelled to do their work. Unfortunately the Minister, if he follows that policy, may contribute considerably to the farmers losing faith in their Control Boards. I should be pleased if the Minister can give me some information in regard to this matter. In conclusion I should also like to know whether the Government has decided to import wheat this year, and if so, how much, at what price, and from which countries?

I am not allowed to, but I want to congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Food Controller of South Africa. Unfortunately, however, I have to start off with a word of criticism. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to something which appeared in this morning’s paper, something which to my mind requires the attention of the Minister and of the House. This report appeared in this morning’s “Cape Times”—

I have nothing to do with that. I believe that comes under the Minister of Commerce and Industries.

Oh no, I believe it comes under the Minister of Finance.

I am raising it here because it is a matter which concerns the control of food and the Minister is our Food Controller. I am not allowed, of course, to advocate the introduction of legislation, but, I do want to say that I think the Minister can take steps under the Emergency Regulations to make it a criminal offence for any person in the Union to destroy food at a time like the present. I hope South Africa will never experience a wholesale destruction of food such as has sometimes taken place in America. I don’t think the report I have just read is the only instance of its kind. We have heard of fish having been thrown overboard; we have heard of 30 tons of fresh vegetables which were recently dumped into the sea, and we have repeatedly heard of fruit having been destroyed.

Have you also heard perhaps that the wine farmers gave 1,000 tons of grapes free of charge to the poor?

We appreciate it, and the hon. member will perhaps recollect that I thanked them last year most sincerely for what they had done. We greatly appreciate it, but I think the hon. member will agree that South Africa cannot tolerate food being destroyed simply to keep up prices. That was not the actual intention in this instance where the bread was thrown overboard, but things like that should not be allowed to happen. I hope the lesson which the wine farmers taught South Africa last year will have its results, and will be followed by others, and that people will take up the attitude that rather than destroy food it should be distributed. We cannot allow a condition of affairs where food is destroyed without there being an adequate reason for doing so. As I have said, we are not allowed to advocate fresh legislation at this stage, but it should be made a criminal offence for people to destroy food of any kind. We are continually being told about the shortage of food—how then can we allow a destruction of food? I hope the hon. the Minister, now that he has all the necessary powers to control food, will take steps to see that no food is destroyed. If there is a surplus let the farmers concerned be compelled to announce the fact to the controller of food, and let the State then buy up the surplus food at a reasonable price. The price has to be reasonable because the producer must also be protected. Buy the food at a reasonable price and don’t throw it into the sea, but distribute it among the people. I cannot find language strong enough to express my disapproval of such destruction of food as is mentioned in this report, and I know when I say this that I am interpreting the feeling of indignation existing throughout this country at such destruction of food. It cannot be tolerated, particularly as we know that a large proportion of the people are unable to get food today, either because they have not the means to buy food, or because of poor distribution methods. We have had a few instances of a so called surplus on the Cape Town or Johannesburg markets, but even while there were such surpluses at those centres there were other parts of the country which did not have the opportunity of buying those surpluses. The Minister, in his position as food controller, can make regulations which are a thousand times more effective than those in existence today, and he can apply them and do much more than it has been possible to do under our unsatisfactory Marketing Act which has done nothing but deceive the farmers and the consumers. I hope the Minister will introduce a proper system of distribution.

I should like to know from the Minister what his plan is in regard to the fixing of the prices of meat—I hope he has no such plan, but one hears all sorts of rumours lately to the effect that a price is to be fixed for meat. The Minister has now been appointed as Food Controller, and I should like to know what the position is. One can quite understand that the consumers as well as the producers must be protected, but when one has to deal with meat one should realise, first of all, that under existing circumstances in South Africa, under the system by which meat is marketed and slaughtered in South Africa, it is an extremely difficult thing to fix a price for slaughter stock, or to exercise control over it. Anyhow I should like to know from the Minister whether he has such a plan, what it is, and on what basis he proposes carrying out such a plan, if anything of the kind is to be done? I want to express the hope, in the first place, that nothing will be done at this stage which will have the effect of making things difficult for the stock farmers—be they cattle farmers or sheep farmers—because, apart from any other aspect of the matter I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that mixed farming is being carried on over large parts of the country. The people are stock farmers, but they also plant mealies on a fairly large scale. It is mixed farming which one gets in the Western Transvaal, the North-Western Transvaal, and the whole of the Northern Transvaal. This year the farmers will to a larger extent than in other years be dependent for their income on slaughter stock which they can sell, because in the areas which I have mentioned the mealie as well as the tobacco crop, in those parts where tobacco is grown, has largely been a failure, due not only to the appearance of the commando worm, but particularly due to the devastating drought conditions which have prevailed in those areas. If the Government wants to go so far as to fix the price for meat the Minister should very definitely take that fact into account, and the production costs should be calculated in such a manner in all respects that when a price is fixed the farmers will not suffer any damage. There is another matter I want to touch on in passing, and that is the conditions which have arisen, particularly again in the Western Free State and the Transvaal, and more especially in the Northern Transvaal, as a result of the drought. I assume that the Minister is aware of the fact that in a large part of those areas many farmers, especially small farmers, and the native population, too, have had complete failures as far as their mealie crops are concerned. There are large numbers of poor people, Europeans as well as natives, who will hardly produce a bag of mealies this year, and there are many other farmers who won’t produce sufficient mealies to feed their own labourers. If the Government does not take steps to come to the assistance of people in this regard, then I can assure them that there will be a famine in that part of the country this year. I am not exaggerating. If the Government does not take steps in regard to food, there will be a famine in various parts of the country. I am not speaking of what I have been told, but of what I saw with my own eyes when I recently visited those areas. There are large numbers of farmers, and hundreds of natives, who will not get a bag of mealies from their land. I have studied the Estimates, but I do not find any provision anywhere, not even on the Minister’s vote, for assistance to be given, and that on a fairly large scale. I therefore want to ask what the Government intends doing in that regard. Representations have already been made to the Minister on this subject from my part of the country, and I assume that magistrates and other officials who are at his disposal have also informed him of the precarious position in those parts of the country. Then there is the question of the price of mealies. The Minister will perhaps avail himself of this opportunity, particularly in view of the very small mealie crop that is expected, to tell us whether he, and his Mealie Board, intend stabilising the price of mealies at a considerably higher level than was the case last year. The costs of production are high already, and they have been increased considerably owing to the crop being so small, and if the farmers are to keep their heads above water this year a very much higher price will have to be paid for mealies than was the case last year. I hope the Minister will be able to give us that information. I have one or two other points of local interest which I want to raise. The Minister’s department recently abolished the permit system for the transport of stock—I assume that this was done not only for the Waterberg district, but also for other districts. Representations were made to the Minister by Farmers’ Associations which are of opinion that that is a mistake, because in the opinion of the farmers the permit system is perhaps the most effective way of preventing natives from committing wholesale thefts. As long as the permit system was there nobody could transport cattle or stock without a permit, and the permit system by itself was a deterrent to natives stealing cattle or stock, because the Farmers’ Associations thought they were afraid they might perhaps meet the police on the road, and the police would ask them for their permits to find out where the cattle came from. This system, in the opinion of the Farmers Associations, reduced stock thefts. I am not expressing my own opinion, I am only bringing the opinion of the Farmers’ Associations to the Minister’s notice, and I should like to know what the attitude of the department is in this connection. I also want to repeat a question which was put during the previous session, and that is whether something cannot be done for cattle inspectors who have resigned from their posts? I have in mind cattle and stock inspectors who have been put off because of poor health. As far as I understand the position, if a cattle or stock inspector is put off on account of bad health, because he can no longer do his work, then he only gets a small gratuity, no matter how long he has been in the service, no matter how good the service he has rendered has been. I believe that the gratuity he gets is called his final salary—what he usually gets is a month’s extra salary or a little more than that. The man is then put off and he has to look after himself and get along as best he can. Such a case was recently brought to my notice; it was the case of a man from the North-Western Districts of the Cape, who is now living in my constituency, a Mr. Z. C. Pretorius He has reached an age when he cannot take up any new job; he was put off as a stock inspector on account of bad health. That, I understand, was the only reason for his dismissal. He was a stock inspector in the North-Western Districts of the Cape, and now he does not know how to keep body and soul together. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot establish a pension scheme for this class of official, a scheme more or less on the same lines as that in existence for ordinary Civil Servants? These people have been in the service of the State for some considerable time. I take it that the stock inspector I have referred to has had almost twenty years’ service, almost as long as an ordinary Civil Servant has to serve before he goes on pension. [Time limit.]

In the few minutes left before business is suspended—I shall have no other opportunity of speaking on this vote— I want to very briefly raise a few points. A few years ago, when the control system was established, a Meat Board was appointed to control the market by means of a permit system and also to furnish the farmers with proper market reports. That body has done good work. I regard the permit system, however, as defective, but I don’t want to go into that now, I only want to point out that every afternoon at 1 o’clock a report is broadcast from the Johannesburg market, but we very rarely get the average price of beef per 100 lbs. I am speaking from personal experience. Sometimes I drove many miles because I was anxious to hear what the market report had to say. The market report gives the price for prime cattle and for good medium cattle, but it does not give the average price per 100 lbs. What is the use of a farmer hearing that oxen have fetched £20 or £30 if he does not know what the weight of those oxen is. I understand that the difficulty is that the person who has to estimate the weight of the animals is usually very late and does not arrive in time for the broadcast service. This is a serious gap and I hope the Minister will go into it. One gets the same thing in the Press. Now I come to the Cape Town market. There one has a man who has been appointed by the Meat Board and who is paid by the Government; he comes every morning and makes a valuation which is published at the end of the week. What is the use of appointing such a man if one does not get daily reports about the market? When I want to send my cattle I have to send telegrams to find out what the market price is. Now I want to tell the Minister that speculators and auctioneers try to kill the Cape Town Central Market and consequently it is in their interest, when mutton is say 8d. on the market, to get it stated in the Press that the price is 9½d. Unfortunately my time is short but I hope the Minister will go into that question. I would also like to know from the Minister what he intends doing about the National Mark scheme. I hope this will become a permanent institution. I notice, however, that the staff is still on a temporary basis. Does that mean that this is a temporary measure? I was on the Cape Town market this morning. The Minister in his capacity as food controller came in as a buyer since yesterday morning. What has been the result? I am of opinion that a ring has been formed against the Minister. These people come together, and where they see that somebody is busy on behalf of the Government they force prices up and go on bidding as high as they can. I believe that sheep went up to 1s. per lb. this morning. As the Minister has unlimited powers he should not allow that ring to break him, but he should break the ring. Once the ring has been broken this unnecessary link formed by the wholesale dealer, the man who makes the biggest profit between the farmer and the consumer, will be cut out. The Minister has his chance of dealing with the matter today and I hope he will break this ring.

During the last few weeks we have heard with increased frequency the call to the farmers to produce more and to plant more. We have heard the urgent call for food. With the poor soil conditions which we have in many parts of our country we certainly need fertilisers to be used in order to bring about this increased food production which is so urgently required. The Minister realised that owing to the increased price of fertilisers and on the score of the farmers’ finance it was necessary to give us a subsidy of £1 per ton on fertilisers. Whatever views members may hold with regard to subsidies, whether they are on this side of the House or the other does not matter, I think we all agree that this particular subsidy will bring about what we require—namely, the necessary amount of fertiliser to be put into the soil in order to increase our food production. There is one point, however, that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister, and that is the fact that this particular subsidy is only to apply after the 1st April. Thousands of tons of fertilisers have been bought recently by farmers who were anxious immediately to get on with the job, the job of providing food for our own country and for the convoys that pass through, and I was wondering whether the Minister would not take into consideration the hardship of these farmers who immediately got busy with the fertilising of their land. He could meet them by making this subsidy date back at the very least to the 25th February, the date when the Minister of Finance announced this subsidy. There is one other point I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice in connection with this subsidy, and that is the fact that we are only getting the subsidy of £1 per ton on orders of half a ton or over. During the last few years—as a matter of fact, for a good number of years now—the officials of the Agricultural Department have been encouraging the use of fertilisers right throughout the country. They have got many of our smaller farmers and large numbers of our natives to use fertilisers They have proved to them that fertilising the ground at the time of planting, and later on, increases the yield. Now these people, who cannot afford to buy five bag lots or more, will not get the subsidy, and remember, it is the poorer man who will not get it. I really feel justified in asking the Minister to consider passing on that subsidy to the poorer people as well as to those who can afford slightly more.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he cannot do something in the interest of the onion farmers. I am particularly thinking of the man who produces onions but who has not got much capital at his disposal. I first of all want to say that at the beginning of the session I brought this matter to the notice of the Minister’s department. I brought it to the notice of the Marketing Council, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank them for the steps they have taken in regard to this matter, but the steps they have taken are only preliminary; if they are not followed up, the onion growers will not derive any benefit such as we are entitled to expect from the preliminary work that has been done. I want to point out to the Minister that it is that class of onion grower who is not financially strong who is not able to store his onions but who has to take any price he can get on the market. I have an instance here of an onion farmer who got less than 3s. for his onions. In one single instance the price went up to 7s., but if one deducts the cost of the bag, which is 9d. today, and the cost of transport to the station, that farmer gets 2s. and less for his onions. Hon. members will realise that in those circumstances these people are not only not making a profit but they are working at a loss. In addition, a decreasing tendency is noticeable on the market. If we read the local produce market reports we find that the following prices were announced on Monday last—

As I have already brought this matter to the notice of the Minister’s department, I want to ask him to do all in his power to help these farmers. This is really a deserving case. These people have very little capital and they are entitled to claim the goodwill of the Minister. I trust the Minister will give his attention to this matter. Now, I want to direct the Minister’s attention to this fact, that I learn that the Langeberg Co-operative Society at Ashton is very reluctant to accept onions today, and their reason is that the export of pickled onions today is practically impossible. I want to ask the Minister not to lose sight of this, and to give this matter his attention. So far as the question of wheat prices is concerned, and the report of the Wheat Commission. I discussed this whole question in this House when the motion of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was under discussion. Unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture was not present here when that discussion took place, and I hope you, Mr. Chairman, will allow him, as it was not possible for him to be here then, to reply to the questions which we put to him on that occasion, because otherwise we shall be compelled to go over the same ground again. The Acting Minister gave me the assurance that the points that were raised would be brought to the Minister’s notice. I therefore hope that the Minister will give us a reply tonight. Since that discussion in the House a few things have happened, and I should like to discuss matters with the Minister. The Government has now promised to fix the price of wheat for next year at 30s. and 30s. 6d. I want to ask the Minister whether that price is now to be regarded as the minimum price. The Co-operative Society has asked for a minimum price. Many things may still happen before the crop which is now being put into the ground can be gathered. I now want to ask the Minister whether, if the farmers can make out a good and strong case, it will not be decided that they are only to get 30s. and 30s. 6d. for their wheat? That price would be 2s. 9d. more than they are getting today, but bags are practically unobtainable today, and if bags should go up to 2s. 6d. or 3s. that would take up the whole of the increase in the price they are being allowed. As hon. members know, wheat farmers are not extremely pleased with the price they are getting today. I therefore want to ask the Minister, as the Co-operative Societies have now come to an agreement, whether he can give us an assurance that if our costs of production of wheat go up still further, he will be prepared to consider a further increase? I think my request is a fair and reasonable one. I am only asking whether, in the event of our being able to make out a good and reasonable case, he will consider the question of allowing an increase in price? We cannot say with any certainty today at what price we shall be able to produce wheat under prevailing circumstances. Everything is too uncertain, and we have nothing to show us where things may go. As I have already said, the price of bags may go up to such an extent that the bags alone may take up the whole of the increased price. I don’t think my request is an unreasonable one. I simply want the door to be left open, so that the wheat farmer, if he can prove at the end of the year that he has a good case, can ask for a further increase.

I wish to say to the Minister how pleased the farmers of Natal are with his appointment as Food Controller. We feel that the position of the farmer will be put on a much better footing due to this appointment of his, and that many of our problems which we have not been able to solve will now lend themselves to solution. The first matter I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister is the unsatisfactory position of our bacon factories owing to the price they have to pay for baconers today and the fixed price of bacon at 1s. 2d. a lb. The Minister of Commerce and Industries this afternoon seemed to think that the price of baconers was unduly high, that we were only getting 6d. per lb. live weight some months ago, and that now that the price has gone up to 9d. that price is not justified. I want to say that we have ample proof that the cost of producing baconers today has gone up enormously. We are unable to buy mealies at a reasonable price today, and many of our people are reduced to having to use hominy chop. Six or eight months ago the price of hominy chop was only 5s. per bag. Today it has gone up to 8s., and I have seen receipts from some of my pig feeders showing that there has been a rise of 3s. per bag, far more than 50 per cent. on the price of that feeding stuff.; so if 6d. was a fair price at the time the Minister of Commerce speaks of, an increase of 50 per cent. in the price of feed stuffs would justify the present price of 8d. to 9d. per lb. live weight of baconers. One of the chief reasons why the price of baconers has gone up is that there is a shortage in the market of baconers, and unless you can get a price like the present to induce people to go in for feeding and breeding more baconers you cannot expect that price to come down in a short market. On the basis of that price our bacon factories cannot produce bacon at a profit—they must produce at a loss. I raised this matter last night, and we were told by the Minister of Commerce that the price of bacon was going to be raised, but from what we can find out we are afraid that the price to which they are going to raise bacon will not yet compensate the bacon factories for the increased cost of baconers, and I hope the Minister as food controller will put that position on a satisfactory footing. The price of bacon in sub-relation to the price of baconers should be put on a sound basis, otherwise some of our factories will have to close down to the detriment of our Dig farmers. There is another matter I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. Last year I raised the question in this House of a fresh milk scheme for our fresh milk producers, and the Minister then told me that it was likely that the fresh milk scheme would be brought into existence at an early date, and that Durban could be one of the first areas where the scheme would be tried out. I know the position is that the scheme was found faulty by the law advisers, an therefore it has had to be scrapped, and a new fresh milk scheme is being prepared. But I wish to say to the Minister that my fresh milk constituents are suspicious that no fresh milk scheme will come forward now. If that is so, I want to ask the Minister if he is able as price controller to deal with the position of the fresh milk producers in Natal. Will he be able to fix the price for the producer of fresh milk, and also fix the price to the distributor and to the consumer? If he is able to do that through his proclamation, then I think our milk farmers will have some consolation that at all events they will be put on a sound footing so that they can go on producing without loss, but as things are at present they have to try and come to some arrangement, a voluntary arrangement, whereby they can keep things on a proper footing, this is most difficult for we feel that the position is very unsatisfactory, and that the Minister must now, as price controller, step in and protect the producer and put the distributor and the consumer also on a proper footing, and if that can be done I think we can carry on until such time as this fresh milk scheme can be approved of by the Minister. There will be no surplus during the war. I hope the Minister will make a statement when he rises to speak and tell us what his functions are going to be as food controller and how he proposes to deal with most of the problems we are facing, in regard to production of farm products, which depends on prices, marketing and regulation of distribution. We are told today—I saw a leading article in the Argus about it—that it is up to the farmers to produce all the food that the people in South Africa require. We can produce the food and we can produce a surplus pretty well of anything that we require here. The only thing that stops production is the unsatisfactory prices which the farmers get and the unsatisfactory marketing arrangements that we have to face. We must have a guaranteed price for our products. Our railway rates kill the price that we receive for our products, but if the Minister, as food controller, can deal with these problems and give us a guaranteed price for our products, I can assure him that there will be no shortage of food in this country. Those are the only problems he has to solve, the satisfactory price and satisfactory marketing arrangements. I hope the Minister will be able to make a statement so that we can assure our farmers that they need have no fear about producing abundance of whatever is required. There is hardly a farmer who could not double his production if he had a guaranteed price, then there would be abundance, and a surplus, which the Minister could use for other purposes for our war effort. I hope the Minister will give us some indication of what his plans are with regard to food control in the interests of the farmers.

If one man in the country is responsible for there being a lot of suspicion about the wool position, it is the Minister of Agriculture himself. I am sorry having to say this to the Minister, but it is so. Last year we accused the Minister of Agriculture of two things in particular. We accused him of having told the country that we would get an average price of 10.75d. per lb. for our wool in this country under the British purchasing system. The Minister gave us the idea last year that that was a misunderstanding. The second thing we accused the Minister of last year was that the clean yield of our wool had been under-estimated. Those were the two principal charges which we made against the Minister of Agriculture last year. So far as the first question is concerned, regarding the average price of 10.75d., there is nobody in this country who did not have the impression that that would be the average price per lb. of wool under the purchasing scheme, and nobody but the Minister of Agriculture himself is responsible for that impression. Let me refer the Minister to his own speeches. I only want to quote a few words from his speeches. Last year I quoted from a number of his speeches on this subject, but today I only want to quote a few of his words. He said this, inter alia—After we had agreed on the average price which Australia had received …

When was that?

That was on the 17th February, 1941. The Minister used those words, and what was the Australian price? The wool farmers of Australia were guaranteed an average price of 10.75d., but the Minister went further and drew our attention to the fact that the British Government had pointed out to him that the clean yield of the Australian wool was higher than ours. On that the Minister made the following statement to us, that he had said this to the British Government—

That was for the 1939—’40 clip.

This is a speech which the Minister made on the 17th February, 1941, and he said that we would not make any agreement if we got a farthing less than Australia.

That was for the 1939—’40 clip.

Assuming the Minister is correct—I don’t admit it—but when did he change his mind about the South African wool farmers not getting less than the Australian wool farmers? That was his opinion, that he was not going to enter into any agreement with the British Government if he got a farthing less than the Australian wool farmers, so when did he change his mind about our farmers getting less? We have been warning the Minister from the very start, and we have been pointing out to him that if there was one question in respect of which the Minister had to be very careful, if he wanted to satisfy the wool farmers, it was this wool question. The wool was then sold under this scheme for the first time. We criticised the position here in Parliament because we were of opinion that the open market would have been better for our wool farmers. The Minister asked where we would have sold our wool. I don’t want to go into all the arguments again, because the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) discussed the position here this afternoon, and he proved that our wool was not even going to England now, but that it was being sent direct to America. The Minister knows as well as we do that America needs our wool. He knows as well as anybody that America was one of the biggest countries, which, when we had an open market here with a British guarantee, competed on our market; three-quarters of our wool is being sent to America, and there is still shipping space for our wool to go to America. We continued warning the Minister, and not only that, but the Minister knew as well as we did that wool was one of the essential requirements in connection with the war. He knows as well as we do that wool, like cotton, has been declared to be one of the products required in connection with the war position. We want to draw the Minister’s attention to the cotton position. He knows as well as we do that Great Britain cannot allow wool to get into the hands of any country which might possibly send it to Germany. The Minister knew all about that. The Minister himself felt that if an agreement was made that agreement should at least be such that we would get for our wool what the other Dominions were getting for theirs, and he even drew our attention to the fact that, although the clean yield of our wool was lower than Australia’s clean yield, he refused to accept less than the price Australia was getting, and quite right, too. There I quite agree with the Minister, but where do we stand now? What I particularly want to draw the Minister’s attention to is this: The Minister has created the greatest possible suspicion throughout the country by his attitude. We have sold our wool under the most complicated scheme one could possibly get. Now, what was the position in regard to the Australian yield? There they had a scientific scheme which had been carefully worked out, and I fail to understand why the Minister did not accept the same basis as Australia got. It seems to me that the whole agreement was originally based on the Australian agreement, but, in spite of the fact that the Minister knew that Australia had bought at a guaranteed average price which he noted here, namely, 10.75d. in our money, he went along and he drew up a long list, a schedule of the different types according to which our wool was to be sold. There are more than 300 of those types. We therefore accused the Minister last year, and said we knew we were not going to get the average price of 10.75d. in respect of last year’s clip, and it was then that the Minister said to us for the first time: “There is no such thing as an average price of 10.75d.” We then asked the Minister whether there really was such a thing as a contract. We began to get suspicious about there being a contract at all, and we now have confirmation of the fact that at that time there was no contract yet. I take it for granted that negotiations were going on at the time, but the contract was only signed recently, and the final agreement was made retrospective. But I want to point to the suspicion created by the Minister. If the Minister says that we are getting more than we say we got, then we want to know from him what the total yield of our wool is, and what the total amount is which the farmers have received. We have repeatedly asked the Minister that question, but what did he reply? We study all the reports; we ask the Minister questions, but he refuses to give us any information. He remains silent. Why? He refuses to tell us what the total yield of our wool was last year. [Time limit.]

From the criticism which has come, particularly from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) and the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel), about the wool scheme it is clear that no scheme designed by this side of the House will ever meet with the approval of members over there.

Speak of the merits of the case.

I am coming to the merits. What hon. members over there are anxious for is that we should exchange the security of the present scheme for the uncertainty and the speculation of an open market. If they give us the guarantee, and nothing less than a guarantee will meet the case, that if their request is complied with and the market is kept open, we shall get more than what we have been getting, then we shall consider their proposals. Some of the responsible farmers in the Eastern Transvaal have assured me that during the last few years they have been getting more for their wool clip than they have got for the previous period. They are satisfied that the prices they get are reasonable and fair prices under present conditions, and they are satisfied with the security they enjoy, and they are prepared to wait for a possible profit which they may get from a resale. They are not prepared to exchange the security they have for the uncertain and doubtful guarantee which may perhaps be given by Germany, Japan or Italy. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) has said here about the fresh milk scheme. I have received special instructions from the fresh milk producers of my constituency. As hon. members know, an amendment in the Marketing Act was passed by this House last year. There was a gap which the High Court discovered in the Act, and as a result of that gap the fresh milk scheme was declared ultra vires. We amended the Marketing Act and a new scheme was thereupon designed by the Dairy Control Board. That scheme was submitted to the Marketing Board for its approval. The Marketing Board was disposed to accept the scheme but it referred it to the legal advisers, and they thereupon came to the conclusion that as an attempt was being made under the scheme to treat the producer distributors as a separate class, that also might possibly be ultra vires, and consequently the scheme is still pending. At the moment there is a scheme in operation but that scheme depends on voluntary co-operation. Not all the producers are loyal supporters of that scheme. Some of the producers are not loyal in their support of the scheme and consequently that scheme is not quite satisfactory. Naturally there is an alternative. We can urge the Government again to amend the Marketing Act if necessary, but we realise that it is not feasible at this stage to bring about such an amendment. A second alternative is that the producer distributors will not be registered solely as producers but also as distributors, and that seems to me to be the only way out of the difficulty. While that question is pending, however, and while this difficulty still exists, there is uncertainty. The third alternative is to carry on with the present voluntary scheme. As I have already shown, it is not quite satisfactory to do so because all the producers are not given the voluntary scheme their wholehearted and loyal support. We therefore feel that as the Minister has the power under the Emergency Regulations, or under the food control regulations, to devise schemes, we should urge him to remove the uncertainty which prevails at present as soon as possible. I therefore want to support the hon. member for Weenen, and we want to make a special appeal to the Minister to introduce a fresh milk scheme as soon as possible, a scheme which will then be a legal scheme and which cannot be evaded, and which will treat all the producers alike. The producers who distribute their own milk can also be subject then to the quota. If a quota is applied to one producer it must be applied to all, whether they sell their own milk or not. We therefore want to ask the Minister to design a scheme for us under which all the producers will be treated alike so that it will not be possible for one to get an unfair advantage over the other. We hope he will consider this special request as soon as possible, and we trust the scheme will be put into operation without much delay so that the existing confusion may be removed.

One is really surprised that the Minister of Agriculture still has the courage, after the announcement of the wool agreement with the English Government, to show himself in this House.

What do you mean by that?

Apparently my remark has touched the Minister. He gave the country the impression that he would get an average price of 10.75d. for the wool farmers of South Africa. After a lot of trouble from this side of the House we succeeded in inducing the Minister to make the terms of the agreement public, and what do we find now? In this agreement this price basis of 10.75d. is not mentioned at all.

That is what I have been telling you for the last two years.

Let me tell the Minister what he has been telling us for the last two years. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) quoted earlier on what the Minister said, not two years ago, but a year ago, namely, that he would see to it that the South African wool farmer got not a farthing less than the Australian wool farmer, but the Minister knows that we are not getting what Australia is getting. The Minister also knows that the Secretary for Agriculture on his behalf distinctly told the country that the various types of grease wool had been fixed for the purpose of the agreement, and he added this—

He further went on to say this—

It had been accepted for Australia and also for the Union, and the Minister thereupon came to tell us that he had seen to it that the South African wool farmers were not going to get a farthing less than what Australia got. Now we find that the Australian Government had much more business acumen. It worked out its basis and it made its wool agreement and in Australian currency the Australian wool farmer gets a guaranteed average price of 13.45d. per lb. The Australian Government has seen to it that its wool farmers get that fixed price. Here in South Africa our wool farmers do not get the average price of 10.75d. Nobody doubts any longer that they are not going to get it. The Minister himself will have to admit that they are not getting it and we again want to ask the Minister whether he still contends that the average price which our wool farmers got during the last season was 10.75d. He knows that it was not so. Our wool farmers did not fare in the same way as the Australian wool farmers did. In Australia the wool is bought by the Australian Government, and if the average guaranteed price is not paid then the Australian Government pays it back. Here our wool farmers have to suffer the loss. The Government has sold our wool to Great Britain under a bad business deal owing to it having accepted the type basis. The Minister may have originally thought that by accepting that basis he was going to do good business for our wool farmers. He may have thought that he was going to get a better average price than 10.75d. for our wool on the type basis, but he should have known that those people are far too cute; they know very much more about wool and they have very much more business ability than to allow themselves to be taken in by the Minister. He got the worst of the transactions, and now it is not he who is the sufferer but the wool farmer of South Africa who has to suffer. As he accepted the type basis it is not only the big wool farmers in South Africa who are suffering the losses, but it is particularly the small farmers who are suffering. It is particularly the farmer who shears the short wool who suffers, and it is the smaller farmers who cut the short wool. They are the sufferers. If we study the price basis we find that it is particularly those farmers who shear short wool who are the sufferers. In fixing the type basis the English business men took particular notice of England’s requirements. They put the price high for the higher types and they put it lower for the short wool. Short wool is shorn particularly by the smaller farmers who have to shear every six months. Another type of wool which suffered as a result of this basis is strong wool. This class of wool suffers most on this type basis, and we also find that cross bred wool suffers, whereas if we had had an open market we would have had this position, that the demand for strong wool would have been very good, with the result that a comparatively higher price would have been achieved, because in times of war there is a specially great demand for cross bred wools for military purposes. We know that that was the case in the last war when there was a big demand for this type of wool. Here, again, we find that the poorer class of farmer has been detrimentally affected, but worst of all is this: these prices have been fixed, and even if it is found now that the price is so low that an agitation is started on the part of the farmers we still cannot get a higher price for our wool under this agreement. We cannot demand an increase in price because the Minister signed that right away. Australia can do it. They can for a higher price, but we can’t do what Australia is doing—the wool farmers of South Africa cannot ask for an increased price. The Minister of Agriculture is putting up with this humiliation, that he is accepting this contract in which he has agreed not to ask for an increase on behalf of South Africa, but that he will only do so if Australia does it. That is the wav he has allowed British sentiment to overpower him —he has allowed it to overpower him to such an extent that he cannot assume an independent attitude on behalf of South Africa, and he is only allowed to ask for a higher price if Australia first of all does so. Is that the attitude which the Minister has adopted? That is his subjective attitude towards everything foreign, towards everything English, and by adopting that attitude he has done the greatest harm to the wool farmers of South Africa. I can assure him that if this condition had not been in the contract the wool farmers of South Africa would not have kept quiet for a day, because the price which has been fixed is not a fair price. The price which our wool farmers are getting is 8d. per lb. less on an average than what they got during the last war. Our wool farmers would never have been satisfied with it, especially if we take note of what other countries get for their wool. In England the price has been fixed at between 1s. 2d. and 1s. 5½d. per lb. In South America we find that wool has gone up to 1s. 8d. per lb. and the hon. member for Cradock quoted prices here today to show that in Uraguay the price of wool has gone up to 32d. per lb. That is what other countries are now getting for their wool because they have not entered into such an agreement as we have done. I want to state definitely here that if we had not had this wool agreement we would have had nothing short of a wool boom here in South Africa. I say this deliberately, and I shall prove it, bearing in mind the position in which we find ourselves. Australia is in danger today. There is no regular shipping between Australia and England and Australia and America so we practically have a monopoly of the American market, and we would have got prices higher than the prices we got in the last war. Let me produce some further evidence. We have exported about 600,000 bales of wool and no fewer than 500,000 of those have gone to America. That goes to prove how America buys wool from this country. I also want to say this, that a large proportion of Australia’s wool is being consumed in Australia itself today. That confirms my contention that if there had been an open market America would have competed very strongly on our market, with the result that we would have obtained a high price for our wool, and if we take all these facts into account they go to prove that the Minister has done the country tremendous harm with this agreement. The hon. member for Cradock also pointed to another point in regard to this agreement, namely that this contract would not, as the Minister has said, continue for a year after the war. That whole question has been left open. How long the contract will last will depend on negotiation between the two Governments, and we now understand the position. They know that immediately after the war there will again be a tremendous wool boom, and South Africa’s wool will go up sky high, and they are keeping the door open so that if the price of wool goes up the wool agreement can be extended. [Time limit.]

There are two things exercising my mind about which I would like to ask the Minister. The first is, has he taken cognisance of a statement in the Press that hundreds of pounds of white bread were dumped overboard in Durban harbour? That seems to me a particularly outrageous state of affairs that in a country such as this, in which a large proportion of the population is below the subsistence line, that no better use could be made of this food than just to dump it overboard. In his capacity of Food Controller, I would draw his attention to that statement, and ask him to take some immediate action to prevent a repetition. That is one point. Another point which is also exercising me considerably, relates to the hon. Minister’s position as Food Controller. He has told the country at large that there may be, he does not say that there is, but that there may be a considerable shortage of food in the future. He has said that while there is a reasonable quantity of mealies, there may be a shortage of other substances, such as butter, a shortage which, in fact, a month or two ago we had already experienced in this country. Now, on this question of butter shortage, I am particularly exercised, because as the Minister is well aware butter is one of the protective foods which is of the greatest value to the population. In England, where food is rationed carefully and scientifically, there is also not enough butter to go round, just as there is not in this country, but in England they have used a most excellent substitute in the modern version of margerine, which is a highly refined butter substitute, made, I think, of whale oil, and it is nowadays so refined and purified and strengthened by the addition of vitamin contents, that in taste there is, I am told, very little to diffentiate it from butter. In this country we have a population desperately in need of butter fats. In this country, too, we are used to importing a considerable quantity of margerine. That margerine which we imported we now no longer can obtain, and yet the Dairy Control Board has refused licences to factories that desire to start up and make margerine. In one instance that I know of the machinery was actually in the country, but the licence was refused. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of that situation in peace time, I believe the reason why the Dairy Control Board refused the licences was because they feared competition with the dairy farmers, but that factor does not, and cannot, apply in a state of emergency such as exists at present. The Minister has himself said that the country may definitely face a food shortage, and I would ask him most seriously to take into account this means of supplying a large proportion of the population with a very nutritious food which can in present circumstances certainly not compete with the dairy farmer, and which can be produced at far less than the dairy farm products. Butter on the open market, first grade, averages about 1s. 8d. per lb. My information is that you can produce adequate margerine which is highly vitaminised at less than half that cost, and I would ask the Minister, in view of the emergency, in view of his position as Food Controller, to investigate this matter with a view to seeing J that the position is remedied, and that margerine may be allowed to be manufactured in this country to meet the nutrition needs, particularly of the poorer section of the population.

I want to bring a certain matter to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture, and I hope he will give me a satisfactory reply. I brought this matter to the notice of his department some time ago. The position is this, that in the district of Bloemfontein there is a certain Mr. Jozua van Tonder who in the past six months has lost about 50 head of cattle from arsenical poisoning. An investigation was made when the animals died, and it was found that they had died from poison which had been on the adjoining farm. About 50 tins of the poison, which had been there for some time, were found. It was clear that some of that poison had been used to poison the cattle and it was probably done by a malicious individual. Immediately Van Tonder found out what had happened he went to the magistrate at Bloemfontein and laid a complaint, but the magistrate even refused to see him. He caused a notice to be sent to Van Tonder to the effect that he should bury the poison. The man went and fetched the poison, buried it and put a heavy cement lid on top, but it seemed that the individual or individuals who had caused the damage still have some of the poison in their possession, because his cattle are still continually dying from poisoning. The investigation in the laboratory shows that the animals had died from locust poisoning. The man has lost 50 valuable animals in this way. Among them was his bull, and a number of animals, for which he paid a lot of money. He is powerless to do anything. He has asked the detectives to investigate the matter but they cannot trace the guilty person. When I was in Bloemfontein the other day he had again lost one or two of his cattle. There is not the slightest doubt that those animals died of the poison which had been stored on the neighbouring farm. I say it is a gross neglect on the part of the department to leave such large quantities of locust poisoning there. I do not know how they can do a thing like that. I think the Minister should have an investigation made and should have the individual who is responsible for those tins of poison being left there properly punished. The unfortunate victim of the affair is terribly upset about it; he has worked hard all his life, he suffered many losses during the drought, and if on top of it all has has to suffer losses of this kind, it is bound to upset him. I have written to the department asking whether in a case like this the man cannot be compensated, but the reply from the department is that no compensation can be paid. The department apparently takes up the attitude that it is a case of malice and that people have perhaps sprayed locust poison on the farm and left the tins of poison on the ground. But there is no doubt that the poison has been used by malicious individuals to poison this man’s animals, and the responsbility rests on the department for having such a large quantity of poison there. I want to ask whether some concession cannot be made to this unfortunate man. He is a progressive farmer who is hard working and who looks after his farm. If he cannot be compensated in full it may perhaps be possible to compensate him in part.

You say that poison was subsequently found, after he had buried it?

I say that somebody must have a quantity of the poison in his possession. There were 54 gallon tins, but the poison Van Tonder found there he buried in a deep hole, which he closed up. It is clear, however, that there are some people who still have some of the poison in their possession, because a number of his cattle have subsequently died from poisoning. I hope the Minister will give this matter his favourable consideration and that he will see if it is not possible to do something for this unfortunate man.

The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), a little earlier in the evening, said that he wanted the farmers to have guaranteed prices for all their products, and he also said that if they could get guaranteed prices they could double their production. I must say that I am surprised at the fact that they could easily double their production, because it means that in war time, when the food situation is becoming sufficiently serious to necessitate the appointment of a Food Controller, the section which produces is deliberately holding back its resources. I am therefore surprised at the statement of the hon. member for Weenen, but he knows much more about agricultural matters than I do, and I am quite prepared to accept his word for it that this is occurring. But all I can say is this—all I can do is to point out that in some countries, and particularly in the main countries with which we are at war today, the action of producers in withholding their resources from use would be dealt with by much more drastic means than by giving them guaranteed prices. However, I am not opposed to the principle of guaranteed prices for primary producers, provided it is accompanied by certain conditions. There has grown up a custom of giving various producing interests subsidies without attaching any conditions thereto in the national interest, and as I see it, I think the experience of such countries as New Zealand has indicated that the principle of guaranteed prices for primary producers can be beneficial, provided there is proper control exercised in the interests of the nation as a whole, and in this particular respect I would submit that any system of universal guaranteed prices for primary producers in this country should carry the following conditions: first, the payment of a living wage and the concession of decent living conditions to the majority of the farming population who are the wage earners and workers on the farm. That should be one condition.

For all the workers?

Yes, white, native or coloured, and, in addition, another condition should be a reasonable price for the consumer. If there is any gap between what the farmer can produce at — given the provision of decent conditions for his employees—and what the consumer can purchase at—that gap should be filled by the State from the proceeds of direct taxation levied on the richer sections of the community, and the position should not be met by dumping goods overseas, and by levies and so forth.

Hear, hear.

I am glad to have the support of the New Order.

You are preaching national socialism.

If that is national socialism, then I am a national socialist. But these seem to me to be fair and equitable conditions to be attached to a system of guaranteed prices, and if the hon. member for Weenen believes in guaranteed prices let him agree to attach these conditions. But I may say one is not encouraged by the results of the attempts that in the past have been made to give minimum prices to the farmers in this country because those attempts have led to the exploitation of the consumer, particularly of the poorer section, and they have led to one first-class racket after another by the middleman organised in monopolies. I want to ask the Minister something about the maize price as fixed by his department. When we complained last year of the high consumer’s price of maize the Minister gave us the assurance that he was giving the Maize Control Board power to impose maximum prices for maize, and he said the object was to put on a maximum consumer’s price of 10s. 6d. per bag, plus distribution charges. I understand the position is that so far from the F.O.R. ex elevator price being 10s. 6d., it is nearer 14s.—13s. 9d. for small quantities, and 12s. 6d. for larger quantities. Now, this position of maximum consumers’ prices has been puzzling me for a considerable time now, because the year before last half a million pounds was paid in direct subsidy to the Maize Control Board to stabilise the consumer’s price in the neighbourhood of 10s. 6d. But it has never been anything like that, and again last year the Minister said the object was to stabilise the consumer’s price at 10s. 6d., and it is still far above that. As a matter of fact, in the more distant parts of the country, where the transport charges are high, it goes up to 18s. or 19s., which the consumer has to pay. So much for the price. But, of course, there is a much more serious element in the situation. I believe the department admits that owing to various factors, including the threat of a short crop during the next season, the dealers have been cornering the supplies, and an artificial shortage has been produced, despite the fact that there are ample stocks in the country. I am aware that a proclamation has been issued to deal with this position, and I hope that that proclamation will be more effective than the steps taken in the past in order to control the price of maize in the consumers’ interest. I understand the Maize Control Board is now equipped with powers to deal with the situation, and I have read the Press statement which the Government has issued relating to the whole matter. But I must admit that there is something in the tone of that Press statement which still leaves me with a feeling of apprehension. This statement was issued to the Press last month. After referring to the threat of short supplies the statement says this—

So it is considered natural for the monopolists to corner supplies at a time not only of threatened crop failure, but in a time of war, and the statement ends on what I can only characterise as an apologetic note for causing a certain amount of inconvenience to a number of individual holders of stocks. I feel that people who monopolise and gamble in the necessaries of life should be treated in a very different manner from that in which they are treated in this country today. I think very strict laws should be passed against these people—in fact, they should not be allowed to exist. The State should take full responsibility for the distribution of such necessaries of life, and it should be done on a non-profit making basis. It should be made a criminal offence for people to profiteer and to gamble in the necessaries of life, and the sooner we get back to that condition of affairs, which existed in the Middle Ages, the better. We are supposed to have advanced from the Middle Ages, and yet during the Middle Ages it was a criminal offence to profiteer in bread and other necessaries of life. [Time limit.]

During the last few weeks we have probably appreciated the value of a strong opposition in Parliament more than we have ever done in the past. Nothing can have struck the Minister more than the manner in which the re-United Nationalist Party has during the last few months manoeuvred him into positions which he has not been able to extricate himself from. He has been pushed into a corner in connection with the wheat problem …

You are flattering yourself and your party.

We are entitled to flatter ourselves. We say that the re-United Nationalist Party has during the last few months forced the Minister into a position which he has not been able to get out of. We have called the wheat farmers of the country to testify and they have approached the Minister with representations and deputations, and hon. members on this side of the House have stood up, and the papers have day after day kept on hammering at the case and have called on the wheat farmers to produce evidence, and we have made things so difficult for the Government that they have now suddenly done a most unusual thing. Has one ever heard of a Government which has gone so far as to announce to the wheat farmers at the beginning of a year what it is going to give them at the end of the year? The Minister was driven into that position; he could not do anything else. The wheat farmers had every right to be bitterly dissatisfied with the price they got for their past crop, and they made things so difficult for the Government that the Government could not do anything else but tell the wheat farmers eight months or even longer before the time: “You were right in your attitude towards us, but now we tell you in advance, long in advance, that at the end of the year we are going to give you 30s. 6d. The Wheat Co-operative Societies said “Thank you”, but we are glad that the Minister has stated that the price is going to be at least 30s. 6d.

That is also wrong; what they said was that they assumed that that was not the final price.

I have not got their words in front of me. Does the Minister regard it as final?

No.

I am glad to hear the Minister say that.

The wheat farmers are taking up a better attitude than you are doing.

The Minister is quite wrong. I do not think the Co-operative Societies will be so unwise. They take up the attitude that it will be at least 30s. 6d. and I am glad to hear from the Minister that be thinks in any case that that will be the minimum price and that we are not tied to it. Now I want to ask the Minister on what scientific grounds that price has been fixed? The Minister has told us time and again that the price of 26s. 9d. was fixed on a scientific basis. He told us that the Commission which had investigated the matter had found that the production costs of wheat had gone up by about 4s. 3d. since the outbreak of war, and that the price of 26s. 9d. for wheat had consequently been fixed on a scientific basis. In addition to that, the Commission also said that the costs of production of wheat in the Western Province were about 19s. 10d. per bag. The Minister told us that it was a scientifically calculated price, but what does the fixed price of 30s. 6d. rest on? How can the Minister tell the extent to which the cost of production will rise by the end of the year, if the war continues? Where are the farmers going to get their fertiliser? Where are they going to get it this year and where are they going to get it next year, and what is the increase in price going to be? The price of Government guano has already gone up from £5 to £7 10s. 0d., and if things go on like this and shipping is reduced in the way it is being reduced now, the Minister will realise that at the end of the year the requirements for wheat cultivated will be very much more expensive than they are today. Ploughs will be more expensive, fertiliser will be more difficult to obtain, and will be more expensive, and bags will be more expensive. But the Minister comes here now and fixes an arbitrary price. What does he base it on? The farmers do not want inflation prices as they had in the last war. It had fatal results, but the wheat farmers are entitled to fair treatment. I assume, however, that this price of 30s. 6d. does not constitute the Minister’s final word in the matter, and that we shall be able to take up the matter with him again during the year.

Ths price of 30s. 6d. should have been fixed last year.

Yes, that was the recommendation, and that is the price which should have been laid down. But where we farmers are concerned the Government is always a couple of years behind the times. This is the only bit of sugar for the bird, and I hope that that is the way the Minister has intended it. This is the very lowest minimum and we may hope to get more.

It is also an admission of the fact that the Minister was in the wrong.

If the wheat farmers are able to make representations as the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) has said, and if they can show that the price is not a fair one, then I hope the Minister will take the whole matter into review. There is a second point which I want reviewed. We have reached this position in South Africa, that this year 1s. is being taken off the wheat farmers, it is being put away, and then it will be paid back to the wheat farmers next year. We should put an end to this sort of game. This year a levy of 1s. is imposed and next year it is paid back, and then the impression is created that the Government is giving the wheat farmers that 1s. The wheat farmers are entitled to ask that that sort of thing should stop now. The Government may be able to deceive the farmers for a little while, but they have learnt things in the meantime and they understand what the position is today. This system of levies which might be a weapon in the hands of the farmers is now being used against the interests of those people. The control system for the wheat industry was introduced with the object of assuring the farmers of a profitable price, but what is the result of it today? This control has resulted in their not getting a profitable price—in fact it has resulted in the natural increasing price being kept down instead of the control assisting the wheat farmers. We contend that the wheat farmers today are getting a very much lower price than they would have got in the open market without control. For other products and articles in South Africa there is an open market and there the producers get what the article is worth under existing conditions. But when an opportunity offers itself for the wheat farmers to get decent prices in accordance with the increase in the cost of production they are deprived of their opportunities. The wheat farmer is always in the unfortunate position that he gets the worst of the argument. He gets a lower price than he would have got on the open market—a price lower than the import price of wheat. The fact of the matter is that the wheat farmer is being controlled to death. That is what the Government is doing, and that is what we object to. The Minister is following a policy in regard to the wheat farmers which is not to the credit of the Government.

During the last session I spoke on soil erosion and other kindred matters. Since then I have noticed that the President of the South African Agricultural Union took up the matter at the Conference held at Bloemfontein at the latter part of the year, and he made some very strong remarks with reference to the denudation of the soil and erosion as well. Attention has been drawn to the need for increased food production. To those of us who follow in the Press the course of events in other countries, it is marvellous what increased production has taken place in the older countries. If such marvellous increased production can take place in England and other countries, surely in a young country like South Africa we also can look forward to increased production. In connection with that, the President of the South African Union has made some very terse remarks. He said—

I think today, and even in normal times, we should look upon it as a public duty to produce the maximum from the soil. The Minister and all who are interested in farming will agree with the remarks of the British Minister. The point I want to come to is that I have been asked by the Border Farmers’ League to mention a matter in which they are very much interested. The league is very much concerned about farms that have native lessees. For the information of the Minister I may say that the league consists of farmers drawn from the districts of Queenstown, Cathcart, Stutterheim, Peddie, East London and Komgha, and they are very much concerned with native lessees on farms. Some time ago a committee was appointed by this league to go into the question and submit a report. I have just received that report, which is rather a comprehensive one. It contains the following three resolutions—

That is what we want to save, the soil, and, while I am on that point, I want to refer to the President of the South African Agricultural Union again. He said—

He paid particular attention to that, and this committee, in its report, have drawn attention to the same thing. It is a very important report, and deals very fully with one or two matters which do not come within the purview of this vote, but can be brought up under another vote, namely, Native Affairs. The report says—

This is a very serious condition of affairs, and, speaking for this very influential body on the border, I hope the Minister will take cognisance of the remarks I have made to-night on their behalf.

When we last discussed the general Estimates the Minister was ill, but he had a substitute in the Minister of Finance. On that occasion I gave a summary of the mealie position, and I was promised that my remarks would be conveyed to the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to know from the Minister whether my remarks have been conveyed to him because, if they have not, I shall have to go over the same ground again.

It is not necessary; they have been conveyed to me.

I feel it is unfair that the control of agricultural prices has been handed over, and that it is not in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is looked upon as the father of the agriculturists. Now, I want to know what changes he is going to make in his predecessor’s policy? I have a few questions which I want to put to him. His predecessor laid down the principle of maximum prices, which means, among other things, giving protection to the consumer without giving any protection at all to our farmers. A maximum price has been fixed, but as against that no minimum price has been fixed. He is the father of our farmers in his capacity of Minister of Agriculture, and I want to suggest that it should be his first duty to see to it that minimum prices are fixed for the protection of the farmers. Let me say that, when I was a member of the Mealie Board I accepted the principle that it was the Board’s first duty to see to it that a minimum price was fixed wherever there was a maximum price. If there is a minimum price, one does not mind a maximum price being fixed at the same time. I want the Minister to tell us what his policy is going to be. I want to know whether the Minister as Food Controller is going to lay down a minimum price for the farmer’s products? Then I also want to know, if he is going to do so, on what basis it is going to be done? For instance, is he going to adopt the basis … which was in force under the previous Government, under the policy in force in 1927, 1928, and 1929? If he is net going to take that as his basis, I want to ask him whether, in fixing his prices he is going to take into account the increased costs of of production, and whether he is going to add those increased costs of production in fixing his prices? I should also like to know from the Minister what, if the minimum or the maximum prices are fixed, the difference is going to be generally between the minimum and the maximum price. I should like him to give us this information. Let me say this: that our farmers, generally speaking, are feeling very uneasy about this Controller who has been appointed. We feel that we as agriculturists have not really got the Government’s sympathy in the way we should have it, and we are feeling uneasy about the fixing of the price of our meat. We are uneasy about the fixing of the price of potatoes. I have already explained what the results of that policy have been. On page 81 of the Estimates I notice a reduction of £3,260 as compared with last year’s amount for combating soil erosion and the improvement of pasturage. I want to know from the Minister why he has made this reduction for the combating of soil erosion and the improvement of pasturage? I think if any money has ever been usefully spent it is the money that has been spent on the improvement of our soil, but instead of spending money for that purpose the Government is now reducing this item by £3,000. Now let me say a word about the prices of mealies. Last year on the General Budget I expressed my opinion and said what I considered should be the minimum price of mealies. But let me say this, since I last expressed my views about the minimum prices there has been a further revolution in the whole position of the production of mealies. When I spoke here last I said that I had just returned from a farm in the Transvaal and that the commando worm has made its appearance there. Hon. members may not know it, but those commando worms also have the V sign on their heads—only the V is upside down. The commando worm has caused tremendous ravages on the cattle farms—I calculate the damage they have caused at 30 per cent. If, for instance, 1,500 bags of mealies could have been expected one can now reckon on a reduction of 15 per cent. as a result of the damage caused by the commando worm. I also feel very much concerned about the markets which we have created in this country for our mealie farmers. I personally have also had a shortage in the production of my mealies. I have tried to buy a few hundred bags. Now I want to know from the Minister what he is going to do, what his policy is going to be? Must I go and sell my pigs? I can get green mealies and feed my pigs on mealies, but what is the man to do who has no mealies? I want to ask the Minister what steps he is going to take to protect those farmers? A policy will have to be decided on how these farmers are to be assisted. Now I have a serious complaint which I must ventilate. Quite possibly the Minister is not responsible, but I want to ask him whether he is aware of the fact that those controlling bodies, either the Wheat Board or the Mealie Board, have done illegal things. Under the regulations they have not got the right to make any supplementary payments for an official who is not in their service. I asked how many of their officials had joined the army. I find that people in the employ of the Mealie and Wheat Boards have joined the army and that supplementary payments are made by these Boards to these people. Where do the Boards get the right to pay these people? They have not been given that right under the scheme. If I don’t get a satisfactory answer I shall be compelled to tell the wheat and dairy farmers to sue those Boards and the representatives of the Boards may then be compelled to pay these people out of their own pockets. I want the Minister to tell me under what clause they have the right to pay these people and who are not in their service and who have joined the army, any supplementary amounts. Our wheat and mealie and dairy farmers are not in favour of the war policy. I find it very difficult when I am walking along the streets and a pretty girl is collecting money to pass her by without giving her a penny. Why must our Boards make contributions to the war? Who has given them the right to do so? If they are allowed to do it, then we should try to delete the clause giving them the right to do so from the scheme. It is a question of principle and the Boards are doing something illegal. If the members of the Board are pro-war, let them go and fight, but they are doing exactly the same as the Government supporters are doing. They stir up others to go and fight but they themselves stay at home and we have to pay for it. As I have already said, we are feeling uneasy about the fixing of prices. I heard the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) say that the price of bacon has now been fixed. If that is so, and the price of bacon has been fixed, I want to know which Board has fixed it, and I want to know who advised the fixing of that price? Who said at what price it should be fixed? There is no Control Board to deal with pork. Has the Meat Board made the recommendation, or which Board has done so?

I am sorry the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) is not here at the moment. He discussed the wool question earlier on, and used an argument which is completely worn out. He asked what would have become of the wool farmers if we had not had this contract with Great Britain. That argument holds no water, and I should like to put some other ideas into the hon. member’s mind. Let me put this supposition to him: Assuming Australia is occupied by Japan, which may quite possibly happen. Can the hon. member imagine what South Africa’s position would have been in that eventuality, if it had not been for this wool contract? But for the wool contract South Africa would have been a big supplier of wool to the British Empire and to America. In fact, it would have been the biggest wool supplier of all to those countries. Can hon. members imagine what South Africa’s position would have been? The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) said that the farmers do not want a high price at a time like the present—I don’t agree with him. The gold industry is experiencing a boom such as it has never experienced before, yet so far as the farmers are concerned, the Government, or the Minister of Agriculture, as Food Controller, is engaged today on fixing all prices for farmers’ products, in spite of the fact that most of our land has a burden of debt on it which was incurred in abnormal times. We are passing through a period now when the farmers should have been able to pay off most of their debts. But I want to come back to the second point I was trying to deal with when the Chairman drew my attention to the fact that my time was up. I am referring to the point on which we took the Minister to task last year, namely, that the clean yield of our wool is being under-estimated. The Minister then promised us that he would have an enquiry made. Now, what enquiry did he actually make? According to the Minister’s answer, he has come to the conclusion that the only way to decide on the true yield of any clip is to wash all the bales or the complete clip. In other words, the Minister has no proper test to decide our clean yield. But what has the Minister been doing in the meantime? Has he decided that a sample of the fleece must be sent in to test the position to a certain extent? If there is one thing to cause suspicion against the farmer it is these two steps taken by the Minister. We took him to task for not having fixed an average price as he had originally told us he would do. We then said that our wool which had been sold to the British Government on a type basis was being under-valued according to the tests which had been made, and that certain tests had proved this to be a fact. Now, the Minister comes here and prevents those tests from being taken. We want to know from the Minister what actual sales took place last year. We want to know what the actual yield was; and what does the Minister reply? The Minister’s reply is very simple. Wool has been bought by Great Britain, and it is now owned by Great Britain; it is Great Britain’s wool; we have no say. Is that the kind of answer one expects from one’s Minister of Agriculture? He prevents any further tests being taken; he refuses to announce the full clip to the country, and the only answer he gives is that the wool now belongs to Great Britain. I want to ask the Minister whether the seller of the wool is not entitled to know if he is being fairly treated or not? I notice that the Minister does not refer to this in any of his returns. He does not state what the yield of our clip hast been. He does not show the quantity or the total amount of money which is being brought in. Why has Great Britain got that right? Surely it is our wool. It is not Great Britain’s wool. We have sold the wool, and the wool farmer has the first right to know what the yield has been. If ever there has been a thing which will create suspicion in the country and make people feel that everything is not right, it is this thing. The Minister sells the wool, not at an average price, as Australia is doing, but he sells on the basis of clean yield. He refuses to allow us to test the clean yield, and he refuses to tell us what the total yield of our wool is. Is not that enough to make every wool farmer suspicious? Why cannot the Minister tell us these things? The whole of the wool transaction is today, as a result of the Minister’s answer, subject to the greatest suspicion, and it is the Minister’s duty to make these facts known to the country and to see to it that we at least get the price which he originally promised the wool farmer of South Africa, and that we do not get any less than Australia. The Minister should not imagine that the wool farmers cannot get hold of the figures, and that the wool farmers will not find out what the total yield of the wool has been. And, according to those figures the wool farmers are absolutely convinced, as the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) told the Minister last year, that our wool was sold last year at a deficit of £1,000,000. It is the Minister’s duty to satisfy the country and the wool farmers that that is not the case, and it is his duty to produce the evidence so that that suspicion may be removed. The only means which the Minister has had from the start is the basis on which Australia sells, and unfortunately I cannot pay a tribute to him and say that he has been a good business man in that respect, and that he has always adhered to these points. Even in his contract he has now gone to the extent of giving an undertaking that we shall only insist on better prices if Australia asks for better prices. But Australia has secured a guaranteed price, and our contract does not say whether we are going to be paid out in English or in South African currency. The Minister has sold our wool under these conditions, and now we, first of all, have to wait until Australia insists on improvement before we can do so. Our production costs are going up day by day, and greater demands are made on the farmers, yet these are the steps which the Minister has taken to assist the farmers.

I think the Minister need not worry about the criticism from the other side about the wool contract.

Do you know that contract?

Ninety per cent. of the wool farmers are absolutely satisfied with the wool agreement, they have never been better off than they are today.

You don’t know anything about it.

It is perfectly true that during the last war they did get abnormal prices, but after the war was over the wool farmer was poorer than at the beginning. Today a wool farmer can farm with merino sheep on business lines and he knows exactly what he is going to receive during the war, and a year after, and the majority of the farmers prefer the present contract to …

Have you read the contract?

Yes, I have read the contract. I have lists of all the various types, and I do not suppose hon. members opposite have ever seen them, except the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) who yesterday made an attack on the blanket industry. I hope the hon. member was not revealing certain information which he had received confidentially on the Wool Council.

You cannot say that.

If that is the case, I am sorry he did not tell the whole story because there is a little story behind what the hon. member told the House. But I want to say this, and I say it most emphatically: I think it is despicable for hon. members who have confidential information to come here and use it in the deleterious manner in which it was done by the hon. member in this House. Now I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister either to subsidise us or to renew the old policy he had in regard to the building of silos. That would encourage farmers in the feeding of stock during dry periods, and regularise the production of essential products like butter and cheese and milk. At present we have these peak periods during the rains and then our stock go off milk and it costs a fortune to get them back to full production. We know that in the continental countries successful farming depends on silos. Practically every farmer in Europe has a silo on his farm, and no small farmer can make a success of farming unless he has a silo, and I feel if the Minister will encourage the building of silos through the granting of loans it will assist us. It will assist us in this period when we are faced with the probable shortage of food. I appreciate the Government telling us in advance what we shall be allowed to get for our wheat. It will undoubtedly help wheat farmers very considerably. If the Government could tell us in advance what our prices are going to be for other products as well it would undoubtedly be most beneficial and greatly help the farmers, but I know it cannot be done. It will be a very excellent thing if the Department could take control in many respects. In the past we have had distributors buying up products during glut periods and storing those products in cold storage, and then later on rushing up prices and selling their stored products at increased prices. Of course, that sort of thing wants to be prevented. We would appreciate it if the Minister could narrow down the margin between the amount which the producer gets and what the consumer pays. Let me give an instance of the position we find here in a town like Cape Town. The consumer has to pay 2s. 6d. and 2s. 9d. per lb. for best dressed poultry and an ordinary fowl dressed, costs him about 10s. It is out of all proportion, and things like that cause very definite hardships on the consumer, and even though we want to foster production the farmer does not want prices at that level at all. We would appreciate all the Government can do to foster the production of foodstuffs. Now, in regard to wheat I might just make this remark. Barley is one of the most prolific crops we can grow, and I believe barley bread is most delicious. I think we could augment our wheat supplies by growing more barley and perhaps the Minister could get his department to pay some attention to this aspect of the matter. In our native areas we could encourage our natives to grow more sweet potatoes. When I was in East Africa every native garden had its arrowroot—there was plenty of it grown there, and it is regarded as their famine food. In the native areas sweet potatoes would flourish and tremendous quantities of food could be produced. But I have not seen a single sweet potato planted in the native areas. I hope the Minister will encourage these people to produce these essential foodstuffs. The natives are very fond of sweet potatoes and commodities of that kind, and I know of one instance where a farmer made a very considerable amount of money out of sweet potatoes in one season. I think every possible endeavour should be made to increase our agricultural production and to grow foods which we have neglected in the past. I hope the Minister will not worry about the criticism of the Opposition in regard to the wool position. I speak as a wool farmer myself representing a very important wool area in this country. We are satisfied with the present scheme, and I can assure the hon. Minister that the majority of us prefer our present scheme even to the Australian one.

Well, well.

The farmers have received this year up to 20d. and over for their wool and they have averaged 15d. and 16d. for their clip right through. Of course the individual who grows short wool, the man who shears every six months, suffers, but he has his remedy. He knows he has an assured price and if he is short of cash he can borrow from the bank on the assurance which he has under this contract. If the farmer who produces short wool goes in for producing longer wool, then I am quite sure that our average would be right above the Australian average. I feel that our Department of Agriculture is to be congratulated on what it has done and that the Minister has made an agreement which will provide for the future, and I can say that the country is grateful to the Minister for the scheme, and we ask him to ignore the criticism of the Opposition. I can assure him that those half-dozen Opposition members who have criticised the wool agreement speak for a very small minority—perhaps only ten per cent. of the wool farmers.

I am sorry that the last speaker made a venomous and personal attack on the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) in view of the fact that he was not even here to reply to it.

He makes an attack here and then he himself runs away.

Did he run away from you? Are you a ghost? The position is that the hon. member for Cradock could not have thought that that hon. member was going to talk, because he speaks so seldom. His whole plea is that the Minister should not take notice of the Opposition, because he is such a good Minister and he entered into such a good contract—and that hon. member admits that he has not even read the contract. Does that show any sense? He said further that the Minister of Agriculture should see to it that the natives plant sweet potatoes. He comes here with a sweet potato story and makes a venomous attack on someone who has three times as much brain as he has. I would like to say this to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). He wants the farmers to pay higher wages to the natives. Those hon. members are always proclaiming here that the farmers should pay higher wages to the natives so that the natives can be in a position to make a living. There is no one who is more anxious than the farmer to give the people in his employ a proper wage. But the farmer simply cannot pay a higher wage to these people.

I said that it should be accompanied by a fixation of prices.

Yes, prices can be fixed, but that does not enable the farmer to pay a higher wage.

But the prices ought to be fixed so as to permit that.

It is no use the hon. member saying that. The Government wants to keep the costs of living as low as possible. The Government does not want inflation. We continually hear from the Government side that there should not be inflation in the country. On the other hand, we find that the greatest conceivable inflation is to be found in the gold mines today, but they are not talking about that. They want to see to it, however, that there will be no inflation in the rest of the country, with the result that the rest of the country, and particularly the farmers, whose prices must be kept low, have to carry the mines on their shoulders. The rest of the country may not have inflation, and in that way the mines are enabled to derive greater benefit from their inflation. I do not fear inflation. I do not fear it in the least, so that the farmer can get a reasonable price for his products. I want to point out to the Minister that the price of the farmer’s products has not risen very much, and in many cases the farmer is receiving less for his products than he received previously. Take our dried fruit, our grapes, our wine, potatoes, and such things, and see what prices the farmers get, and what the production costs are. That brings me to the position of the wheat farmer. Quite a good deal of wheat is raised in my constituency, and I feel that there is something radically wrong. In that area of the constituency in which I live, the production of wheat is not as great as in other parts, but I feel that the time has arrived for something to be done for these people in order to enable them to make a proper living. I said here the other day that people were tired of Control Boards. They want the farmer to be ruined, and he must have no control over his products. We say that if we give the farmer control over his products, if we give him a Control Board, then we must give him actual control. It is no use appointing Control Boards, and calling them Control Boards, when actually they are not Control Boards. The Control Boards are nothing but Advisory Boards. The nett result of the matter is that the Control Boards make a recommendation, and when it does not suit the Government they simply do not fix the price which is suggested. The Minister told us here that there is a Marketing Board, and that he must export what those people say.

I have never said that.

What he said was that if he did not do it, then he must give the reason for not doing it.

I did not say that either.

You said that to me. Look, the position is this. I can well understand what the Minister’s position is. Assuming a Control Board decides on a price which it regards as reasonable. Assuming it wants to increase the price, then under the existing system it has to advise the Minister through the Marketing Board, and if the price is then increased the Minister bears the responsibility. I can well understand that if they agreed to it, they would be prepared to accept it, but otherwise the advice would not be taken. But that goes to show that those Control Boards are not actually Control Boards, and we must not blindfold these people and try to make them believe that these Boards are Control Boards, whilst they are not Control Boards. If the Control Board, whatever its other powers, tries to make an arrangement with regard to prices, then the Minister has the last say. Then I come to the price of wheat as previously fixed, which has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). This fixation of prices is an admission on the part of the Minister that the basis on which the price was fixed last year, was wrong. And now the Minister is fixing the price for the next crop.

It is no such admission.

That is what the Minister may say now, but we cannot think anything else. We are faced with the fact that the prices for the next season have been fixed, and that they are going to be higher than the price for the past season. It is a difficult question, however, to fix the price at this stage, because we do not know what the position is going to be at the end of the year. We do not know what the price of bags, of binder twine, and of labour will be. Nor does the Minister know it. His colleague made the arrangement in my constituency that labourers should receive 6s. per day for an 8-hour day. The result was that the grain farmers were compelled to pay their labourers 5s. per day, and to give them sleeping accommodation, and then still give them a party at the end of the week, in order to get these people. In my constituency the farmers are now beginning to import natives. They can only get those natives for six months, and they do not know whether the natives which they get are going to be worth anything. Some of them desert, and it costs the farmer £6 per native to get them from Queenstown. He has to pay the recruiting agent; he has to send money for food on the road, and in respect of the fare and altogether this costs him approximately £6 per native. If a native deserts, then he loses this. We have heard the native representatives saying here that the natives in those parts will have no food this year. There are some of them who can work with a spade; they can handle a plough and work with animals, and I should like to know from the Minister whether the department cannot make arrangements to send those natives to the areas where they are required and where the farmers are in great need of their labour today. Surely it is a wellknown fact that employees are absorbed where there is work. As long as twenty years ago we saw that the people of the Argentine got labourers from Italy. Shiploads of labourers went, and when the work was completed, they returned to Italy again. Cannot something in that direction be done in our own country? We have the position that there are areas where the labourers have no work as a result of the drought, and I wonder whether the department cannot introduce a scheme whereby those natives can be brought to the areas where there is work in plenty, without the farmers having this trouble and expense. At the moment the farmer has to pay commission to agents, and he has to give money in respect of food and fare, and then the native might even desert. But the people were compelled to take that risk in order to get natives. Many farmers have done that already. If it is possible, then the department ought to be in a position to get natives there, and to bring them here, so that the wheat farmers and other farmers can be assisted. [Time limit.]

Perhaps it is just as well that I should reply at this stage to the questions which have been put, and to some of the matters which have been raised. Some of my hon. friends are still busy with certain questions, and I shall give them an opportunity of finishing before touching upon those matters. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) raised the question of the next wheat crop, and he asked especially whether the Government was taking steps so as to enable the farmers to reap that crop, and whether the Government would assist if the season is perhaps unfavourable. He also asked whether the Government would help in providing production requirements. I just want to say this to the hon. member, that I as Minister of Agriculture, and as Food Controller, regard it as my duty to endeavour to help as much as possible in meeting the requirements of the farmer, so that he can produce as much as possible. He mentioned the question of implements, for example. I want to tell him that we specially agreed with my colleague, the Minister of Commerce and Industries, that there will be control of agricultural implements, so as to enable me, as Food Controller, to arrange matters in such a way that we could help the agriculturist with machinery and accessories and other agricultural requirements as much as possible. With regard to the question of artificial manure, the hon. member has apparently seen the statement which appeared today, that the subsidy scheme has been placed under the control of one of the divisions of my department, and that we hope to see to it that the subsidy in question will go into the pocket of the farmer, and not into the pocket of the trader, and that the artificial manure, too, will be of good quality.

Is there sufficient?

I wish there were more, but we got everything which we could get. Efforts are continually being made with a view to obtaining supplies. I shall return to that later. The hon. member for Caledon further asked what the position was in connection with bags. I can tell him that this matter has not been left only to the traders, but that the control boards have been requested, together with a guarantee, to buy bags. In connection with second hand bags, I asked the control board some time ago to make investigations, and I hope that further steps will be taken to save second hand bags for use, in addition to the steps which have been taken in connection with new bags. The farmer knows that it is one of the most difficult things to keep a bag on a farm. One can save them, but they nevertheless become lost. In any event, I have asked that a report in connection with the matter should be submitted to me, so that a scheme can be evolved in connection with second hand bags. With regard to fuel, the hon. member knows that this is a question of shipping space. But I want to tell him this, as Controller of Foodstuffs it will be my duty to see to it that I get hold of all the available trek animals, and that I shall possibly be able to get hold of additional trek animals for the farmers with a view to regular production. I realise that it might easily happen, even though we have the foodstuffs on the lands, that there may still be difficulties in getting it on the market. We are making investigations along those lines, so that we can be prepared.

When will the investigations be completed?

I do not know whether the hon. member will know it before the thing is actually in progress. It is not incumbent upon me to advise the public in advance of every step which is going to Le taken. There is such a thing as speculation in the country, and very often it is necessary first to do a thing and then to talk about it afterwards. The hon. member must not expect me to furnish dairy reports in regard to the progress of the work. I just want to tell him that we are hard at work. We realise that our time is somewhat short, and that we are dealing with a very big question. It is undoubtedly a great task with a very wide scope, but we realise that, and we are tackling it on that basis. We have made enquiries from the local factories too, with a view to making provision for the spare parts for machinery which we require. One of the members correctly stated here that it will be difficult to get new machinery from America. They are making war material now. But I think that it may be possible in the present circumstances to make some of the spare parts here, especially such things as plough shares and spare parts of ploughs, which are made here. There are such things as patent rights which have to be gone into. But I have the assurance from the company which has already made a start with this work, that if we tell them what we require, and if they can get the material, they will do their best to provide any shortage which there may be. The hon. member for Caledon also asked that the question of rock phosphate and other constituents of artificial manure should be gone into. We are continually engaged in doing that. The Minister of Mines told me that they hoped to be able to give us a fair supply. Hon. members know that discoveries are made. Very often one thinks that one has found the material which one wants, but upon analysis it appears that it is not so good.

That cannot be solved.

That is sometimes the difficulty. But there are other difficulties too, and sometimes the quantity is not sufficient either. The hon. member spoke of the manufacture of rope, and he wanted to know whether the material could be grown here. Well, there are certain parts of the low veld where, on a small scale, they are cultivating the plant of which rope is made.

Is it not plentiful in Central Africa?

If it is there, then we shall get it. We shall not allow anything to become lost. If we can get it in Africa, then we shall get it. The hon. member of Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) expressed his indignation at the destruction of bread at Durban. In the first place, I want to tell him that I have nothing to do with that. I have nothing to do with import duties. This is a report which we saw, and it is still a question whether that report was correct, and whether it was really edible bread which was thrown into the sea. I can only tell him that if cases of that nature come to my notice, and I can take steps to prevent the destruction of food, then I shall certainly do so. I feel just as strongly as the hon. member in regard to such matters, and I can give him the assurance that I shall not allow any food to be destroyed. The hon. member further spoke about the question of distribution. Well, I regard it as one of the most important duties of the Food Controller to endeavour to improve the distribution system. There are ways in which that can be done. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) spoke about the fixation of the price of meat. He says that people are grumbling about it. Well, I am not responsible, of course, for the grumbling. The war has been in progress for 2½ years, and strong pressure was brought to bear upon us to fix the price of meat. I just want to say this, that at the moment there is no intention to fix the price of meat. It is not that I do not think that the prices are not high. I do think so.

Not at the moment; the prices have fallen.

One week it is high, and the following week it is low. It is lower now than it was a few months ago. Hon. members know what steps we took when the price was very high. We lifted most of the restrictions in respect of slaughter stock from the adjoining territories. The result was that the price fell, not too low for the producers, but in any case we caused the price to fall somewhat thereby. I do not want to give any undertaking now that I shall not fix the price of meat. But I just want to say this. I am a meat farmer myself. I know what the conditions are. I know that as a result of the drought many farmers suffered heavy losses of cattle in our country, and the farmer should be given a chance to recover his losses to some extent through the enhanced prices. But there are very many difficulties in the fixation of prices. For one thing it would require an army of graders and it is not so easy to get hold of them. I do not know whether we will be able to get sufficient people. The manpower in the country, and also the womenpower—if we want to use women for it—is getting scarce. My reply to the hon. member for Waterberg is, therefore, that at the moment there is no plan to fix the price of meat. If it becomes necessary I shall not hesitate to do it. But I hope that it will not be necessary. We must protect the consumers and the producers. The consumer must not forget—I repeat that —that it is better to pay a little more for an article than not to be able to get the article at all later, as a result of fixingprices which are too low.

When will the boundaries again be closed to imports?

When it is necessary. I think that it is not yet necessary. The hon. member for Waterberg asked me whether I was aware of the imminent starvation, especially amongst natives, in the northern and western parts of the Transvaal. Yes, I am only too well aware of it, and I can only repeat what I said in the other place, namely, that it is my duty to do everything which I can to prevent it. He asked me whether I could say what the price of mealies would be. I can only ask hon. members not to try to force me now to give the price. For one thing, as the hon. member for Waterberg told us, there are many farmers who will apparently have to buy a good deal of mealies. He said— and I am inclined to agree—that a large number of farmers, insofar as food is concerned, will have to buy their requirements, and although we have an estimate in regard to the crop, we have not the least certainty as a result of the surprisingly strange weather we have had. I do not go so far as to agree with the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) that where normally a farmer would have reaped 100 bags, and he now only reaps 50, that he should receive in respect of the 50 bags what he would have got for the 100 bags. It does seem to me that the price of mealies will have to be higher, but we cannot at the moment say what it is going to be. We would first have to know more concerning the crop before we can do so, but we hope to fix it as soon as possible. The hon. member for Waterberg also asked me why a stop had been put to the permit system in respect of the transport of cattle. I must honestly say that I had some doubt when the request was made to us, but I thought that we ought to make an experiment. I must say that in my district I personally, as a cattle farmer, would be glad if I no longer had to contend with the trouble and bother in connection with permits. I admit that it may possibly help somewhat in order to counteract stock theft. But I want to remind hon. members that the reason why the permit system was introduced, was not with a view to counteracting stock theft, but to counteract cattle diseases, to counteract the spreading of diseases, especially East Coast fever, amongst cattle. I think that we should find another method or introduce a definite system of transport permits in order to counteract stock theft. I do not think that there is a great deal in the argument of the hon. member. Then he asked whether we could not do something in connection with cattle inspectors, and whether we could not grant them a pension. I cannot help feeling a certain measure of sympathy for these people. I realise that it is fairly hard on a man if he has worked for 20 or 25 years and he does not get a pension when he has to retire. But on the other hand, they are not permanent officials, and the same requirements and conditions do not exist which are imposed when ordinary officials are engaged in the services.

They are not allowed to do other work in addition.

It is true that we do not allow them to do other work, but the majority of them have their farms and farming interests. In any case I will promise to go into the matter. I do not think that it is possible to appoint them as permanent officials, so that they can get pensions. Our Public Service Act, will not allow that, but I shall see whether it is not perhaps possible to give them further assistance. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) asked whether we could not give better publicity to the marketing position and the price of meat. I think that that is a reasonable demand. I shall ask the people who deal with it whether they cannot publish the price per weight earlier. I think that it is a reasonable demand on the part of the cattle farmers that they should be kept informed, as far as possible, in regard to the ruling market prices. I want to say, in passing, that a sub-division of our work in connection with the control of food, will be a propaganda section, and it will be their duty, as far as possible, to keep the farmers informed with regard to prices, so as to promote production. He asked me whether we could not make the national mark a permanent one. That has been done. The majority of the officials have been appointed as permanent officials, and the national mark has come to stay. He asked further whether I would break up the ring which there is in Cape Town, for example. He can understand that I, as buyer, will regard it as my duty, and it will also be a pleasure to me to attempt to break any ring which exists. Inter alia, my department must buy for military purposes, and that means that we must get meat of as good a quality as possible, and at a reasonable price. I want to say to the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) in passing, that this is one of the ways in which we hope to put up the price of onions. I think that it would help to stabilise the price and to increase it. At the moment we are buying onions and potatoes for military purposes, and we shall help to stabilise the price.

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) has asked me about the subsidy on fertiliser. Strictly speaking, the idea was that we should only pay the subsidy on fertiliser bought and delivered after the 31st March, but I shall try to change this somewhat. There was a certain amount of difficulty in fixing the minimum amount on which the subsidy should be paid. After all, half a ton is only five bags, and I want hon. members to realise what a tremendous amount of administration this is going to take. Every account will have to be scrutinised. The idea is that the suppliers will receive the money only after they have satisfied my department that the price is reasonable. I suggest that where two farmers or more want two bags or two-and-a-half bags each they should try and help us by jointly getting half a ton. It would really be very difficult to pay the subsidy on a large number of single bags of fertiliser, the administration would be tremendous. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) has asked me about bacon. It is, of course, within my power to fix the price of baconers, but I can only tell him that within the last week the price for bacon has been increased appreciably; it has been increased enough to conform to the price of baconers. It has also been decided to put an accountant on to the books of the bacon factories to establish the proper relationship between bacon and baconers. Then he has asked me about the fresh milk scheme. I can answer the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) at the same time. In my view it would not be necessary to amend the Marketing Act to have a fresh milk scheme, we can do it without that. I have arranged with the chairman of the Dairy Board to contact the different fresh milk associations. There are two or three or perhaps more in the country, and I want him to interview them and explain the position to them and find out whether they still want a fresh milk scheme. He is correct in assuming that I, as Food Controller, would have the right to fix the price to the producer while the Price Controller could fix the price to the consumer, there would be no difficulty about that. I suggest to him that perhaps the chief object of the proposed milk scheme is to provide for surplus milk, and I do not see that there is any surplus, so the necessity for a milk scheme rather falls away. I am very glad to hear from the hon. member for Weenen that they can supply all the foodstuffs we want, and even a surplus. I am very glad to hear that. I wish we could say that about the next maize crop. Of course, I know he does not mean that they can supply maize for the current year, but I can only tell him this, let the farmers produce, and they will find that we will give them a square deal. That is all I can tell him. I want now to reply to the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon). As I have already told the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), I do not quite know why I should be asked about this bread, and not the Minister of Finance, because it is his officials who are concerned with this bread. At the same time, I want to admit that the wheat duty was imposed to protect the farmers. However, seeing that I am partly responsible, I can only tell the hon. member that the first I heard of this bread being dumped in the sea was from the newspapers, and I am surprised if people were so worried about throwing bread into the sea, that they did not send me a wire, and see whether I could not do something. If that had been done, we would have tried to get the bread, that is, if it was worth getting. I still want to find out about that, whether it was not stale bread. I agree with what the hon. member said about the margerine factory. I have not confirmed the action of the Board in refusing the licence. As a matter of fact, I am busy with people who say they can manufacture, they have shown me a sample, and I certainly think it should be there as a standby. At present I am protecting the dairy farmers by saying to these people: “Yes, but you can only export the margarine or use it as ships’ stores, and I would retain the right to take as much as I want.”

If you don’t protect the dairy farmers, you will have a lot of trouble.

The hon. member need not tell me that; I am very well aware of it. The licence was refused as a matter of routine by the Board in order to protect the dairy farmer. I have protected him as far as I can in the special circumstances. I also want to tell the hon. member that there is a margerine factory in the country today, which has a licence, although whether the article they make is as good as the article the new people promise me, I am not certain.

*I just want to tell the hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood) that it is the first time that the case of Van Tonder came to my personal notice, and he may be assured that I shall personally go into the position, and sympathetically. I know nothing about it, and I even doubt whether my department knows anything about it. But we shall certainly go into it.

The hon. member for East London North (Mr. Christopher) has given me an extract out of the report of the Border League. I am very much interested, and I agree with a great deal of what they say there, but he should have brought the matter up with my hon. friend the Minister of Native Affairs. That is his job, to administer the Native Lands Act, and if it is being administered properly there is no room for native tenants on the farms. In any case it is his special job. As far as soil erosion is concerned, I may tell him that we are busy on a very large project not so very far from the constituency of the hon. member. We are busy there with practical work and also with research in order to determine the basic requirements for combating soil erosion.

You have taken away the subsidy.

No, we have not. I don’t know whether I have told the House this officially, but we are re-introducing Scheme A on a somewhat modified basis as from the 1st April, 1942.

Why keep it secret?

I don’t want to keep the work of my Department secret; it is my policy to make it known amongst the farmers.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) asked me whether I had seen the report of his speech. My colleague faithfully reported to me what took place here, and I read the speech of the hon. member. He asks me why we are reducing the amount in connection with soil erosion works. When we come to the loan votes, he will notice that a considerable sum has been brought forward in respect of soil erosion. I am very glad to hear that he described me as the father of the farmers. I must say that some children on the other side are talking a little severely to their father. He asked me—and wants a reply— whether there will also be a minimum price for products. Yes, that is the intention as far as specific products are concerned. I am certain that he realises the difficulties which there are in fixing a price for mealies in advance. I hope that we shall be able to do that soon, but he must not press for that point too much at the moment, because we do not yet know what the crop is going to be. There are sufficient mealies to see us through this year, but we do not know what the next crop will be. The hon. member asked me how they could fatten their pigs. The hon. member will agree with me that if we have a shortage of mealies, we should in the first instance see that the people in the country have sufficient food, before we can use mealies in order to fatten pigs.