The Prime Minister has told us, and he is the responsible man in the country, that the agricultural industry is the country’s second line of defence at a time like the present, and also in the near future. We have to believe him and we have to realise that he at least is thoroughly conversant with the condition of affairs. He knows exactly what the country’s requirements are in regard to food and he tells us that agriculture, that is the production of food, is so important at a time like the present and in the near future that it is comparable to the country’s defence. The Minister of Agriculture has had some more work put on to him; he is the Food Controller and he has to exercise control over everything we are short of. Now I want to say a few words to him. He has made some terrible blunders in the past. He is one of those people who do not want to learn from anybody else. I don’t think much of Englishmen but I do believe in this saying of theirs: “We will die learning.” I hope the Minister, even if he won’t learn anything for us, will learn from the blunders he has made in the past, and that he will come to the conclusion that whatever the position we on this side of the House have given him good advice. We have given him good advice, and from time to time he has also had good advice from his own side of the House, but he has simply not taken that advice. He has taken no notice of it. He has put it all aside and simply ignored it. Now I want to say this to the Minister: we are not indulging in any personalities with the object of offending him. I have come here in all honesty to tell him what we feel and what we think should be done in order to avoid the blunders of the past being repeated. What has the Minister done in the past? When war broke out the Minister should have realised immediately that production work should be carried on on a big scale if we wanted to be in a position to feed our people. We do not only want food for our own people, but also for our Army. Napoleon told us that an army marches on its stomach. Has the Minister never thought of that? A year ago already I told the Minister, and the Wheat Board also pointed out to the Government, that there was going to be a wheat shortage. We said that although they were making us eat black bread they should try to do something to encourage the people to sow more wheat. The Minister did not listen. He brushed our advice aside with contempt. The Agricultural Association made representations to him from time to time through the control Boards, which pointed out to him that there might be shortages and that production must be encouraged, but the Minister simply turned to his economists and asked them for their advice, and he took no notice of public opinion. If the Minister can show me one single instance where he has taken notice of our advice I shall admit that there is something to be said for him, but no, he is an autocrat in his department. Now I want to tell the Minister this, that we are not going to put up with the blunders and mistakes of the past. As the Minister is now going to get control of everything there are a few things, among many other things which he should do, and those are the things I want to draw his attention to. If he wants the farmers to produce so that there is going to be food for the people then he should find a proper market for the farmers’ products. He should get the speculator and the parasite, the people in between the farmer and the consumer, under his control, and he should keep that type of person in check. The Minister of Labour is on the Government Benches. His people are in Johannesburg — how much are they made to pay for anything they buy there? In spite of the increased wages and salaries they are receiving today they have not even got enough money to buy proper food. They have to pay too much, but what does the farmer get out of it all? The farmer gets practically nothing, it is the middleman and the parasite who get away with everything. Now the Minister has protected those middlemen and those parasites for two and a half years. I am surprised at the fact that while the Minister of Labour is in the Cabinet with him he has not moved a hand to try and wake up the Minister of Agriculture. I fail to understand how he can allow these things to go on. I know that he is a fair minded person, but if he does not wake up with a jolt those masses of people in Johannesburg and in other places, too, are going to call him to account, just as the farmers are going to call the Minister of Agriculture to account. I hope I have made him wake up now, and I hope he will keep awake and take some notice of what we are telling him from these Benches. First of all, he must get a market for our products. If he does so, we shall produce twice as much as we are doing today. I noticed a letter in the papers in which the writer asks: Why should we produce? How can we keep on producing if we have to do so at a loss?” Somebody in this House said that the farmer should meet his commitments. In reply to that remark, I want to say that we are paying out of our poverty and not out of luxury, and I want to tell hon. members over there that if we get proper prices for our products we shall be able to feed an additional 2,000,000 people in this country. We do not want to get just any price, but we want a fair and reasonable price for our products, to enable us to live like white men, to enable us to feed our children, and to educate our children in the traditions of the white race here in South Africa. We cannot live like coloured people, or like the natives of the Transkei. Yet, with the prices which we are getting today for our products under the administration of the Minister of Agriculture we are sometimes forced to live worse than natives. I am one of those who does not begrudge the native a good wage, just the same as other workers, but we cannot possibly come out on the prices we are getting today. The first essential is that the farmer shall be paid a decent price for his products. The second point is that the Government must watch the increase in the costs of production. That is where the Minister should definitely put down his foot, so that we are not forced to pay unduly high prices for our ploughs, our plough shears, our fertilisers, our implements, and other farming requisites which we cannot do without if we want to keep our farming going. There are things, too, which are unobtainable; other things again are scarce, and we are being exploited. There are large firms which had stocks worth thousands of pounds when war broke out. They kept those implements out of the hands of the farmer, and afterwards sold them at profits of 300 to 400 per cent., but in the meantime the Minister sat still and slept with his economists. They fail to see these things. And now the Minister has stepped in, and he will have to admit that he was forced by the Prime Minister to raise the price of wheat. He has done so without consulting the Wheat Board. He has ignored them as he usually does, and as we hear he is going to continue ignoring them.

Where do you get that information from?

Well, I know you.

You are quite wrong.

Well, then I am wrong for once; I have always been right in the past.

You don’t mean it seriously.

I mean it very seriously. I am talking to the Minister of Agriculture, and I want to press a few other points home, so that I may wake him up completely. The next point I wish to bring to his notice is this, that our distribution should be properly arranged. At the moment we find there is ample food in one place, and a scarcity somewhere else. Take a commodity like meat. At certain places there is plenty of meat, and at other places there is a scarcity of meat. True, we have a Meat Control Board, but that board is bound to take instructions from higher up. The Minister talks in a contemptuous way about the Opposition, but I would advise him to go and have a look across our borders and see what the Portuguese are doing. He will find there that they control such things. They control purchases and sales, and the producer gets a reasonable profit, and the man who looks after the distribution gets a reasonable profit, and that is what we want here, too. Let us see to it, in the first place, that the producer gets a reasonable price. That is the first essential. Let him make a reasonable profit, and see to it then that the middleman is paid properly for his services in regard to distribution, and then the consumer should not be made to pay an unreasonable price. Those are the three things, and I say this to the Minister: Remember it and write it down. Tell your economists about it; they must know it. Remember these three things, and then the fourth will come on its own. If you remember these three things you will not repeat the blunders you made in the past. I feel this matter very seriously, so seriously that I say very definitely that the time has come when we should not simply talk, but act. We have seen what that great General said in Australia the other day. He said he hoped that they would talk less and do more. We also hope that the Minister will act, and that he will not continually have to be stirred up with all his boards, and all he has under his control. We want to express the hope that these essential things will be impressed on his mind, and that he will realise that the time has arrived for action to be taken. The people who sow wheat have been hindered by wild oats and other things on their lands, simply because they have been compelled to put in other types of grain. [Time limit.]

I have listened attentively to the last speaker. He first of all accused the Minister of being one of the biggest autocrats in the country, and then he went on and said that he took no notice of the Wheat Board and of the other Boards, and then the self same member went on and said that the Minister should listen to what the people asked for, and that be would not listen. On the other hand he accused him of being an autocrat, but in the same breath he told him that he should pass the Wheat Board and do things on his own. I have written down what the hon. member said. But it really seems to me that the hon. member, when he gets on his feet to speak, does not know what he is saying. He asks the Minister on the one hand to continue ignoring the Wheat Board, and on the other hand he accuses him of being an autocrat.

That’s a lie, you are a liar.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I did not say it.

I heard what the hon. member said when he interrupted and he must withdraw what he said.

I said that that was the way the Minister was acting.

The hon. member said that the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. Van der Merwe) was a liar, and be must withdraw these words.

I am sorry that my hon. friend has no conception of the truth.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Very well, I withdraw it, but I did not say that.

The hon. member says that the Minister must take action and he gives us to understand that he wants the Minister to act on his own and that he must not take any notice of other people and of other bodies. The people who approach him should not be taken any notice of. I take up a different attitude, and I want to support the Minister’s policy. The Minister has always been willing so far to meet any deputation of farmers, or any deputation from a Farmers’ Organisation, and that is the right attitude to adopt. I personally am afraid that with this modern kind of legislation which we are now getting we are leaning over a bit to the other side, and that we are introducing autocracy into the Department of Agriculture. That is a danger which we have to guard against, and I hope we shall never reach the stage when we shall not give the proper recognition to our established organisations—I hope we shall never reach the stage when we shall not give them the recognition which they are enjoying today. The hon. member talks here about our having to cut out the parasite; the middleman has to be cut out, but immediately after that he said again that we should determine what profits the middleman should be allowed to make.

Are you deaf, or don’t you hear well.

I agree with the hon. member that we must have these middlemen, and that the farmers who are engaged in producing cannot also look after the distribution, because if the farmer wants to do both things all his work may turn out to be a failure, Production is one thing and distribution is another thing, and it is quite impossible to imagine that the farmer can look after both.

What about Australia?

That is why I agree when the hon. member says we need these middlemen. I need only refer the hon. member to what has been happening in Johannesburg lately.

But surely the farmer is not so stupid.

I must ask the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) to stop interrupting.

We know that the Deciduous Fruit Board wants to do its own distribution of fruit in Johannesburg. For years we have had the ordinary channels for the distribution of fruit, but the Deciduous Fruit Board wants to do away with those ordinary channels and wants to supply the public direct. That is wrong. We can improve those channels but we cannot get on without them. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) apparently also takes up that attitude, because later on in his speech he said that those people should be allowed to make a reasonable profit. We do not begrudge them a reasonable profit, but we don’t want them to speculate with the farmers’ products.

That is what he said.

I made a note of what the hon. member said. He further said in regard to the meat trade that the Meat Board was a subordinate body. He again created the impression that the Minister should override the Meat Control Board. Well, I hope the Minister will not follow that policy of not recognising the farmers and the representatives of the farmers, but I hope he will always give the farmers the opportunity of making their representations to him, and I hope he will always listen to what the farmers say to him. We are continually being told here that the farmer is such a poor business man, but if we take the percentage of farmers who are good business men we will find that we have just as large a percentage of good business men among the farmers as among the people in the towns, and I think hon. members will agree with me on that point. We should not come here all day long telling the farmers that the farmers are not good business men.

But who says so?

That is a misrepresentation of the position. Now, I want to give my support to the Minister, and I want to say that I am in agreement with the control he is now taking. Hon. members have spoken about the fixing of prices. When we speak about fixing prices there is no need to talk about a minimum price. Fixing prices includes everything. We cannot talk about fixing prices if we only fix them for one section. The hon. the Minister has already answered the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) on that point. Now, I want to deal with another question. Hon. members opposite are continually putting up pleas before the House, and telling the House that the farmers are in such a precarious position, and that farming is doing so badly. It makes me feel sore when I hear hon. members saying this continually, and when I hear them tell the world that every farmer in the country is bankrupt. The farming industry is being belittled as an industry in the eyes of the public as a whole, simply because the Opposition is continually telling the world that farming is in a precarious position, and that it is the worst industry for anyone to go into. That sort of thing is wrong, and those hon. members who do these things are not rendering farming any service at all. There are difficulties; we all know that, but to come here and make it appear that farming is the poorest industry in the country seems to me to be a stupid and wrong policy. I hope the Opposition will abandon that attitude, and will not continue it. I in my turn want to say that the farmers whom I am in touch with in the Transvaal and elsewhere are very pleased with the Minister of Agriculture. We are satisfied with him; we are proud of what he is doing, and we are prepared to leave the cause of agriculture in his hands with the greatest confidence in the world.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe), speaking about the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom), said that when the hon. member got on his feet he did not know what he was talking about, but we find that if the hon. member for Potchefstroom could stand on four legs he would still stand up for the Minister of Agriculture, and not for the farmers, whom he should represent. He made an interruption in regard to the fixing of prices, and he said that he was in favour of the fixing of maximum prices, but not in favour of the fixing of minimum prices.

I did not say that. If I created that impression I am sorry.

The impression which the hon. member gave was that he was in favour of the fixing of maximum prices, but not in favour of the fixing of minimum prices. I want to point out that the farmer always gets the worst of it, as soon as there is a shortage of foods. As soon as there is a shortage of food and the farmer has the chance of getting a decent price, a maximum price is fixed, but when there is ample food, no minimum price is fixed. I therefore want to put this question to the Minister: As he has now been appointed Food Controller, and as he himself is a farmer, he should take into account the fact that when prices are fixed it is essential that not only maximum, but also minimum prices should be fixed. There is another matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and it is this—I want him to tell us what his department’s policy is in regard to beans? We had very late rains last season, with the result that we could not plant mealies on our mealie lands, and the farmers were compelled to put many morgen under beans. There will be a big crop. We know that there are sixty-nine thousand bags of beans in the country which the Government looted from a French ship, with the result that the supply of beans in the country is probably going to be bigger than the demand. A very difficult position is likely to arise, and I hope the Minister will be very careful in regard to the importation of beans. I recollect that I approached the Department of Agriculture with a request from the Co-operative Society at Koster. The Minister was kind enough to send one of his officials to Koster, where he had an interview with the directors and the secretary of the Co-operative Society, and there he made a promise that if it could be proved that we could produce sufficient beans for the requirements of the country the Minister would see to it that no further beans would be imported. We want to stick to that promise. I want to tell the Minister that we have a very good chance of being able to prove that we are going to produce sufficient beans, because of such a large acreage of land having been put under beans. We think that we shall have enough, so that it will be unnecessary to import. I want the Minister to go into this question, and I want him to tell me what the attitude of the department is going to be? I want to inform him that I am getting letters from every part of my constituency, from people who want to know what the position is going to be. They have had that promise made to them, and, as they have tried to sow as many beans as possible, they believe that they are going to produce sufficient to meet the needs of the country, and they therefore expect the Minister to carry out the promise which was made to them about two years ago.

Only just recently the Minister has been appointed Food Controller, and already he is the target for very considerable criticism and he is getting advice from all quarters. I don’t think many will envy him his job by the time the war ends, because definitely he is going to be the target from every point of view. I want to deal with one special subject. There is no doubt that there is considerable anxiety in the country in regard to the production of foodstuffs and whether the supply will be sufficient to meet the demands. That anxiety has been accentuated by the fact of our recent drought in the country, and also by the very large influx of prisoners of war, of convoys, of visitors, refugees, evacuees and others, and there is no doubt that there is going to be a phenomenal demand on the producers of this country to produce the necessary foodstuffs. It is from that point of view that I want to give a typical example to show why it is necessary that the Minister should take into serious consideration the question of adequate remuneration to the primary producer for his products. And if I give the illustration of my own district that will be typical and will be a guide to the Minister of what we are striving for. I take the district of Cathcart which has a suitable soil and lands for growing very large crops of potatoes which are a staple article of food, and which in years past used to produce anything from 200,000 to 300,000 bags of potatoes per year. Today I do not think they produce 2,000 bags. Farmers throughout the country are now called upon to produce more foodstuffs as there is a grave danger of insufficient supplies and it is suggested that there will be a shortage of food. One asks oneself why they have gone out of production. I can remember when farmers used to send truck loads of potatoes to the Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban markets. Instead of their getting a return for the truck load of potatoes they actually had to pay in to meet the railage expenses. In fact, they got nothing but actually had to pay in. I have personally witnessed hundreds and hundreds of cartloads of potatoes being deposited on the rubbish heap as it did not pay the rural storekeeper to send them away by train in view of the price being so low as not to cover the cost of railage and yet in the large centres there were people living below the bread line. The whole system of distribution needs overhauling as well. The result of that has been that instead of producing 200,000 or 300,000 bags of potatoes, they are producing nothing at all. That is the underlying reason why these people have gone out of the market. Unless the primary producer can be assured of a definite minimum price for his products, which will compensate him for producing that article, he will not attempt to produce it and there may be serious consequences as a result. This is the question to which the Minister should give his serious attention. I know what difficulties there are in fixing minimum prices. But I say that we are living in abnormal times; let the Minister make an experiment now and fix the minimum price and thereby induce the farmers in this country to produce. I agree with the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) that we can produce double the amount that we are producing now, provided the farmers can be guaranteed an adequate price for their products. I do want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to take into consideration this question of fixing minimum prices in the future. The question of fixing a maximum price and not a minimum price has already been fully debated. For my part, I will do everything to persuade the farmers in my area to produce such a very necessary article as for example, potatoes, which is a staple article of food; but the question is will the farmers be provided with seed potatoes? What arrangement has the Department made to provide these people with adequate and suitable seed potatoes? If we can get the assurance from the Minister that they will get it, I will go all out to induce the farmers to produce again, provided they can get the assurance that they will receive an adequate price. I make this appeal to the Minister especially because this is going to be an allimportant question in the future when we are going to be threatened with a scarcity of food in this country.

I got a little hot just now but I feel the time has come for us to talk seriously and dispassionately about these important matters. I shall never make any personal remarks against the Minister. He was an old comrade of mine in the Boer War and all I want to say is that the time has come to act, and to act in a practical manner. The Minister has now got all the powers to enable him to act, and he must now remedy the mistakes which he has made in the past. In passing I want to refer to the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe). He is a member who does not speak very often, and he does not concern himself very much over farming matters, and when he talks he talks nonsense, and he talks about things which he knows nothing about. I did not say that the Minister should go over the heads of the Boards, but I did say that the Minister had done so in the past, that he had not taken the advice of the Boards he had appointed. I particularly refer to the Wheat Board. I am asking the Minister whether directly or indirectly I ever brought politics into the Wheat Board when I was a member, and I don’t want to do so today either. Where farming interests are concerned I have always avoided dragging in politics. I have always felt that when we are dealing with the food of the people we are dealing with a national question and we should use all our efforts to see to it that the people are properly fed and clothed. But what I do feel is that things cannot go on as they are going at present. The people who are responsible must see to it that the mistakes they have made in the past are avoided in future. They must act in a practical manner and no longer apply their theoretical knowledge. Let us look at what New Zealand has done. There they have been making radical changes for years — they started years ago. Take the 1938 Act which deals with the agricultural industry in New Zealand, and the special help which they gave the farmers in the shape of direct assistance by means of subsidies. We don’t like subsidies — we don’t want to come here and plead poverty. We don’t want to humiliate ourselves, and we don’t want to say that we are impoverished, and we don’t want to ask for gifts and favours. All we ask for is fairplay. We say that we want a market, and we want a good system of distribution, and we want reasonable prices for our products. If we get these we shall produce the goods. We shall produce what we are asked for, but we are no longer going to beg the Government with our hat in our hands and ask for right and justice. A shopkeeper does not walk through the streets begging people to come and buy in his shop. Why should we do so? We are producing necessary commodities for he needs of the people, commodities which are also needed to carry through the policy which the other side wants to carry through, the war policy. They should be grateful to us on this side of the House for being so well disposed; they should be grateful to us for saying that we want to produce because it means that indirectly we are supporting this war madness, but in spite of that our attitude is not appreciated and we ore continually having insults hurled at us, such as the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) indulged in. The hon. member knows that I never insult anyone in this House but he comes here and says that I know nothing about these matters, I can assure the hon. member that our Boer Nation have been inspanning me for years and years to serve them, and they still want me to serve them, whether I am worth it or not—that is for them to say. When I resigned as a member of the Wheat Control Board the Minister appointed somebody in a hurry to take my place. That very same day telegrams arrived asking why the farmers had not been consulted, why the farmers had not been given the opportunity to express their views. Why was there such a hurry? I understand that even to this day the Wheat Control Board has not yet met. I have resigned, and my reason for doing so was that it was no use knocking one’s head against a stone wall. One simply knocks one’s head to pieces. I do not intend knocking the Minister to pieces, but I want to give him a chance, and I think he is going to make good. We are going to give him a little time, I don’t know how long, perhaps three months. That is why I resigned. I felt that no matter what the Wheat Board suggested the Minister always thought differently. I don’t want to accuse him of having dragged in politics, but he should not always follow the advice of the economists. The economists study a matter of which they have no practical knowledge whatsoever. They have expert knowledge, but when it comes to practice and they apply their knowledge in practice, one often finds that it leads to failure. I said the other day, and I am sorry to have to repeat it, that when young fellows go to agricultural schools and acquire certain knowledge there, and they have to farm on their own when they return from those schools, half of them go bankrupt. The theoretical knowledge they get is not sufficient. Now we find that our distribution system particularly is wrong. We have heard of food being thrown away while people are starving. We have heard of bread being thrown into the sea, and of fruit having been dumped into the sea, and we have been told of native soldiers throwing away lbs. of butter of which they have too much. They get so much food that they cannot eat it all. The Minister is responsible. He has now been given a higher status and he now has to provide for the people’s food. Now let me give the Minister fatherly advice—even though I am a little younger’ than he is—and my advice is that he must not repeat the mistakes he has made in the past. Do not let him ignore the good advice which the farmers give him. Don’t let him think always that everything he does is right. Do not let him look at everything from his own point of view, but let him realise that there is another side to everything. The Minister must improve a lot, and there are many things which he has done in the past which he should avoid doing in the future. If he does not improve we are going to have a famine in this country, and if people are hungry we shall not have peace and amity in this country. If he is fair to the farmers the farmers will play the game by him and they will help him. When the war is over there is going to be a setback, the same as we have after every war, and that is why the farmers should be treated fairly and squarely, so that economically they will be placed on a sound basis. They must be given an opportunity to pay off their debts of the past. Treat them fairly and they will produce what is required.

I think it is the first time I have ventured to speak on the agricultural vote, but I do wish to make some remarks this afternoon in connection with the Food Controller that has been appointed. Certain criticisms have been offered and made by various members of the House. May I say that it is very nearly two years ago — I think about twenty months ago — when, in connection with the war supplies, my colleague the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, South (Mr. Hirsch) and myself, saw the very great difficulty that was arising over the question of supplies to convoys, and the exhorbitant prices which they were called upon to pay, and for which, in the majority of cases, the farmer was not getting the benefit. And it was as a result of those representations that the Prime Minister then appointed a Food Investigation Committee to see what steps could be taken in the matter. There were very great difficulties in the way, because all convoys are supplied through the overseas shipping, and do not fall under the direct control of the Supply Department in South Africa. In the middle of last year it also became apparent that difficulties were arising in connection with food supplies in this country, particularly in connection with our agricultural products; and some of us were even then anxious that some strict measure of control should be introduced. When the Secretary for Agriculture returned to duty early this year and I returned from England, as a result of information he then got and owing to the position that had arisen in this country, further very strong representations were then made to the Government that a Food Controller should be appointed with very full and very wide powers indeed. It was as the result of those representations that the Government appointed the Minister of Agriculture as Food Controller, the person that that committee recommended should be appointed. We realise that the question of food supplies mainly affected the farmers of this country, and that if we wanted increased food supplies we had to look to the farmers of this country to produce it. And at that time we made very strong representations as to the powers to be given to the Controller. A number of references have been made this afternoon to the powers that were given to the Minister. I may say quite frankly that my own opinion is that this matter should be in the hands of the Food Controller; I think that the price which is to be paid to the farmer should equally fall under the Food Controller with the price to be paid by the consumer. I realise that there may be certain difficulties in the way, and to overcome those difficulties the Government has asked the Price Controller to join this Advisory Board, so that they will be able to have the closest collaboration, and if possible fix prices acceptable to both the producer and the consumer. We recognise, first of all, that there is a definite shortage of many essential commodities in this country today. But it is not only a question of price. There are other questions too. Today, for example, you have a definite shortage of eggs, and a very reduced production. The drought last year was equally responsible for a greatly reduced production of butter. As you know in January this year, I think the stocks of butter were 3,500,000 lbs. down to what they were in January twelve months ago. It is not only a question of price there. The question is what measures can be taken. As far as I have been able to understand the position, if it is a question of price standing in the way, the Government will take steps to see that the price of the product is made remunerative to the farmer.

They have not done so up to now.

Hon. members must remember that this Board was only appointed during the last two or three weeks, and if you read what powers the Minister has got — he has got very wide powers indeed — and if it is going to be a question of giving assistance to the farmers by way of fertilisers or plant, so as to enable increased production, the Food Controller would naturally go into the whole matter; he would be prepared to see what could be done in order to help the farmer. I want to say this, that we have to get away from the old ideas. I am not in favour of price control. As a rule, I think it has been unsound, but today you are living in very abnormal times, and you have to do many things, in order to get produce, which you may not be prepared to do in normal times. But all these problems today are being taken from an entirely new viewpoint to get increased production, to get the products we want; to give adequate remuneration to the farmer, which he wants. There has been some criticism with regard to the composition of the board. I am on it, and I can assure hon. members that I would gladly get off the board if anyone wants to take my place.

Are you on that board?

I happen to be on it, yes. If you go through the powers conferred on the Minister and the work that is done, you will find that there is a determination to see in what way we can get food, and in what way the farmers can be protected, and—what is equally important —to see that the convoys and everybody else shall not be stung.

But first, your own people.

Do let us get away from these personal remarks.

You misunderstood me. I did not make any personal remark; I said you must start with your own people.

I know a case myself where we were actually supplying meat under Defence Force contracts at roughly 40s. a 100 lbs., and I find that we were charging the convoys 60s. for even a lower grade meat. The thing was impossible. You cannot possibly justify that particular thing. They were buying from certain companies instead of getting their supplies through our own supply organisation. We actually got the Navy to buy their supplies through the War Supplies Board, and we were able to help them not only to reduce the price, but to get a much better quality food. Some of the food supplied to those outside sources is not of good quality, and does not do the name of South Africa any good. Now, all these matters are going to be dealt with by this board. The Minister will want the assistance of every section. As far as I know, he will welcome that assistance. You will have to go into the question, at each of the ports, of setting up boards which will be responsible for buying the supplies wanted for the convoys. There will have to be the closest collaboration in the different ports. I have heard it said that you cannot get certain supplies from other parts of the country because the railway rates are too high. I know of a case where canning has not gone on as was arranged with the Government, because of the difficulty of getting tinplate. There are all these matters to be considered; the problem is not an easy one. It is difficult to get supplies, but let me say this, as far as I was able to understand—I know what the recommendation was—first of all, it was to increase production; secondly, to see, that the prices paid to farmers are remunerative and fair; and, thirdly, to see that the consumers are not charged an unduly high price.

It seems to me that the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) has undergone a slight metamorphosis. He tells us this afternoon that he is strongly in favour of the farmers getting a decent price for their products. I am sorry he did not hold that view during the past few years, because if he had held that view we would not have had the conditions which we are experiencing today. The farmers had to be subjected to all kinds of pinpricks, and now they are starting with all kinds of fine words and fine talk. I only want to tell the hon. member that the farmers are still doing their duty as they have always done. We are told that the farmers constituted the second line of defence. To my mind they have always been the first line of defence, because, if the farmers are not there to produce, there can be no first line of defence. There are a few matters, however, which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. He has taken a lot of hay on his fork, but I want to assure him that if he treats us fairly we shall be willing to help him as much as we possibly can. But, first of all, the farmers should not be continually subjected to all kinds of pinpricks. Let me draw attention to a few of those pinpricks. One of them is that the farmers were notified a few months ago that no white mealie meal was allowed to be sold, but that everything had to be mixed with yellow meal. The farmers did not have any yellow mealies left, and they had to go to the speculators and the Jews who had stocks of yellow mealies to buy those mealies to mix with the white mealies. What was the use of it? When the farmers became dissatisfied because they could not get their flour milled, and when an agitation arose, the department repealed the regulation. Why these pinpricks? Why cannot we avoid these things? Another pinprick was in regard to the wheat farmers. The Wheat Control Board last year recommended a higher price than was eventually allowed. What happened? The Minister did not even want to allow the extra 1s. This is money which belongs to the farmers themselves, it is the accumulated levy, and the Minister was not even prepared to return it to the farmers —it was their own money, but now that the farmers have become dissatisfied, now the Minister and his department come here and say “We are agreeable now to approve of the extra 1s. being paid to the wheat farmers.” The Government is not assisting the farmers by doing this — the money belongs to the farmers. Why was it not paid in the first instance? If this had been done there would have been a pinprick less. I go further, Another pinprick inflicted on the farmers was the regulation which provided that if anyone sold less than twenty bags then the maximum price for mealies was more than the maximum price if anyone sold more than 20 bags. Consequently, if a man wants to buy twenty or thirty bags he will not be able to get it, because the middleman and the speculator and the miller only want to sell smaller quantities, so that they can charge the higher maximum price. If the price of mealies is fixed at 15s. or £1 then that is the price which should apply throughout, and one should not have the anomalous position of a man having to pay more if he buy less than twenty bags. This only leads to speculation. Before reverting to this point I want to touch on another point in passing—I want to deal with the question of the commando worm. The commando worm has done a tremendous lot of harm, and I want to know what the Department has done to combat the evil. The locust evil is combated, tick evil is combated, but apparently nothing is done to cope with the commando worm. Whether it is due to the fact that the commando worm has the V sign on its head I do not know, but nothing is done about the commando worm, and it simply carries on destroying the lands, the grass and the teff. I was in the Standerton District recently where I saw with my own eyes the ravages caused by the commando worm — they are terrible. And what is being done to cope with this plague? The Minister gets up here today and tells us that the farmers must produce more. Let me tell the Minister that all this big talk about producing more is no use if the Minister does not see to it that the farmers have labour. What is happening? If a native gets hold of a pass today he joins the Defence Force tomorrow, and once he has the red tab, just like other people, one cannot get him back out of the Army. The farmers are without labour and they cannot produce. I defy any farmer in this House to say that he can produce without labour. It cannot be done. I am mentioning this matter particularly because the Minister of Native Affairs stated the other day that we should abolish passes. The pass system is the only thing that is keeping the natives on the farms in various parts, but if we abolish it all the young natives will leave the farms in the Free State and the Transvaal. I want to warn the Minister of Agriculture. I know that the Minister of Native Affairs does not care a rap whether the farmers go to the wall or not, but I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to see to it that this thing does not happen and that the Minister of Native Affairs does not get his way in this regard. Now I want to say a few words about the mealie production this year. We have a big mealie shortage. The Minister of Agriculture has fixed the price of wheat, a price which to my mind the wheat farmers should have had last year already. Anyhow, the price has now been fixed, but the Minister tells us that he cannot give us any indication as to what the price of mealies is going to be. How am I to understand the position? In regard to wheat the Minister can fix the price a year beforehand, but he cannot fix a price for mealies which will have to be gathered in three months time. It seems to me most inconsistent and it seems to be done deliberately in order to hurt our farmers. Once the crop is in the farmers will probably be told that the price is going to be 12s. 6d. I hope the price will be 20s. We cannot import below 26s. per bag, so I fail to see why the farmer should not get a little benefit out of the improved prices. Now I want to give this little bit of advice to the Minister. He is our Food Controller today but he cannot prevent me from feeding my mealies to my cattle if I think that in that way I am going to get a better price for my mealies. I want to advise him to co-operate with the farmer; give the farmer a reasonable price and make sure that the officials who have to deal with the farmers and negotiate with them in regard to their products are people who understand the farmers and who can work with them — sensible people who know how to handle the farmers. If the Minister does that he will have the support of the farmers.

Most of those people were appointed by you yourself, and they must surely know the farmers.

I was never in the position of Food Controller. The Minister is our Food Controller now, so the position is totally different. The Minister has all sorts of boards which he has now appointed —he is actually killing us with boards. I want to point out to him that his labours are very different from what mine used to be. He is Food Controller, and if he use a person to act as Controller of Foodstuffs whom I used to regard as suitable for the different type of work, then he must not blame me if that official turns out to be unsuitable for the work the Minister now wants to use him for.

But surely you appointed most of the extension officers.

Yes, but they had nothing to do with the control of foodstuffs. They were extension officers who were there to advise people, and they have nothing to do with food control. The difference between these things is as the difference between night and day. There is a very great difference between giving the people advice and taking things and commandeering things. I hope the Minister understands the position, and I hope he is not going to say that these officials were appointed by me. I appointed them for a particular purpose, and not for the purpose he is going to use them for. When I appointed them there was no control of foodstuffs. The labour question has already been raised, and I only want to say a few words about it. [Time limit.]

Yesterday I dealt with most of the points raised by hon. members, with the exception of wheat and wool. I thought hon. members would perhaps have preferred to say some more about them before I replied.

We are going to say some more about it.

Well, I shall give them the opportunity to get fresh arguments. I only want to say that I have read the speeches made by hon. members during the general Budget debate, and that I have also read all their arguments about the wheat position which they have since raised, and that is a matter which I want to deal with first. So far as the wheat question is concerned, I do want to make an appeal to hon. members, and I want to ask them to leave the past alone and to deal with the present, and also to talk about the future. Things are quite serious enough as they are. I want to try today to convince the Opposition that I did not act as recklessly in this matter as they seem to imagine. Now, what was the position? During the last session hon. members urged me, and they demanded that I should appoint a Wheat Commission. There was a question raised about the extra cost of the production of wheat, on which we were unable to agree with each other. They demanded that I should appoint a Wheat Commission. They said: “Let us have a Wheat Commission which will be able to tell us what are the extra costs in regard to the production of wheat, and which will advise us generally on the wheat industry.” I want to state here that if I had at that time asked hon. members whether they would be prepared to accept the recommendations and the report of such a commission if I appointed it, they would have said that they would be prepared to do so.

That would rather depend on whom you appointed.

Anyhow, I agreed, and I appointed a commission, a commission which to the best of my knowledge, and to my mind, consisted of competent and impartial men, who, as far as I was able to see, and find out, formed the best commission I was able to get. Hon. members opposite differ from me on that point. Anyhow, I contend that the commission which I appointed cannot be accused of partiality, and that it did its utmost to consider all aspects of the matter. I have twice carefully perused the commission’s report, and the conclusion I came to was that if there had been any doubt on the subject of costs, the commission gave the producer the benefit of the doubt. That is the impression the report made on me; the commission tried to be absolutely impartial. Then the time arrived when the price of wheat had to be fixed. Naturally, the report was not yet out; it still had to be translated and printed. I then gave instructions that the Wheat Commission’s report should be handed to the Wheat Board as a confidential document. It was necessary to do so. The Wheat Board thereupon came to certain conclusions. Many of the members on the board representing the wheat districts had received instructions from the people they represented, and they had a price in their mind.

It was £1 10s. and £1 11s.

This is the first time I have ever heard of £1 11s. Anyhow, the Wheat Board asked to have an interview with me to submit certain matters to me; I met them and we discussed the question. I explained the whole position to them. I don’t want to say here that the Wheat Board fixed the price—I don’t want to say that with a view to evading the responsibility. They came to see me before they fixed the price, and after that they proceeded to fix the price. At that stage it was only a question as to how that price was to be paid. The question was whether we should let the price of bread go up by a ½d., or whether we should pay a subsidy. I said this to the Wheat Board: “This is the Government’s difficulty, and if we see to it that that price is obtained, even if we have to pay the subsidy, it will be a subsidy to the consumer and not to the farmer, in order to keep the price of bread at the same level, so why should you complain in that event?” After that they returned. I don’t say that they were entirely satisfied, but they thereupon fixed the price, and subsequent to that a further request was made to me.

By whom?

That request was made by the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board came to me and told me that they felt that the price had not been fixed quite fairly, and they therefore proposed that they should contribute 1s. per bag out of their own funds. That request was forwarded to the Marketing Council but on account of many sound theoretical and practical reasons it was turned down. We cannot fix the price of wheat today and then turn round tomorrow and say “We are going to add another 1s.” We should have done that in the first instance when we fixed the price. The Marketing Council said that it could not agree to it, and it refused to allow it. The price was fixed and I said: “How can I agree to your request now without admitting that the price was wrongly fixed in the first instance?”

Why didn’t you do that the year before?

I shall be glad if the hon. member will give me an opportunity of continuing my remarks. I thereupon went to Cape Town and the first deputation which came to see me was the deputation from Bredasdorp. They pointed out to me that since the price of wheat had been fixed they had had additional expense in regard to labour. They had to pay their labourers more and they mentioned quite a number of other things which had increased the costs of production per bag. I told them that I felt the reasons they had given me were sound. I promised that before the next price was fixed I would go into the whole question. Then another deputation called on me, a deputation which waited on both the Prime Minister and myself, and they made this charge: They said that the Wheat Board wanted to use its own funds to pay the farmers 1s. per bag more but the Minister of Agriculture had turned that down and that proved that he was hostile to the producers. In the third place it had become clear, and I also said so at the time, and we were actually taking steps in that direction, that we must encourage the farmers to sow more wheat. That was the reason why we decided to give loans for more seed to places and areas where in other circumstances we would not have supplied any loans for seed. We complied with their requests. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) told the House that I turned everything down and simply refused to listen to anything.

How about the year before?

Why go back to that now? Let us deal with the position as it is today. There was one thing I realised at once and that was that we should not allow the farmers to get the impression that the Government, or the Minister of Agriculture, were hostile; we needed their products. The position was quite different enough as it was and we did not want any feelings of hostility on the part of the people who had to look after matters, and produce. I notified the co-operative societies that I was willing to take my decision into review in regard to the reply I had given about the additional 1s. The position was not as stated by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), that he and his Party Press had compelled me to do so. I also hope that he will give his papers a little better advice, because if I look at the stuff they are writing it seems to me that they know very little indeed of agricultural matters. Now let me come to this year’s price which we have fixed in advance. Hon. members no doubt know that a conference of Co-operative Societies was held. They invited the Secretary for Agriculture to attend their conference and I understand that they stated that if it was possible for me to do so they would like me to come as well. I did not get an official invitation. Anyhow I was not in good health at the time and I could not go. The Secretary for Agriculture met them and discussed matters with them. Many of the members said “Look here, we want a price to be fixed plus any additional costs.” The Secretary for Agriculture told them this, “You people should realise that we have been dealing with this question of additional costs for two or three years. Let us agree on a price which is likely to give general satisfaction. Tell me what that price is and I shall be prepared to convey it to the Minister of Agriculture.” I believe that the decision which was thereupon arrived at was a unanimous one. They said: “Give us a price of 30s.” That would be what is called “an all in price”—a price which would include everything,” and then they would take their chance. The question has now been put why the price has been announced so long before the time, and hon. members try to ridicule me by their remarks in this connection. I say again that I realise that we must have wheat in the country. We don’t know whether next year we shall even have the facilities which we have today in regard to shipping, and we must try and produce all the wheat we need in this country itself. If we can produce so much that we can do away with the standard bread nobody will be more pleased than I. That bread is not so bad though; but my first consideration was to produce more wheat. Individual farmers have approached me and said “Look, we are in this trouble, we have ploughed our land, we have prepared 200 or 600 morgen,” — one man had actually broken 1,000 morgen. They added that last year oats and barley paid them better and they did not know whether even this year oats and barley would not give them better returns than wheat.

What about rye?

Rye again is for a poorer type of soil. I discussed the matter with farmers who have the better type of soil. I then felt that it was time to say to the farmers: “Very well, here is a price which I have recommended to my colleagues and which they have agreed to.” That was the natural course to follow.

It was very sensible.

If that is so why do you come here and say now that it is the Opposition and their Press which forced me to do this?

Because you realised the mistakes you had made in the past.

The hon. member for Malmesbury now tells us that it is all very fine, but assuming the farmers have to pay 3s. for their bags now, and assuming there is an abnormal increase in the price of other essentials. What are we going to do then? Are we going to stick to the 30s.

All of which is quite possible.

All these things are not possible with any sensible Government, or with a Government constituted the way this Government is constituted. Hon. members can use that, but that is the price they are going to get unless something abnormal happens which will have to be taken into consideration. That is more than we arranged with the Co-operative Societies. Now I just want to say one thing more about wheat.

We are satisfied with what you have just said, that it can be reviewed.

The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) in his speech on the Budget, raised certain points, and he repeated those same points again yesterday. The principal matter he mentioned was that during the last war the price of wheat was higher up country and the price of bread was lower than it is now, and the hon. member asked whether I could give him an explanation as to why the price of bread is higher now, while the price of wheat is lower — that is how he put it. I again want to tell the hon. member that that was twentyfive years ago.

But even then, surely we should have some explanation.

I shall give the hon. member a reply. First of all let me repeat that conditions today are entirely different from what they were in those days. In those days we produced less, and by far the greater proportion of our wheat was imported. Today the position is the other way round. The price of imported wheat in those days was lower than the local price.

Wheat was very expensive.

Wheat was expensive but the price of the imported wheat was cheaper, with the result that the average price to the bakers was less, and what is more is this: In those days a lot of flour was imported and that also benefited the bakers. The hon. member speaks of the prices which are mentioned in the Report. I am a little older than he is and I know personally that bread was sold sometimes for 1s. per 2 lb. loaf.

I got my figures from the Department of Commerce and Industries.

That may be. That Department perhaps does not know it, but I know it, because I myself and other people have had to pay that price.

For how long was that? It was only an exceptional occurrence.

The hon. member does not even know that it happened, so how can he say it was only an exceptional occurrence. Then there is also the question of the weight of bread. The hon. member perhaps does not know it but under the old Act the baker had the right to vary the weight of bread, and if he studies the position he will find that they varied the weight of bread quite a lot, and that it was not always a 2 lb. loaf. If he looks into matters he will find that those were the facts of the case.

Is there any truth in the argument that the Wage Act is causing the costs of production to go up?

Naturally. Both the bakery and the mill are considered to be factories under the Factories Act. Not only are the hours less but the wages are higher. I want to say this to the hon. member: That I have looked into both aspects of the case. We have already had two committees to go into the whole question. Accountants have called for the books. And we were not even satisfied with that. The Minister of Commerce and Industries had been asked to appoint a Joint Committee of the Marketing Council, and the Board of Trade and Industries jointly. They also put in a report. Anyhow, according to that report the gap between the price of wheat and the price of bread is not too high, or at any rate it is very little too high. I know this as a result of my enquiries, that the margin in the last war was bigger for the bakers and the millers than it is today. The hon. member can go into the matter further and he will find that it is so. Those are the facts in connection with the matter and I hope hon. members will leave this question alone now for a bit. That is all I want to say about this wheat position. Now I come to the wool question. When I laid the wool agreement on the Table I knew perfectly well that it would give rise to a revival of all the old arguments about the Wool Agreement — arguments which the public outside and the wool farmers are very tired of already. Now what has this Wool Agreement shewn us, and what have hon. members opposite got out of it? First of all they have told us that this Wool Agreement was only signed and only came into force on the 27th February 1942, and that before that time there was no agreement. Is that the opinion of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) as a lawyer?

I did not say that.

But the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) said it.

This document is the first proof we have of that.

Will the hon. member grant me this point, that neither the British Government nor the Union Government could have got out of that agreement after the 20th August, 1940 when it was entered into?

Nobody said that.

There are members opposite who did say that.

That was not a contract.

Then what was it?

It was a gentlemen’s agreement.

Then I think very little of the hon. member’s legal knowledge, but I know that he is not a lawyer. On the 20th August when the British Government told us what its offer was, and when we accepted that offer, it was a definite contract which neither the British Government nor we could break without mutual consent. But I notice that hon. members forget when they quote from the remarks made by Mr. Waterson also to quote what Mr. Atlee has said. This is what Mr. Atlee said—

The hon. member for Cradock a short while ago asked why we had not done what Australia had done—yet Australia and New Zealand have not even got their contract yet although we have ours.

I was speaking about the flat rate which Australia has.

Their agreement has not been signed yet.

I said that we should follow their example in regard to a flat rate, instead of the type basis.

I said that the hon. member blames me because we waited until February with the signing of the contract, and he says I should have done what Australia and New Zealand did. He blames me for the fact that the agreement was not signed two years ago, and I now tell him that Australia, which he is now holding up as an example, has not yet got its agreement.

That is only a very small point.

They had the same kind of agreement as we had, an agreement entered into by cable.

But they have got the same agreement.

Mr. Atlee went on to say this—

I want to say this about the question of the duration of the contract. Hon. members have said that it had been contended that the contract would last for a year after the war.

That is what you told us.

The British Government accepted it like that. I said that the contract would last for another wool year after the war.

For a year after that?

I am afraid I cannot continue if hon. members keep on interrupting. Our wool year ends in June. If the war ends in May we shall have to decide when the Wool Agreement will come to an end. We want to have the right to discuss the matter, and the British Government also wants to have that right.

Will it continue for a year after that?

I have no doubt that we shall get that year if we want it.

Will the wool year mean then, that the contract will last for another two years?

Possibly 13, 15, or 18 months.

Two seasons?

No, not two seasons, because it is clear that it is only for one wool year.

What does a wool year mean?

A wool year means from June. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn spoke of the Minister’s inferiority complex he said that I had to wait until Australia or New Zealand made themselves heard, and only after that would I be allowed to do anything. May I draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that Australia in all probability will have a similar provision in its contract in regard to South Africa, namely, that if the price for South Africa is changed, they in Australia will also be entitled to start negotiations again, so what becomes of that contention? I really feel that I must apologise to the House for reverting for the umpteenth time to the 10¾d. story.

But you did promise that.

I never said that there would be a guaranteed price of 10¾d.

You gave that impression to the whole country.

Let me read again what I said—

That is what I said.

And what did you say in your broadcast talk?

This was my broadcast talk. I am responsible for that and nobody else. This was my broadcast talk. And now may I just say this, that for all this time, a week, a month, two months after the agreement, we heard nothing about this 10¾d.? It was only in this House when hon. members started looking for faults that they started talking about the 10¾d. I want to go further, and I want to say that in 1939 I approached the High Commissioner, when the negotiations were going on between England and Australia, and I said: “Look, why has this offer been made to Australia and New Zealand, and why has it not also been made to South Africa?” That was shortly after war had broken out, and I claimed that we had the same rights as Australia and New Zealand, and that we should expect the same kind of treatment. I added to that that I did not know whether a report had been sent to the Prime Minister, but that I, as Minister of Agriculture, did not know anything about such an offer. After we had started negotiating England said that she did not need any more wool, she had enough. Eventually we got to the stage that we were to get an open market, with a guarantee from the British Government. I think hon. members will admit that at that stage we could not sell at a fixed price. That was in 1939. The British Government was not going to buy all types, and that was why we needed a type list. The British Government was to pay so much for certain types of our wool.

What about the special types of wool that were bought?

What has that to do with the matter?

A lot.

We got a much higher price than would otherwise have been the case. Perhaps the hon. member himself did not share in that, perhaps his wool was not good enough. Some wool coming from Ermelo …

Why so personal?

I have been awarded the International Medal for wool, which you will never get.

I do not think hon. members will deny that we needed the type list. We would not have been able to sell otherwise.

There were special types as well.

I am not speaking about special types. I want the hon. member to admit that we had to sell that year on the type list, and it was on that basis that we assumed that the price would amount to an average of 10¾d. That was based on the type list and that was what the calculation was made on. The British Government thereupon said: “No, some of your grease wool is heavier than the Australian grease wool of the same type, and the clean quality, the washed wool, is less—the clean yield of the South African clip is less than the clean yield of the Australian clip.” They said—I am going to quote the English term—“The wool in the grease is of considerably less value than the Australian wool in the grease.” I got a fright when the British Government said that. I said this: “Now I am going to get into trouble because we are not going to get the price which Australia is getting,” so I went to the High Commissioner and I said, “I don’t care what the experts say, but you remember that I stated during the negotiations that we were not going to take a farthing less than Australia.” That is what I referred to in my speech at the time. That referred to the 1939 clip. That was the reference to the 10¾d.

The agreement was that we were not to get any less than Australia.

I am speaking of the 1939 clip. I said that for that clip we were to get no less than Australia, and I said so on the basis of the type list. The hon. member should realise that according to the British Government’s opinion, and according to the opinions of a great many people here, there is South African wool on the type list which is worth less than the Australian wool. I made the best possible agreement. We obtained the best possible advice, namely from the Wool Council and from the wool brokers, and from the best experts and it was on that that we drew up the type list. After that we again sent the type list to the brokers’ association, a body consisting of people who know something about the wool industry and they said that if we got that type list it would be good business. I sent it across and to my joy the British Government accepted it, as that would give us the same price as Australia, 10¾d. I may have been wrong but I doubt whether any other business man would have acted differently, and I doubt whether the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) would have acted differently.

I warned your department.

You sent me a telegram in which you said that you welcomed the agreement.

I warned your department.

We said that we would get a price equivalent to 10¾d. according ro our type list. I handled this matter very carefully so that they would not be able to get back on me and say that we were getting less than Australia. And now the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) has again spoken about this so-called undervaluation. He was not in the House when I made my statement, but I notice from his explanation that he has read my speech. He has seen that I have had the whole question of undervaluation enquired into. I appointed a Committee on which I put the best men I could get. The hon. member for Cradock may think differently, but in the first place the man who made the tests was on that Committee and also the Chief of Onderstepoort.

Mr. Bosman?

Yes.

Does he repudiate his own tests?

Then the chief of Onderstepoort was also on the Committee. The Committee went into the question and brought out a unanimous report which was signed by Dr. Du Toit as well as by Mr. Bosman, and they reported that it would be useless to make any further laboratory tests as they were not of much value. I explained the position clearly on a previous occasion. We did our best. The hon. member also asked why we cannot make any statement in regard to the price that is being obtained for our wool. It is no longer our wool, the wool belongs to the British Government. It has been sold and paid for. If I sell a horse to the hon. member and I want to make a profit on it, then surely I am not going to tell him how I got hold of that horse and what I paid for it; it is my horse, and if the British Government says that it prefers the prices not to be announced, then I can quite understand it’s reasons.

It is not a question of price now, we are interested in the sale, and we are to get a share of the profit.

If it is not a matter of price then why all this fuss? The hon. members for Oudtshoorn and Cradock also made a lot of the possibility of selling our wool to America. They said that America had now bought 150,000 bales of our wool. Where do they get the information that America has bought the wool?

You can read it in the papers.

I don’t have to read the papers, I know how that story originated. A large proportion of the wool has been sent to America to be stored there.

Nonsense.

I don’t mind hon. members shaking their heads. We received information that that was going to be done, and that England was going to store the wool there.

Would it not be more profitable to store the wool here?

We don’t pay the expenses. England erected the sheds here and all of them are full, but most of the wool which has been sent to America has been sent there to be stored. When I was informed of that I said “Yes” because I was anxious that America should become better acquainted with our wool, and I thought that if the wool was stored in America they would get to know our wool. My information is that they are now beginning to take an interest in our wool. I got into touch with all the representatives from America when I started getting trouble here with the wool position, but they said that America was not keen on our wool, because they did not know it, and they first had to get to know it. That is what authoritative representatives of American firms told us. There are just one or two small points I want to deal with. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) spoke of me as the father of the farmers, but I must say that it was peculiar language for the child to use towards his father.

You are a step-father.

I must say that I don’t care very much for the opinion of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. I attach more value to other people’s opinions, and I just want to quote the resolutions which were passed at the Wool Growers’ Congress on the 31st May, 1941—

1. (1) This Congress expresses its thanks to the Wool Council and its appreciation to the Minister of Agriculture for the unselfish zeal displayed to obtain the very best terms for the wool farmers and the wool industry as a whole.
2. (2) Congress thanks the Government for the existing Wool Agreement in these difficult times, and expresses its appreciation to the British Wool Commission for the impartial manner in which the wool is being valued by them.
3. (3) This Congress unanimously approves of the actions of the British Government and the Union Government in regard to the inclusion of South Africa in the Wool Agreement.

Now read the proposals at the last Congress.

The hon. member can read it. This last resolution was passed by forty votes to nine.

And you said that the Congress had passed it unanimously.

If I said that I apologise. The resolution was passed by forty votes to nine, and those nine asked that their votes should be recorded. They comprised, inter alia, Mr. G. Bekker, M.P., Mr. H. Bekker, Mr. Van Ginkel Bekker, Mr. Luttig, Mr. Esterhuise, and a few others.

All good fellows.

I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for Cradock as a farmer. I just want to reply to a few more points. I am pleased to hear from the hon. member for Aliwal that they will deliver the goods. So far as I am concerned, I want to promise that I shall try on my part to also deliver the goods. The hon. member asked me to confirm that he had never brought any politics into the Wheat Board. So far as I have been in touch with them, I can confirm that. I have never found them doing so, but there is another matter which I want to say a few words about, and that is his resignation. In that regard he gave a wrong impression of the whole matter, and I want to put that right. The hon. member said that on the very day of his resignation I telegraphically appointed another member. The hon. member resigned on the 4th March, and Mr. Bekker was asked on the 8th or 9th March to take his place. Anyhow, Mr. Bekker telegraphed on the 11th March that he was prepared to accept the appointment.

Another Bekker?

He was an old member of the Wheat Board, and he was there as a member of the Co-operative Societies. On the 11th March, a week after the hon. member’s resignation, he agreed to serve.

Did you consult the Agricultural Society?

No, the scheme provides that as soon as a vacancy arises the Minister of Agriculture shall fill it, and the member who takes the place of another member who resigned remains a member until the period of membership of the member who has resigned has expired. That is why I appointed somebody else. The hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster) spoke about beans. We are dealing with that matter. I was busy with it this morning, and I hope it will be possible to keep the price stable.

An enquiry should be made into the crop.

We are continually investigating the matter. I shall do everything possible to keep up the price, and I should prefer to export rather than to import, if there is a surplus.

†The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Coller) asked me about potatoes. In the first place he asked me about seed potatoes. I only want to tell him that my colleague, the Minister of Lands, tells me that they have been growing a considerable quantity of seed potatoes on different lands, but I still intend importing as much as I can get if I can get the shipping. He asked me about minimum prices too. Well, I am purchasing for the military—I am purchasing meat, potatoes and onions for the military, and we may be able very soon to do these things for the convoys, and we shall be able to control purchases and deliveries. That in itself will make the position very much more stable. If that is not effective we shall have to have a minimum price. But it seems to me that it will boil down very soon to this, that for most of these products there will not be a minimum and a maximum price—there will be one price. It will come to that. I was glad that the hon. member for Pretoria (Mr. Pocock) intervened here. I must say this, that it is due largely to his efforts that we have been able to achieve these things. He has advocated for a long time that a food control organisation should be established here, and he has had very considerable experience of military requirements during the past number of months. I am glad to have him on the Board and I am sure he will be able to give us very good assistance. I have no time, I am afraid, to go into the whole food problem. I want to give members a chance to speak. I have the right under the scheme to purchase and to sell, and hon. members will understand that that will be of very great assistance in regard to the stabilisation of prices. I have the right under these regulations to take control of so much cold storage space as we want, so that we can accumulate stocks when the product is plentiful and keep prices more stable right throughout the year. I have a few more points to reply to but I shall do so later on, so that I may now give members a chance.

There are a few things which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. As the hon. Minister knows, the co-operative societies lost £56,000 on the mealie crop of 1938—’39. That was due to the policy of the Government. At the time the Minister forbade the co-operative societies to export mealies. They cancelled contracts and consequently suffered losses. It was remarkable to me that the Government cancelled the permits at that time. We could not export mealies. It is not necessary, however, to go into the whole position, because the Minister knows it. The Minister knows that if he says that co-operative societies must do a certain thing, then it is done. The Minister appointed what he called a technical committee, and that committee brought out a report and stated that the claim was unfounded. With that the Minister regarded the matter as being disposed of, but that is not the end. I again want to bring a similar case to the notice of the Minister, namely, in connection with the mealie crop of 1940—’41. The Minister told the Mealie Control Board that the co-operative societies should fall in line with the price of mealies, and not allow the price to rise beyond 12s. per bag. The co-operative societies complied with the request, but they issued a warning to the Mealie Control Board that if that were done there would be a loss, because the advance had already been fixed, and up to that time the mealies were sold below the advance, sc that the last quantity of mealies had to be sold at a little in excess of 12s. so as to have no losses. Notwithstanding the fact that Unie Graan complied with the request of the Mealie Board, the market rose even as high as 14s. per bag before the end of the season, and speculators made enormous profits. We as co-operative societies issued a warning that there would be losses, because the advance had already been determined, and up to that point we had sold under the advance, and therefore the last sale had to be at slightly higher prices. Now I want to ask the hon. Minister what he is going to do. Here I have a report which explains the position—

Now I want to know whether the Minister —the loss is £48,000—will pay out this sum of money to the farmers in some form or other; what is the Minister going to do? By means of questions which I put to the Minister, I obtained certain statements from him which read as follows—

In other words, the Minister states that the co-operative societies did what he asked them to do. Well, since the co-operative did that, the Minister issued a warning that if we did this, then there would be losses, and he said that he would make good the losses. I would like to know what the Minister is going to do, and I shall be glad if he will reply to this. In the first case, where the co-operative societies lost £56,000 on the 1938—’39 crop, O.T.K. lost £19,178. In 1940—’41, the co-operative societies lost £48,000, and the loss of O.T.K. was £14,231. I hope that in this case the Minister will not again appoint a Government Technical Commission which tells him what he should do. Then there is also another matter which I would like to touch upon. These are questions which I would like to put to the Minister. In the first place, has the Minister taken precautionary measures in connection with grain bags? In the near future there will be a shortage of grain bags. It is almost impossible to get hold of these bags today.

I already replied to that yesterday evening. You were not here then.

Then I also want to hear what the Minister is going to do in the future in regard to the agents who have the right to buy mealies from the farmers. Is it not possible perhaps for the Minister to compel them to hang out signs at their business places so that the farmer can know which people are allowed to buy mealies, and which are not? It appeared that in some cases the farmers suffered great damages. In many cases these people suffer damages, because it later appeared that the person concerned did not have a permit to buy. What is the position with reference to commission for auctioneers? There are auctioneers who have collected thousands of pounds from farmers. I asked one auctioneer what he intended doing with the large sum of money which had been collected. He said that he collected it so that he would have it if at a later date the Minister wanted it from him. I hope that the Minister will pay out this sum of money to the farmers in the form of a subsidy. Then I want to put a question to the Minister with reference to commando worms. Can the Minister tell us whether he has instructed anyone in his department to make a study of the commando worm with a view to combating the plague, and in order to ascertain how the plague starts? About five years ago a person was sent out to give lectures on the subject. Today it appears, however, that his knowledge was erroneous. I hope the Minister will go into this matter. Then I want to say something in regard to the markets. It appears that after all these years that we have struggled to persuade the Minister to appoint a commission in order to make investigations, he has not yet done it. The Provincial Councils appointed a commission to make investigations, and they brought out a report. The Commission has now made a statement, or let me put it this way. It appears according to this statement that the only solution would be to amend a certain clause—

It now seems that the matter can progress, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister does not want to do anything about it; but now the Provincial Councils adhere to this Act, and if the Act is amended as the Provincial Councils are asking the Minister of Agriculture to do, the work can progress. We would like to hear what the Minister is going to do, and whether he is going to amend the Act and, if so, when? I again want to point out to the Minister the irregularities which are today taking place in the markets. If the Minister reads this report of the commission and the sworn statements which they took, his hair will stand on end when he sees the terrible things which go on in the markets. Here is a case which I personally experienced on the 4th December. I just want to show what irregularities take place. I sold pigs on the Pretoria market. The first four pigs were driven into the pen, and they weighed 470 lbs. I was fortunate. [Time limit.]

I think the country at large will welcome the announcement that the Minister has been appointed Food Controller and I am only sorry that this was not done much earlier. It is also regrettable that the Minister has not, before now, taken a step to ensure that more food will grow in the country. This country has been at war now for two years, and the shortage of food was inevitable, that shortage should have been foreseen by the Agricultural Department, and steps taken to meet the difficulty. It seems to me that farmers are only concerned with what they can get out of their produce. They tell us that they are quite prepared to increase production so long as they are guaranteed a profit on what they are producing. That may be perfectly sound, but I maintain it is not the right spirit for the farming community to adopt, unless they can make handsome profits they are not prepared to assist in the food production of the country. Now there has been quite a considerable amount of discussion in regard to the price of meat. The Minister knows the difficulty he will have in attempting to control the price of meat. I have suggested to him on more than one occasion that price control is desirable in South Africa. The rumour has got abroad that the farmers are not getting a reasonable price for their cattle, that the middleman, the hoggenheimer of the trade, is getting all the profit, and the poor farmer is producing at no profit whatever. I think the Minister should counteract that and deny that there is any truth in the statements that are being made. The House knows and the country should know that the farmers are getting almost 100 per cent. more for their cattle than they have in previous years. Prices have soared almost to the level of the last war. With few exceptions farmers cannot complain of the prices they are getting for meat. I attended one sale, where a farmer told me that it is almost impossible for these prices to continue, that they are unhealthy, and that farmers have never had such prices since the last war. At another sale I attended a farmer had an old fat bull, one he had for thirteen years, and he got £21 for it. It was only worth about £2 10s and the farmer was amazed that he was able to get such a price. If there is any idea that the middleman is making a fortune out of the meat industry, the Minister can make an investigation. There are no fortunes being made in the meat industry today. The Federation of Meat Traders will be only too pleased to hand over to the Minister or his department their schedules for inspection by the Government. It is only right that the farmer should receive a reasonable amount for his stock. He should be assured of a fair price, but don’t let him keep on making irresponsible statements that the middlemen are always to blame. It is not so. Wage determinations have put up wages in the distributive trades, and rightly so. The employees should be able to get a reasonable wage, and they are getting that in the meat industry. That must, however, affect the price of meat in the future. I hope the Minister will be able to bring about some stabilisation of prices, so that both the farmer and the consumer will be satisfied. The convoys passing through our ports have had a bearing upon these prices. One or two of the Protectorates have been opened up, but that has not alleviated the position, and it will be pretty serious, I believe, next year, because farmers have been sending their heifer calves as well as their bull calves to market, and that must have an effect on the supply of cattle in the future. I suggest to the Minister that if we can fix the price to convoys, that will regulate the prices at any rate in our coastal towns. It has been stated that people have bought beef for 40s. and sold it to the convoys for 60s., and that has happened. I suggest that everything that is sold to the convoys should be inspected and the price controlled, and that will help to keep the cost of livingdown. The Minister has told us that prices are rising, the farmer is getting more for his meat, butter and cheese; bacon is increasing in price; mealies have got to increase, and the wheat farmer has to get 30s. a bag for his grain. All this is going to increase the cost of living, and if that is so wages will have to increase, and instead of the cost of living going down, it will be increased and the vicious circle continue.

I am sorry that I cannot congratulate the Minister on his poor defence of a poor case which he had to defend, and because his case was poor, he had to resort to personalities at the last moment, and to tell the House how little he thought of the opinion of certain members on this side of the House. I do not want to pay him back in the same coin. I told him yesterday, in a speech, that he caused the country incalculable harm because he was a poor business man when he entered into this wool contract on behalf of the farmers of South Africa. I now want to deal with the defence which he put up. His first defence was that he had been attacked because the contract was signed for the first time on the 27th ultimo. May I just point out to the Minister that hon. members on this side did not make a strong case of that point? They merely asked how it was that that contract was only signed on the 27th February. The only reason why that date was mentioned was in order to show the Minister that he had now received the contract for the first time, and had never made that known, and that now, for the first time, as a result of pressure from this side, he placed it on the Table for the first time. Now, for the first time, hon. members could see what the actual contents of the contract are. They then pointed out that the contents of the contract showed that the accusations which they had made in the past concerning the signing of the contract, were justified. In the second place, the Minister said that criticism had been made in connection with the period of the contract. He admitted that as the contract was drawn up, there was a possibility that the contract could last for twelve or even eighteen months after the war is over. As I read the contract, it might easily happen that this contract will not last only for one wool season but for two wool seasons after the war, because the Governments will decide how they will interpret the cessation of hostilities and the length of the season, and all such things. Now, it seems to me that if it is advantageous to Britain to receive our wool for another two wool seasons after the war, they will want the contract to last for a longer period.

But not I.

We have experience of the Minister. He now says that he does not want it, but I want to tell the Minister that the British Government is too clever for him; we know him. We know that after the war there will be a great demand for wool. The British Government will want this contract to continue for one or two seasons after the war if it suits them. I am afraid that the contract will last for as long as it is advantageous to England. Now, we come to the price which we receive for our wool, and we must judge whether the Minister prejudiced the wool farmers. Our accusation is that he neglected the interests of the wool farmers. I think there is no doubt about it. The farmers have been told repeatedly that they would receive an average price of 10¾d. for their wool. When the Minister spoke about this, he apologised for having to return to this matter. I also want to apologise for returning to the matter, but does the Minister want me to repeat all the evidence which I mentioned earlier? The Minister cannot deny that the farmers were promised that they would receive an average price of 10¾d. It was even broadcast over the wireless, and his secretary stated that we would receive the same price as Australia. That is what he broadcast to the whole world. I do not want to repeat those things unnecessarily in order to prove that that promise was made to the wool farmers. The Minister said that we would not receive a farthing less than the Australian wool farmers. Yesterday I asked him whether our wool farmers were receiving the same price as the Australian wool farmers. But the Minister did not reply to that, simply because he could not reply to it. He dared not reply, because he knows that they do not receive the same price as the Australian wool farmers. If they do not get it, then I make the accusation against the Minister that he betrayed the wool farmers of South Africa, that he betrayed their interests, and that he caused them tremendous harm by entering into this contract. In this contract there is no mention of the 10¾d. What he therefore held out to the farmers is actually not contained in the contract. It is provided in the contract that the wool would be sold to the British Government on a type basis. But the Minister wants to make the farmers believe that the contract is drawn up in such a way that it would give the farmers at least 10¾d. The Secretary for Agriculture also said that. I must say that they are but poor business men. Why did they not consult people who had a knowledge of the subject? And these people would then have told them that we could not possibly get 10¾d. under the contract. According to the price fixation of those types, the price does not work out at an average of 10¾d. The fact that the wool farmers cannot now get 10¾d. proves only one thing, and that is either that that type price was fixed incorrectly, or that there was an undervaluation of the clean yield of wool. We cannot get past that. I want to ask the hon. Minister to reply to me and to tell me whether this accusation which I make is not deserved? That the farmers cannot get 10¾d. can only be due to the fact that this schedule is too low, or that the clean yield is under-valued. The farmers are not getting 10¾d. today, and the Minister is responsible for that. He promised the farmers that they would receive that price. If there is an under-valuation, the Minister must see to it that the valuation takes place on a different basis. The valuation must take place on such a basis that the price which the farmers receive for their wool works out at an average of 10¾d. And if that does not happen, the Minister is neglecting his duty towards the wool farmers of South Africa. It has also been proved that the wool farmers have no guaranteed price—to use the Minister’s own words. And on that score the Minister stands accused that he misled the wool farmers when he said that they would receive a guaranteed price of 10¾d. for their wool. Now, I want to return to a few points which I raised yesterday, and to which the Minister did not give me a reply. The first point was this. I asked the Minister whether it was not true that where a sale takes place on this type basis, the small farmer is prejudiced. The farmer does not get so much more for short wool than he does for long wool, and as a result of that fact the farmer who shears short wool is prejudiced. And the person who shears short wool is the small farmer in the majority of cases. As a rule the man who shears strong wool is the small farmer, because he frequently goes in for cross-breeding of his sheep, and that wool is valued on such a low basis that that person is also prejudiced. When we drew his attention to the fact that there must have been under-valuation, the hon. Minister said that we should prove to him that the valuation was not sound. I can give him the assurance that very few of the small farmers in the country are satisfied today with the price that they receive. Since the Minister, in order to excuse himself, now reads resolutions which were passed at congresses, I want to tell him that I take no notice of those resolutions, because they are political resolutions and not the resolutions of impartial farmers. [Time limit extended.] I said that it was the small wool farmers who sheared the short wool or the strong wool, and it is that type of farmer who now suffers most heavily under the price which has been fixed for that type; and since the Minister did not see to it that the price was fixed on such a basis, that those people got their legitimate prices, he left them in the lurch. Now I come to another question which was raised in connection with this wool contract, and in regard to which the Minister has not yet replied, namely, that the South African wool farmers cannot insist on an increase in the prices of wool under this contract. Whatever may happen, and no matter how low the price may appear to be in the circumstances which can develop, however uneconomical the prices may be as a result of the rise in production costs, the South African wool farmer can never ask for an increase under this contract. The Australian wool farmer can do so, and it is only when they do it and when they receive an increase that the South African wool farmers can also claim it. Why are the South African wool farmers placed in such a disadvantageous position in comparison with the Australian wool farmers? Why should the South African wool farmers be left to the mercy of the Australian wool farmers? But has the Minister thought how the matter might develop for our wool farmers? On a previous occasion I have already put it to the Minister that the currency could influence the matter very prejudicially for South Africa. The Australian currency might develop in such a way, it may depreciate to such an extent, that the price which the Australian wool farmer receives in his currency is of such a nature that it is not necessary for him at all to ask for a higher price. If the Australian currency depreciates in value, then it will naturally result in their receiving much more for their wool in their own currency. Then our wool farmers would still be receiving the same price, and are our farmers then prevented from agitating for a higher price, because the Australian wool farmers do not do so? And under this contract we have not the right to insist on an increase in price. The Minister cannot get past that fact. But there is another possibility, too, which we must take into consideration. Assuming that British currency depreciates, will we then be paid in our currency, or will we be paid in English currency?

No, we are being paid in our currency.

Where is that stated in the contract?

Just read it again.

It is not stated in this contract in which currency we will be paid. There is no mention in this as to what will happen if the English currency depreciates. According to this contract, we do not know where we stand, and do you realise now in what position the Minister has placed us? And if we then criticise him, then he becomes sensitive and personal. It is because his conscience pricks him. Then there is another matter in connection with the agreement which I still want to mention, and that is that with regard to the profits which are made on the resale of the wool. It is stipulated that South Africa will only share in the profit on the wool which is sold outside England. In addition, there is the further provision, according to this contract, that if any wool undergoes a single process in England, and it is thereafter exported, then we shall not share in the profit which is made on that resale. If the English Government takes the wool and washes it, and then sells it to America or to another country, then we do not share in the profit which is made on that wool. I ask the Minister to deny that. If England buys the wool from us as cheaply as she does, and it is taken to England, washed there and then sold to America at a big price, then we do not share in the profit. We do not share in that profit, and along that line practically all our wool can be sold in such a manner that the South African wool farmers derive nd benefit from the increased price of the resale. Why is that exception made? The English Government takes our wool; it does not use that wool itself, but sells it again; and why cannot we share in those profits too? Do you see how the interests of the wool farmers of South Africa were neglected, and how England is enabled to make all the profits on it? They make profits on the wool, which is sold to their own factories and on the wool which they wash, or which they subject to a single process. We know that wool is accumulating in Australia, in South Africa and in America. It will go to England to be washed there, and when that wool is sold overseas, and we are not going to share in the profits, then we can see how it will affect the interests of our wool farmers, and how the interests of South Africa were neglected by the Minister. Taking all this into consideration, it is very clear to me that the Minister shamefully neglected the interests of our wool farmers in entering into this contract, and that he himself realises that is very clear, I think, because it must be clear to us that he has a guilty conscience when we notice how sensitive he is when we point out the detrimental consequences which this agreement has on us. I want to repeat what I said yesterday evening, that I feel convinced that if we had ‘retained the open market, bearing in mind the developments which took place in the world, and in view of the fact that we are practically the only country—excepting South America, which does not grow much wool—where America could buy her wool; and since America has practically become the workshop of the other countries, there would have been a very great demand for South African wool on the part of the American factories, and we would have had an unprecedented demand for our wool. The Minister must not try to make us believe that because the other countries are involved in war we would not have been in a position to sell our wool, and that the prices would not have been high. During the last war the whole world was practically eliminated. Only England, Canada and America bought wool here, and they could have bought wool here again, and they would have bought even more now, because the development is such today that Australia had practically been eliminated. America will not buy wool in Australia if she can get it in South Africa. I repeat, that if we had had an open market today, we would have got a higher price for our wool than we have ever got in our history. The Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the fact that this is not happening. I am not out to obtain abnormally high prices. But I think that we should bear in mind that the wool farmer is in a very unfavourable position in comparison with any other branch of farming in South Africa. We know that the average price for the last 20 years before the war was 11¾d. per lb. The wool farmer is now getting 10¾d. He is not even getting the average price which was obtained during the 20 years prior to the war. Is that the case with other farming products? Which other farmers are today receiving less than they received on an average for a period of 20 years prior to the war? We notice, therefore, how the interests of the wool farmer were looked after by the present Minister of Agriculture. We are not even demanding the price which was paid during the previous war. During war time we can claim an increase in price in all reasonableness; we have every reason to claim a good percentage rise in comparison with the average price prior to the war. But nevertheless we are not even receiving that average price of 11¾d. If we had got the average war price of the last war, then our wool farmers should have received 8d. per lb. more today. I think that these facts show sufficiently that the wool farmers have every reason to be dissatisfied, and because they are dissatisfied I think that the Minister should, in the future, adopt another attitude towards the farmers. The Minister tells us that the farmers are satisfied, and he relies upon the resolutions of agricultural organisations. Those resolutions are passed because the Minister’s political influence is so strong in those agricultural organisations that these people do not want to express what they really feel in connection with these losses which were caused to the wool farmers. But the eyes of the wool farmers will open, and they will realise what we have to sacrifice on the altar of the Empire, and the Minister must not think that the wool farmers are going to stand idly by. We know that the Minister has today tied us hand and foot to England, but I want to predict what is going to happen. Those people who pass the resolutions at agricultural organisations will write letters to Australia to tell the farmers there, in Heaven’s name, to protest against the low prices, so that we too can ask for a higher price. Those loyal wool farmers who passed these resolutions will do this. Here in South Africa they will ostensibly show their loyalty, but in that devious way they will try to get the price increased, and to air their dissatisfaction. Now I should like to deal with the wheat position. With regard to the wheat prices, the Minister tried this afternoon to excuse the attitude he adopted towards the wheat farmers. He felt very guilty, and he told us here that he did not want to make an enemy of the farmers, because the best interests of the country would not be served thereby. Nevertheless, he did make an enemy of the wheat farmers in the past, and now he sees what it means to the country. When they came to him with reasonable representations, he chased them away. He told them that if the farmers did not want to produce at the fixed prices, then they must simply stop producing. Now he realises his mistake; now he sees what he has done, and now he wants to crawl back and ask their pardon. He now tells them that he does not want to make an enemy of them. Well, if the Minister wants to have the wheat farmers as his friends, then he must conduct himself more sensibly towards them in future. He threatened the wheat farmers, and now he has discovered that he cannot threaten the wheat farmers but that they can threaten him. The Minister simply capitulated, now that he has discovered that the farmers can also threaten. He must not adopt that attitude towards the wheat farmers. He should adopt the attitude towards the farmers that he will co-operate with them, then he will get from them what he wants. In any case, the Minister is now giving an indication that he wants to cooperate with the farmers; and let us have that co-opeation now, both in the interests of the farmers and in the interests of the country in general. The Minister says that he wants to co-operate with the farmers and he asks us to forget the past. I can understand that in so far as the wool farmers, the potato farmers and the wheat farmers are concerned, the Minister is very anxious that the past should be forgotten, because he did not co-operate with those farmers but simply stood in their way. Whatever the position is, we just want to draw attention to the fact that the fact that shortages are expected today in certain requirements is due only to one thing, and that is that the price which was fixed for products was not adequate, and in the second place, the fact that there was not sufficient labour available to produce those articles. The Minister knows too that this shortage of labour is due to the action of the Government. The farmers went to the Prime Minister, and I personally sent telegrams to the Prime Minister to the effect that if they continued to recruit amongst the natives on the farms, it would simply result in the farmers not being able to continue proceeding. We issued a warning but the Minister did not pay any attention to it, and he continued to recruit with the result that we are faced by shortages today. In this connection I have a report from a correspondent of the Cape Times at Worcester. Inter alia, he writes this—

He further writes—

And then he says—

There is a task for the Minister. This correspondent clearly says that there is labour to be had in the cities and towns, if only they could be induced to work. Since the Government has now taken steps not to recruit coloured persons in those districts any longer, but since the Government still continues to recruit natives in the North, I again want to issue a warning to the Government. You are going to have as great a shortage of labour in the Transvaal and the Free State as there is here, if you continue recruiting natives. If the Government wants to recruit natives then it should recruit them only in the native areas and not on farms in the Transvaal and the Free State, because the labour shortage with regard to native labourers will become just as acute in those areas as the labour shortage is in the Western Province today. We warned the Minister here and he paid no attention to our warning, with the result that we are faced by a great shortage of labour today to the prejudice of production. If the Government continues to recruit amongst the farm labourers, the shortage of labour will affect the country very detrimentally in the future. Since the Minister has now been appointed to this important post of Controller of Production, Distribution and Consumption, we want to ask him, as he explained here this afternoon, to seek the co-operation of the farmer; we want to ask him in all respects to seek an honest, fair and friendly co-operation with the farmer, so as to prevent the farmer from being prejudiced and also to prevent the consumers in our country from being prejudiced as a result of a shortage of essential foodstuffs.

I hope we shall be able to get away for a few minutes at least from politics and talk about food. Last year a Commission was appointed to enquire into the unsatisfactory conditions in the distribution of fresh fruit. One realises that the distribution of such a perishable product as fruit has been made very much more difficult by the advent of the war. In many respects the difficulties that existed before have been aggravated owing to the suspension of export. I appreciate that the task which has fallen on the shoulders of the various Fruit Boards is by no means an easy or an enviable one. I want to confine my remarks this afternoon more particularly to the question of deciduous fruit. Citrus fruit is not as perishable as deciduous fruit, and citrus can be handled with greater ease and regularity, but it is with deciduous fruit that the main difficulty arises. I understand that the Minister has again appointed a Commission this year. That Commission, I believe, is still deliberating, but while the grass is growing the horse may be starving, and I feel that by the time this Commission makes its report, and before this House may be able to deal with that report, the session may be over and we may have passed the present fruit season. I make these remarks with the full appreciation of the fact that the Deciduous Fruit Board has a very difficult task on its shoulders and I do not wish to offer any destructive criticism. I hope the few facts I wish to bring to their notice—probably they have already noticed them—may assist them rather than detract from their usefulness. There has been a system of distribution built up over a period of many years and attempts have been made by the Fruit Board to do away with certain channels of distribution. I believe the latest attempt has been to sell all the fruit by public auction. I hold no brief for any market agent or for any of the other agents in Diagonal Street, Johannesburg; but I do say this, that where we are dealing with a product which can only stand a certain amount of handling and can only be stored for a limited period, it is imperative that every avenue of distribution should be utilised. The Diagonal Street agents and the market agents have been in existence for thirty years or more, and if they serve a useful purpose, if the farmer feels that by paying the extra commission they demand he is getting a greater return, then those particular agents must be serving a useful purpose. If those agents have been patronised by growers for the last thirty years, one would certainly get the impression that they must be serving some useful purpose. I feel, therefore, that the Board has embarked upon a dangerous policy in trying to eliminate these people entirely. In doing so they are eliminating or disregarding an accepted channel of distribution, and I feel that what they should have done is not to try and eliminate these people but rather to try and make use of their position to the full. Now, what do we find? What has been the result of the efforts of the Deciduous Board to handle this year’s fruit crop? I had occasion the other day to visit the market of Cape Town, and there I saw that 10 lb. boxes of export grapes—export quality—were offered at 1s. per box. The fruit was in a wasting condition. It had been stored in cold storage first and when it was taken out and put on the Cape Town market—which is only a stone’s throw away from the cold storage—this fruit was already in a wasting condition. We had the same difficulties last year. If one reads the Press reports which have appeared—and apparently they have not been contradicted—it appears that at a place like Elgin—I am referring to a report in the “Argus”—that thousands of cases of pears were placed in cold storage at Elgin. They were kept so long in cold storage that the juice was running down the boxes, and then they were put on the railway and sent to a canning factory at Paarl. The railway first of all refused to accept the consignment. When eventually the pears reached the canning factory it was found that they were unsuited for use. So those pears had to be destroyed. We find that similar things have happened at Ceres. Fruit was kept in cold storage for a certain time and sent back in a wasting condition. Last year the same thing happened. We know of several consignments of pears which arrived on the Johannesburg market in a wasting condition, and it was hoped that this year those things would have been avoided. I feel that there must be something wrong somewhere. Cold storage space is not obtained for nothing, and why this fruit should be placed in cold storage for so long and then thrown on the market in a wasting condition is a mystery— it means severe losses to growers of fruit, and these matters require some explanation. It seems inconceivable that the fruit should first be placed in cold storage in order to create a scarcity. I can understand the desire of the Fruit Board to get the highest possible price. That is quite reasonable, but what is the use of selling a thousand boxes of peaches or plums at 5s. and in order to secure that price make it necessary for another 1,000 boxes to be destroyed. That is false economy. There is this surplus of deciduous fruit. At least there is supposed to be one. I can only concede that there is a surplus in the sense that we cannot distribute entirely all the fruit produced, but let me put this question: How many people eat fruit, how many hotels in Cape Town serve fruit regularly every day? Very few. I think in most hotels fruit is served only once a week. There is no doubt that there is only a surplus of fruit because of improper distribution. If everyone in this country could get fruit at reasonable prices I make bold to say that there would be no surplus. We talk of a shortage of essential foodstuffs. Well, if people would eat more fruit, of which there is a surplus, there would be less of a shortage of other food, and fruit could take the place of other foodstuffs of which there may be an admitted scarcity. We feel that if all the markets were exploited the position could be greatly improved. I have reports, for instance, from the Ermelo market which has been starved of fruit to all intents and purposes for the last eighteen months—only recently has fruit been sent there. The whole trouble is that the requirements of the various markets have not been properly studied. For instance, to send pears or apples to the Ermelo market at present is not advisable, because the high veld itself has a surplus of apples and pears at this time of the year. The requirements of each market should be ascertained and even the times for running the trains to reach particular markets should be studied. [Time limit.]

It now appears that there is a shortage of products and cattle fodder. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) suggested very sound advice in order to find a solution to that problem, and that is that the Minister of Agriculture should see to it that the farmers receive an adequate price for their products. Then there will be a surplus of products and not a shortage. There are many of these articles in respect of which the consumer has to pay too much, and in respect of which the farmer, on the other hand, receives too little. The fault lies in the middle. The fault is with the distribution, with the middleman. I just want to mention here what goes on at our markets. The Johannesburg market is the biggest market in the country, and I have very good knowledge of that market. I saw how produce was put on the market there, only a few articles are auctioned, and then a bid is asked for the balance. The coolies who buy form a ring. Only one bid on the goods; he alone buys, and, of course, at a low price, and then the goods are distributed amongst them, and everyone receives his share. The result is that there is no competition. If the Minister wants to solve the problem, then he must prevent the residue from being auctioned. He must lay down that everything should be auctioned; and every buyer can then buy as much as he wants. This has been a problem for years at the Johannesburg market, and it is the same old game which is played there. If those people know that you are a dealer who wants to buy, they approach you and say to you that you should not bid. They ask you what quantity of goods you want, and then one person buys and you get your share. That is the game which is played there, and then the consumers have to pay these high prices, while the farmer, too, does not get his legitimate price. Then I want to bring the mealie question to the notice of the Minister. As he knows, the mealie crop is not even sufficient for this year’s consumption. There will not be sufficient. The mealies are now being controlled and the prices fixed. The Minister knows that if the market had remained open, then the price would have been high, and it would have been said that it is an impossible price for the consumers to pay. I take it that that would have been so. In view of the fact that the farmers have agitated for years that we should have control over our mealies, I do not want to say anything against that now. The Minister told us that he could not say now what the price would be which will be paid. He told the wheat farmers a year in advance what their price would be. The mealies will come in within a month or two, and we want to urge the Minister to indicate the price, and, in doing so, I hope he will take into consideration the fact that we have only half a crop, and that the production costs in respect of half a crop are practically the same as in the case of a full crop. We hope that he will take that into consideration, and that he will see to it that the mealie farmers receive a reasonable price on which they can make ends meet, especially the smaller farmers, who are the people who suffer most when there is half a crop. Natural circumstances constitute the biggest factor in causing difficulties. What is more, production costs were so high last year that it was not a paying proposition, with the result that this year the utmost efforts were not made to produce. People did not incur so much expense, and did not apply themselves to production to the same extent, which is partly the cause of the reduced production. I hope that the Minister will see to that. The Minister now observes the results of what was done in the past, namely, that there is a shortage in the country, and if he continues in this way there may yet be starvation in the country, in so far as mealies are concerned. We notice even now that people are not to be allowed to convert their mealies into stock, as they were advised to do previously. That will be controlled. Now I want to bring the meat position to the notice of the Minister. The Minister said yesterday that the price of meat was high. We know that, but we also know that the farmers are not getting the high prices. The consumers have to pay the high prices, but the farmers are not getting it. If we study the report of the Economic Division concerning the prices realised for stock on the market, we find that super prime oxen fetch high prices. That is what the Minister is looking at, but those super prime oxen represent only 5 per cent. of the stock which is put on the market. The greater majority of the meat is medium and compound, and the greater majority of the meat which people buy in the butcheries is medium and compound. But this is calculated on the price which super prime stock fetches on the market. The prices in the butcheries are exceptionally high, but on the market the price of super prime is only a few shillings above 40s. We cannot, however, take that price only. The Minister is shaking his head. It is true that super prime occasionally goes somewhat higher, but now it is calculated at nett weight. If you take nett weight, then the hide and offal and the fat is not taken into account. The butcher receives that free of charge, and it represents about 10 per cent. of the animal. If the farmer receives 6d. per lb. for an ox, then the butcher estimates at 1s. per lb., and then, in addition, he still has the offal and the fat and hide. Why should the butcher make 100 per cent. profit merely for the distribution of the meat? In addition to that, it costs the farmer an average of 10 per cent. nett to market his cattle, which also comes off the price he receives. Consequently one finds that the farmer barely receives 40 per cent. of what the consumer pays. I hope the Minister will go into that; then he will discover what the reason is why the consumer is paying so much, and the farmer receiving so little. The Government is almost the biggest consumer of meat on the market today. The Government buys its meat by contract, and I want to suggest that the Government should fix the price for slaughter meat. There is a monopoly in the butchery business, and I think the Government should now intervene, and with regard to its purchases, say: “This is the type of meat which we want, and this is the price.” Then the farmers can be given permits to send in their oxen as the Government requires meat, and then this unheard of profit will not be made by the middleman. Then the farmer will also be paid for honest weight, and the Government will not pay for more than it receives.

In pursuance of what was said, in regard to the wool question, by the hon. members for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) and Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux), I feel that it is my duty on this occasion to bring certain facts to the notice of the House, of hon. members, and also of the country in connection with the wool scheme. The hon. member for Cradock originally adopted a wrong standpoint in connection with the wool scheme, and now he is trying at all costs to justify the attitude which he adopted when circumstances were completely different to those of today. I had thought that the hobby horse of the hon. member had been so ridden to a standstill that he would no longer try to continue in the wrong direction, but apparently the hon. member is still continuing in that direction. His statement is tantamount to this, that the wool farmers of the Union do not understand their own business. If the wool farmers had understood their business, then they would all have thought, as the hon. member for Cradock does, but because the hon. member for Cradock thinks so, and he cannot persuade the wool farmers to think as he does, he now makes the statement that the wool farmers do not understand their own business. That is what it boils down to. One has to deal here with facts, and the wool farmers, as business men, can judge on the strength of the facts in their possession, whether their attitude is correct, or that of the hon. member for Cradock. Two seasons have now elapsed under the wool scheme. The facts in connection with the two seasons are now known, and on that the wool farmers can judge which of the two policies was the right one; which has been the most advantageous up to the present. What is the small percentage of wool farmers who are opposed to the scheme today? Of course, in the eyes of the hon. member for Cradock, the congress results which were read out by the Minister do not count. The expressions of opinion on the part of the wool farmers do not count. No, this is now described as politics which have been dragged in, simply because the wool farmers do not want to accept the attitude or the policy of the hon. member for Cradock. If the resolutions of the wool farmers had been just the opposite, and in the hon. member’s favour, then he would certainly have quoted them, and would not have left it to the Minister to read them out. But because the resolutions were not in favour of his standpoint, it is said that politics have been dragged in. The resolutions do not suit him. Now, I should like to know what type of wool one has to produce in order to get less than 10.75d.? I am speaking as a wool farmer who represents an important wool district, and who knows what he is talking about. I would like to see the wool which realises less than 10.75d. Can the hon. member show me? As has been said, my constituency is an important wool district, and we do not know of a price which is lower than 10.75d. under the scheme. As an example, I shall take my own wool clip. My own clip, in so far as the top line is concerned, was sold at only 17d., but notwithstanding that, my whole wool clip worked out at 13.50d. or approximately 5d. more than the hon. member alleges we are getting.

You are now mentioning exceptional cases.

No, my wool was no exception. The greater part of the wool of our district was sold at that price, and even more. If this is an exception, then they are all exceptions. What I say here goes for my constituency, and, as far as I am aware, also the whole of the southwestern parts of the Cape. The top price for first lines was only 17d. in my case, but nevertheless the average was 13½d., and, in respect of the lowest class, the locks, I still received 5d. Where is the person who produces wool which realises less than an average of 10.75d.? In his own interests, and in the interests of South Africa, he should not produce wool. And at this price which we are getting, wool can be produced with great success in the country, and it is produced with great success, too. If the wool farmers treat their wool well and classify it correctly, these prices, and even better prices, will be realised. But we are faced by the serious position that people do not always treat their wool correctly, and do not classify it correctly, and then they do not get top prices. But whose fault is it then? Surely it is not the fault of the Government. I just want to mention my own case again. The previous year I did not classify correctly, and I lost 1½d. on my clip, but when I did classify correctly I received the higher price of this year. It may easily happen that farmers classify incorrectly, because under the new system wool has to be classified differently than it was in the past, and many farmers as yet do not know it; they adhere to the old way of classification, with the result that they receive a lower price, and in such cases it may happen that a person does not receive an average of 10¾d. It is an art to classify wool well under this scheme, under the new system. I can mention the example of a big farmer in my district. He shears approximately 80 bales per year. He sent his wool to the market. Before he classified his wool he was warned that if he persisted in classifying incorrectly, he would lose on his clip. He classified on the wrong basis, but they gave him the right to repack the wool and to classify correctly, and after he had classified correctly he scored £180 on his clip. That shows the necessity of good classification, and if the farmers classify well they will receive a good price. I think the hon. member for Cradock would render better service to the farmers if he rather asks the Minister and the department to provide more wool experts in order to instruct the farmers in the correct method of treating and classifying their wool. The wool must be very poor, or otherwise short wool, to realise less than 10¾d. Good wool, which is classified correctly and treated well, realises a good price and fetches more than 10¾d. Now we hear from the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and others that America would have been a strong competitor in our market if we had kept our market open. I want to ask them who would have competed with America. If England had ceased to buy because she bought sufficient wool in Australia, against whom would America then have competed? Do hon. members think that America will do such poor business as to pay any price for our wool? Without competition, America would have bought the wool as cheaply as possible. At first we heard that Italy would buy our wool. When Italy entered the war it was Japan which would have bought our wool in an open market. Now that Japan is also at war, hon. members say that America would have bought our wool. Can one attach any value to such wild statements and irresponsible criticism? I think that it has been shown that the wool scheme was necessary, and if ever the Government has rendered the country a service, then it was to enter into the wool agreement at that stage. If the wool agreement had not been concluded, and we had had to approach England for a scheme on a later occasion, and England had refused to take our wool, what would have been the position of the wool farmers today?

An empire scheme.

That is all one gets from the hon. member. He knows of nothing else. He cannot appreciate the interests of his own farmers and of South Africa. The wool farmers are grateful to the Government for this scheme, except a small percentage which, for political purposes, is incited by people who have an interest in doing so. But they are voices crying in the wilderness. At first the arguments of the hon. member for Cradock and his statements found an echo, but now it does not even find an echo among the farmers. The wool accumulates here. The British Government does not require the wool. At whose expense does this take place? At the expense of the Imperial Government, but the money for the wool is in our pockets. [Time limit.]

I notice from the Press that the Minister of Native Affairs has said that the system of native passes should be reviewed. The Minister of Agriculture wants us to produce, but we can only produce if we have labour, and I want to know whether the Minister of Native Affairs has consulted the Minister of Agriculture on this question of native passes. If the Pass Laws are done away with there is going to be an even greater shortage of native labour on the farms, and if that happens we shall not be able to produce at all.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

I only want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to stop the Minister of Native Affairs. The Minister knows that potato growers’ associations have lately been formed. If one is a member of such an association one gets 2s. 6d. more for one’s potatoes than if one is not a member. Now I want to point out to the Minister that we in the Western Transvaal only started growing potatoes in the last few years. We know now that in the Western Transvaal we are able to produce the best quality potatoes, but there are certain areas where only a few farmers are producing potatoes, and such a potato grower is perhaps thirty miles away from the next potato grower. How can they form a ring, a society, if they live so far apart? They are now excluded if they don’t belong to a society. I trust the Minister will review this matter so that the farmers who, owing to the long distance they are apart, are unable to form their organisations, will not be detrimentally affected. It may be possible to carry out this idea on the high veld, at Bethal, for instance. There every Dick, Tom and Harry grows potatoes, and it is quite easy for them to form a union or an association, but in the Western Transvaal it cannot be done. Does the Minister intend giving the high veld a preference over the Western Transvaal? If the Minister refuses to meet me we shall cause him a lot of trouble. Surely he does not want that. If farmers live twenty or thirty miles apart how can they possibly form associations there? According to the rules laid down, the farmers have to come together and they have to plant the right type of seed potatoes. The effect of this provision will simply be that farmers living far apart will not be able to form a union or an association unless they include people who do not produce potatoes, but it will lead to fraud or deceit. Now I come to another point. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that mealies cannot be imported for less than £1 7s. 6d.? I don’t want to criticise the Minister unduly; he is not in good health at the moment and that is why I am dealing very gently with him today. I want to warn the Minister. I don’t want to have everything for the mealie farmer, but I want to warn the Minister that the price for mealies should not be fixed below 15s. this year. If the price is fixed at less than 15s. per bag the Minister will be responsible for the consequences. I am putting it very low—we don’t want to ask for an extreme price; we are not asking for £1 7s. 6d.—that is the price at which mealies can be imported. If there is a shortage of other commodities, the local commodity is sold at the price of the imported article. Mealies can only be imported for £1 7s. 6d., and we are only asking for half that price. I have a feeling that the Government may want to fix the price at 10s. or 12s. 6d., and I want to warn the Minister. The minimum price should be 15s.

The Minister of Agriculture gave such a clear reply to the debate on the wool position, and it is so clear from what the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) has told us, that there is really very little left to be said. But hon. members opposite cannot get away from wool. The dissatisfaction which they try to create, however, does not go very much beyond their own Benches, but I can assure the Government that there is very little dissatisfaction in the country over the wool position. Hon. members opposite, to justify their existence, go out of their way and try to exploit the whole matter, but what is the real position? The farmers today have a guaranteed market which is something they have never had in the past. In the past the position always was that the farmer was uncertain as to when he would have to shear his sheep in order to tax the market at the time it was at its best. Today we get an average price which is equivalent to the average price which we had for the last twenty years.

That is not so.

If the hon. member will study the figures he will find there is very little difference. There are other factors, however, by which we can test the position of the wool farmers. In the first place we find that while as a rule all the money which the Land Bank has at its disposal is taken up, during the past two years the facilities offered by the Land Bank have not been made use of in full, and if we take the position of our commercial banks we find that there, too, the farmers are paying off their debts. The bank manager of my disrict has told me that it is astonishing to see the way the farmers are redeeming their overdrawn accounts. We have also had figures placed before us to show the way debts are being paid off to the State Advances Recovery Office. Further, we have another factor, the most important of all, and that is the abnormal increase in the price of land values where farmers can farm with Merino sheep. The price of land has gone up by at least 20 per cent. up to 50 per cent. in the last twelve months. One finds that it is hardly possible to buy a farm anywhere in the areas where sheep farming can be undertaken. The increase in price is as great as it was in the greatest boom years. That goes to prove how devoid of all ground the Opposition’s criticism is. The Minister referred to the interest that is today being taken in our wool in America. This is most significant. I was talking to one of the brokers the other day, and he told me that the Americans were at first sceptical about the qualities of our wool, but now that they have got to know our wool and have made tests they are surprised at its good quality, and they even go so far as to say that our Karroo wool is equal in quality to the best Australian wool in every respect. The hon. member for Aliwal remarked that the Minister was an autocrat. I want to say that if the Minister’s attitude is autocratic then I should always like to have an autocratic Minister and an autocratic department. My experience is that we have never before had as approachable a department of Agriculture as we have today. As a matter of fact the whole of the Ministry is approachable. If I cast my mind back to the days when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was Minister of Agriculture, and I compare the treatment which we got in those days with that which we get today, then it is clear to me that it would be a bad exchange if we had to be governed again by hon. members opposite. I can mention plenty of instances but let me mention one. In the depression years our mohair farmers were in a miserable condition. What treatment did we get? The hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister of Agriculture at the time. We got a miserable advance of 4d. What is the position today? The mohair farmers went to the Government without any guarantee—in the past a guarantee from the Co-operative Societies was required— we got an advance of from 12d. to 20d. for our mohair. Before 1939, when the citrus industry was in a precarious position we approached the Government, and after a lot of trouble succeeded in getting a halfpenny and on another occasion a penny. Today the farmer has been promised 3s. whether the fruit is picked or not. They have been given a guarantee of 3s. I also want to say a few words about the mortality among horses and mules caused by horse sickness. I had a letter today in which I was told of a case where out of twenty draft animals only one was left. The farmers are asked to produce more, but they cannot do so without draft animals. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot apply the same principle as that which is in force in the Transvaal, where tractors are placed at the disposal of people? The department could render further help by trying to apply the rebate which is applicable to the transport of cattle and oxen, also horses and mules, because there are still horses and mules in the Free State today which have been innoculated against horse sickness, which people want to bring here, but the railway rates are so high that they are prevented from doing so. I should like to know whether the Minister would be prepared to make representations to the Railway to assist the people in this regard? I also want to refer to the cacto blastus question. The farmers are now prevented from using pentoxide to destroy the prickly pear, and consequently the young plants have sprung up and have become a danger today, largely as a result of the failure of the cacto blastus. I just want to ask the Government to have the prohibition on the use of pentoxide removed, so that the farmers can be allowed to use pentoxide. I also want to ask for assistance to be given to the farmers to secure pentoxide. In regard to the Price Controller of our products, I am very glad that such an appointment has been made, but I do want to say that in regard to meat, the Government should go slowly, so that we will not have the same results as we had in the case of potatoes, because the price of potatoes had hardly been fixed, when it dropped tremendously, so much so that the farmers are still in trouble about it. [Time limit.]

I move—

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.