I want to ask the Minister a question in order to get a point cleared up, namely, to what extent is the Mint being used for war purposes? I notice here that the vote deals with extra administrative expenses and supplies. I can quite understand that the Mint requires supplies, but as a business man I fail to understand how it is that administrative expenses have increased by £7,000 while supplies have only risen to the extent of £3,000. Does the Minister think that that is a sound business policy.

The Mint has an Ammunition Factory attached to it today, but the expenditure in connection with that factory is kept separate and is accounted for under the war account. The additional amount which is asked for here is only in connection with minting activities of the Mint, and has nothing to do with war activities. The increase of this amount is principally the result of the expansion of the minting activities of the Mint. The work which has been expanded particularly is in connection with types of minting where the metal costs comparatively little and that is why the increase in the cost of supplies is comparatively small in relation to the increase in administration expenses.

I shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister will tell us who are the members of the Committee which is referred to here, and what really is the work of that Committee?

The Committee consists of representatives of the Departments which primarily have to deal with social work, that is the Departments of Education, Public Health and Social Welfare, and the Department of Agriculture is also concerned to a certain extent. It was found that there was a certain amount of overlapping in regard to the Department’s propaganda work, and as the work of all the departments is of a similar nature it was decided to co-ordinate it in this way. In regard to social welfare work particularly it is necessary to do a great deal of propaganda work by means of advertisements, pamphlets and films, and all that work is controlled by this Committee. It does not mean an extension of the work, but it means the co-ordination of existing activities.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture various things associated with this Vote, and I have no doubt he will give me satisfaction. I want to ask these questions because there is tremendous dissatisfaction in regard to the position of bread, and there is tremendous disappointment throughout the country at the way in which this matter is handled. In the first place there is the increase in the cost of stabilisation. It is almost a new feature and it has got this year to the amount of £1,190,000. Well, there are different kinds of stabilisation. You may stabilise something in a way that is to the benefit of the public, or you may stabilise something that should not be stabilised. The stabilisation which has taken place here is to the greatest disadvantage of the people of the country, and it is totally unfair. We see increases everywhere. There is an increase so far as the producer is concerned, an increase so far as the miller is concerned, and an increase so far as the baker is concerned.

You leave the producer alone.

I say that the position is most unsatisfactory. There is the question of the price of wheat. We must take it that this increased price has been arrived at by a process of bargaining, so as to give fair prices to the producers, the millers and the bakers. Well, who are the people who are going to profit by this new condition that has been created? There are a number of large and important milling companies in the country who will benefit—two of them are quoted on the Stock Exchange. The highly increased dividends which these companies will pay and the excess profits tax which they will pay will gladden the heart of the Minister of Finance. But these increased profits are very striking.

Can you give us the figures?

When I look at the position of these companies I find there is something wrong, and I must come to the conclusion that the Department does not know what is going on. Take the Premier Milling Company. In 1938 their shares were 32/-, then they went up to 40/- and now they stand at 80/-. These big prices do not come about unless inordinate profits are made somewhere. I must say that the Minister and his Board in bargaining for the increased prices have not done very well for the country. Then take another milling company—the Union Flour Mills. Their shares were 27/-, they went up to 30/-, then to 46/- and then to 57/6d. There must be some very good reason for this increase in the price of those shares. I think I have the right to ask the Minister to tell us what the position is, and to tell us what is the reason for the increase in the price of bread. I shall tell the House what the reason is—it is because too much has been given to these milling companies. Let us look at the price of bread. The Minister will know that the best and the largest bakers in the country desired the loaf to remain at a maximum price of 6d. The Minister of Finance yesterday told us that they paid this big amount which we had on the Estimates in order to stabilise the price of bread at 6d. last year. But they did not stabilise it.

Of the two items here on the Vote, the item against the original Estimates of £381,100 was in respect of last year’s crop, 1941-1942, and was for the stabilisation of the price at 6d. The second amount of £579,000 which is to be supplemented by a further amount on the Main Estimates, will be in connection with this year’s crop, 1942-1943, and is for the present stabilisation of bread at 6½d. The two items therefore are different.

I thank the Minister, but that does not affect my statement in regard to the excessive payment made to these companies. In regard to the price of bread we know that there are people in trade — not of the very best class, perhaps — who will always get whatever they can without giving fair consideration to anyone, but the Minister knows that our best bakers said “No, the price of bread should not exceed 6d.” and the people of the country were pleased with that attitude. As a matter of fact I am told that the price of this bread—you call it bread, don’t you—can be fixed at 5d. and that it would still give a good profit at that price. That could be borne out by a close investigation. Well, why did the Department bully our best people into raising the price from 6d. to 6½d.? Some of our friends say “what is a ½d.?” but let me remind them that this ½d. is 8 persent on the present price of the article, and if you take a million halfpennies per day it is a very tidy sum. So the halfpennies need not be so much despised. Anyhow, I think that is is clear that it cannot remain at that. You cannot continue to charge 6½d. for your bread. It is against everyone’s better judgment; it is against the judgment of the bakers themselves who are quite satisfied with the price of bread at 6d. I say now to the Minister that whatever happens we have to do the right thing and that is reduce the price of this bread now.

I am very pleased that I am able this afternoon to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Henderson). I am glad that at last somebody on the other side of the House has taken up the attitude which he has taken up, and I want to express the hope that now that one of the front benchers on the other side has put forward the figures in the way he has done in regard to the wheat position and the bread position, the Minister will take more notice of matters than he has done so far, more notice than he took when similar arguments were adduced from this side of the House. We on this side, not only during the last session but during the last four or five sessions, have been drawing attention to the large profits which millers have been allowed to make. We adduced arguments only last year, arguments which we had often used in the past, that bread was sold at a lower price than now, although the price of wheat in those days was considerably higher than it is today. I quoted the figures last year, just as I did in previous years, and I pointed out that when wheat was sold at £1 15s. 0d. per bag bread was sold at 6d. per 2 lb. loaf. We repeatedly ask the Minister in Heaven’s name to explain this contradictory phenomenon. If bread could be sold cheaper in those years than it could be sold last year, in spite of the fact that wheat was very much more expensive than what farmers are getting for it today, there must be a mistake somewhere. We ask the Minister to tell us where the fault lay. Now, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has drawn attention to the increase which has taken place in the shares of the large milling companies, and we should like the Minister to explain to us what the position is. I say that this amount of £1,100,000 which appears on this Vote is made available by this Parliament, and the major portion of that money goes in large profits to the millers, with the result that their shares go up as was shewn by the hon. member. I want to repeat that the time will come when we shall be putting that same pertinent question again to the Minister. He has to prove to us how it was possible for bread to be cheaper in the past, although the producer was getting more for his product than last year, or more than he was getting during the past five or six years. We don’t blame the Government in any way for protecting the consumer. The consumer has just as much right to demand protection from the State against exploitation as the farmer has to demand a fair price for his product, and as the farmer has to demand protection against exploitation, but we want to emphasise that as a result of some error which has been made—the Minister will have to tell us where the fault lies—we find today that we are in the position that the farmer does not get what he is entitled to get, and on the other hand the consumer is being definitely exploited. I want to repeat what I have said before in the hope that now that the hon. member for Hospital has pertinently brought this matter to the Minister’s notice the Minister will be willing to give greater attention to this question than he has done so far, and I hope he will be prepared to do something. The Minister may say that the millers are faced with additional expenditure. If that is so let him give us the facts so that we can bring those facts to the notice of the farmers when they ask us why it is that bread was cheaper in the days when the price of wheat was higher. In any case we shall then have an explanation to put before those people. So far, although we have urged the Minister to give us an explanation every year, he has not given us that explanation, and for that reason I want to make a strong appeal to him to make a statement and to give us an explanation, if any explanation can be given.

The hon. member who has just sat down has made an attack on the millers and he has told the House that the millers make large profits. He ought to be better informed.

You should rather reply to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson).

No, the hon. member for Hospital is not familiar with the interests of the wheat farmers in the same way as the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) should be. His constituents largely consist of wheat farmers, and yet it seems that he knows nothing about the interests of the wheat farmers. The hon. member surely knows that a Wheat Commission was appointed some time ago to go into the question of the price of flour and to go into the whole question of the milling industry. That Commission has brought out its report and from that report it appears that the Commission examined the books of eleven of the big millers in this country. The hon. member also knows that in 1940 the price of wheat paid to the farmer was 22/- per bag; as against that the price to the miller was 29/-. The hon. member may say that that means a profit of 7/-, but let the hon. member read the Report. Surely he should be interested because he represents wheat farmers. It was made clear from the Report of the Commission which, as I have said, had examined the books of eleven of the big millers in the country, that the milling costs for a bag of wheat amounted to 2/6. That includes profits, reserves, bad debts, etc. In addition to that it cost 1/- per bag railage to get the wheat to the mill. The hon. member knows that his constituents at Brits put the wheat on the train and the miller pays the railage, and not the farmer. He should at least know that. According to the Commission’s report this costs the millers 1/- per bag. Then the hon. member should also know that a levy of 1/- per bag has been placed on wheat and the millers have to pay that.

And they deduct that from the price of wheat.

That is a different argument again. The miller has to pay that. He has to buy the wheat at 22/- per bag and then he has to pay the levy out of his own pocket. I admit that if the levy were not there the wheat farmers could have got 1/- per bag more. But the millers pay it now. According to the report costs of administration amount to 6d. per bag. Then there are selling costs. We know that the millers have big expenses in connection with selling costs and those expenses are put at 1/- per bag. Then there is distribution. They have to deliver the flour on the train in order to get it to the consumer. That costs 1/6. That brings their expense to 7/6, so where do those large profits come in? Now the hon. member asks why the shares have gone up. Will he tell me which shares, of which mill, have gone up? The shares of the Premier Milling Company and of the Union Flour Company have gone up, but have the shares of any other mills gone up? Those companies have very large activities of a different kind as well. They control factories and a large number of other things. There are some millers who are also traders on a large scale. The hon. member should know, as a representative of wheat farmers, that the Government only allows profits to be made up to 7½%. That is 1/6 per bag. Now, are the shares going to rise because of a profit like that? No, I don’t doubt that the millers make pretty good money. They are well off. 1/6 per bag is not too little but it is not too much either.

What about the bran?

The hon. member who has just interrupted me knows nothing about bran. I think he should give the public some information about matters of this kind, because we also find that there are a number of papers which have a lot to say about the shares of milling companies having gone up so tremendously, just as the hon. member has told us here, but they don’t tell us that those are shares in milling companies which do other business as well as milling.

I am very pleased at the attitude which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has adopted here, and it seems to me that he is the real friend of the farmer and of the consumer. But the man I am really surprised at is the hon. member who has just sat down. He used to be a great champion of the wheat farmers in the past, but during the last few years we have never heard him plead the cause of the wheat farmers in this House. During the last few years he has always got up here as a champion of the millers. We have no objection to the hon. member standing up for the millers. But my friend, what we want to have … …

The hon. member must address the Chair.

What we want, Mr. Chairman, is that the hon. member who has undergone such a terrific change, should tell us why his whole attitude has changed so completely. I always understood that he was a wheat farmer so why does he now plead the cause of the millers? He admits that large profits are made by the millers. He has told us who those millers are, but we want to tell him this, that if the shares have gone up, as the hon. member for Hospital has shewn us, then it means that large profits must have been made in the milling business. I am a wheat farmer, and many of us on this side of the House are wheat farmers, and naturally we look after the interests of the wheat industry. Another thing I feel is that this amount is appearing on this Vote under a wrong heading. In what way are the wheat farmers concerned with this service to fix the price of bread? This should appear under the Vote of Social Welfare. It is brought up here with no other object but to mislead the public. This is a matter which concerns general Social Welfare and is not intended to promote the cause of the farmers. I protest against it being raised here. Another matter which we went into very carefully in the past was that during the last war when the price of wheat was £3 per bag, the price of bread was exactly the same as it is now. Why then should we spend all this money now when the price is only 30/- per bag and the price of bread 6½d. per 2 lb. loaf? There is something wrong somewhere, and it is with the big millers that the fault lies. In my area small millers had to get out of business because the big millers have the monopoly now. Here we are face to face again with the capitalistic system which wants to destroy everything that is small, and my hon. friend who has just spoken is one of those who are depriving all the small people of their livelihood. I cannot understand him. I remember the days when he was a champion, when he championed the cause of the farmer, but today he is quite prepared to champion the cause of the capitalist and of the big miller. I protest against the way in which this amount is being placed on the Estimates. I think it is misleading, and the public should know that the money does not go into the pockets of the farmers but into somebody else’s pockets.

I make no apology for raising the grievances of the farmers in my constituency in regard to the question of maize.

That comes on the Loan Vote.

I think the whole system is hopelessly inadequate.

The Committee is considering Vote No. 23, the controlled price of bread, and the hon. member must confine his remarks to that subject.

Very well, I shall raise the matter at the appropriate time.

The more I look at this vote No. 23 the more I feel that money is being unnecessarily wasted here. We must feel at once that it is absolutely incomprehensible that the control of the price of bread in this country should cost £1,195,000. If we cast our minds back and look at what we voted last year on this vote for the control of the price of bread and we find then that we are asked to vote an additional amount of £500,000 the question immediately arises “Who is going to get the additional halfpenny which has been added to the price of bread—to the 6d.?” No, we cannot possibly be satisfied with the explanation which the Minister of Finance has given these huge amounts which are being spent, merely for the purpose of controlling the price of bread. But this matter also has another aspect, and there I feel that I must agree with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) and it is this, that the bread which we get in this country is unnecessarily expensive. The hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) of course, is directly interested in this matter, but he forgets to tell us what goes on in the mills. The miller mills the wheat just as it comes in, and he extracts a small percentage of bran and we have to accept the meal as we get it. We who have experience of buying meal to bake our own bread know that we hardly ever get a bag of meal which has not got rope in it. It is thready. This is a bad state of affairs. We don’t know what the meal has been mixed with. All we know is that bad wheat, wheat suffering from blight, wheat which has sprouted and all other things are milled together, and we who know how to bake our own bread, feel that our millers mill an inferior wheat and the public have to accept that meal which is milled from inferior grain. We cannot distinguish today between various types of meal as we were able to do in the days when we got first class sifted meal. The millers mill bad wheat with the result that there are large quantities of bran in the meal and yet the poor people have to pay ½d. more for their bread. I am quite convinced that when the hon. member for Kimberely District (Mr. Steytler) reads over his speech in Hansard he will find that he has proved the very opposite of what he wanted to prove. The figure he gave worked out at 7/8d. so he wants to contend that the miller loses 8d., and yet they make large profits and their shares go up. It is a pity that the hon. member did not tell us how much profit the mills in which he is interested have made. We have been feeling for a long time that the difference between what the producers get and what the consumers have to pay is out of all proportion, and that the sooner the Government intervenes the better. Give the miller a decent living, but make it impossible for the miller to enrich himself at the expense of the poor consumer, the man who has to pay an unheard of price for this conglomerate bread. As we, as producers, expect to produce close on 8,000,000 bags of wheat this year, we trust that the Minister of Agriculture will see his way to put an end to what in this country is known as Khaki bread, and that we shall be able to get decent flour again. Once we get that back we shall be healthy again, and we shall get rid of our bad digestion.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the following amendment:

The amendment is not in order, the hon. member can only move a reduction in the vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am not moving a reduction.

That is all the hon. member is entitled to do.

If that is the case, sir, may I comment on the description? When the Minister submitted draft estimates last year, he described this item or a cognate item, as assistance to wheat farmers, and in that he was perfectly correct. By what process of logic the hon. Minister has now arrived at the conclusion that he was wrong, and that he should describe it as expenditure in stabilising the price of bread, I do not know. But it appears to me, and it will appeal to most people, that if there is an increase in the price of bread, there must have been either an increase in the price of wheat to the producer, or an increase to the miller or the baker. When the price of bread was stabilised at 6d. I quite realise that the Minister considered that we were getting an inferior bread to what we had before, and that the price to the consumer had been increased. As a matter of fact, we were paying for bran exactly what we were paying for wheat flour when we bought the loaf of standard bread. I cannot think why the price of bread, having been increased to 6½d. we should be called upon to pay an extra £500,000, but this amount is being spent, and I hope the Minister will enlighten us. The mere fact that there is an increase of something like £500,000 in the expenditure gives us grounds for thinking that somebody other than the consumer is getting that money. The fact that we are called upon to spend this money to stabilise the price of bread, and the fact that the price of bread has been increased ½d. per loaf, does not seem to me to dovetail. Someone is getting nearly £500,000. Who is getting it? We know that the Minister, at the beginning of last year guaranteed 30/6d. per bag of Grade A wheat. In October we got a statement published in the Press that an amount of £2,000,000 is required for the wheat farmer, £1,000,000 of which had to be found by the Government, and the other £1,000,000 by the increase of ½d. in the price of bread from November 1st, 1942. Now if the producer is not getting it, who is getting it, and why does he get it? I consider if the producer is getting it, and this expenditure is not incurred in stabilising the price of bread, it is absolutely wrong to call it anything else but assistance to wheat farmers. I hope the Minister will consider this, and substitute the description “assistance to wheat farmers.”

I really fail to understand why this item comes under the Agricultural Vote. I asked the Minister last year why it was put there, and it was thereupon changed. Now he comes here again and says that this amount is required to fix the price of bread. That is what this £579,000 is needed for. I merely want to say that the price of wheat is not profitable to the farmer today, because the farmer has to incur all kinds of exorbitant expenses in connection with the industry. The Wheat Board is a fifth wheel to the wagon. We agitated for £1/10/- per bag, but the Wheat Board could do nothing. Thereupon the Prime Minister in his private capacity came along and fixed the price over the heads of the Wheat Board. So the Board is a fifth wheel to the wagon. But recently we saw in the Press that Mr. Fotheringham, one of the biggest bakers in Johannesburg, stated that he was able to sell bread cheaper than at the fixed price. If a big baker like Mr. Fotheringham says that he can sell more cheaply then what is the position?

There is nothing to prevent him from doing so.

I quite understand that, but after all he is a business man and he is not going to run his business at a loss, but he is going to make the profit he can make. The fact of the matter still is that one of the biggest bakers tells us that bread can be sold more cheaply. Why then must a price be fixed to the detriment of the producer? Why is not the consumer taxed by a ½d. more? The Minister told the wheat farmer that they must produce more and that he would come to their assistance. All the producers have been told to produce more. We have produced more but what do we get today?

30/-.

Who gets 30/-?

The Minister of Agriculture has done nothing. He has been asleep all the time, just as he is now. He is not a farmer but a lawyer.

Come and look me up and I shall teach you how to farm.

The Minister of Agriculture did not have the courage to fix the price of wheat. He said to the Wheat Board, “You want to fix it at £1/10/-, but I cannot approve of that, I do not see my way to approve of it.”

But you have been saying that the wheat farmers do get £1/10/-.

It is the Prime Minister who has fixed the price over your head.

That was the year before.

Please! The hon. member for Kimberley District is a constituent of mine and I must ask him to behave. The hon. member today no longer only represents wheat producers but he represents the millers and he is between Heaven and Earth. He does not know where he is. But here—because this comes under the Agricultural Department—the producers are taxed in order to fix the price of bread, although the bakers themselves say that the bread can be sold more cheaply. For that reason I say that it is an injustice and that a change must be effected. The Minister of Agriculture insisted that we should produce more wheat and more potatoes. I am not talking about potatoes just now but about wheat. We have produced more, and now he wants to tax us in spite of the warning which we gave him. I must ask the Minister please to listen because he cannot carry on in the way he is doing. I must ask you please to listen.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

But I am looking you in the face. Am I not addressing you then? If I don’t look at the Minister of Agriculture, if I don’t face him, he cannot hear me, and even if I face him he finds it difficult to hear me. We know what the position in the country is. We have produced more and we don’t want to get a price which is too high, we want a price which will pay us, that is all. Today we don’t get such a price. Ask the Boland, the grain sheds, whether they can come out on £1/10/-. They cannot do it. In spite of that, however, the farmers are taxed. It is bad policy. This vote should be deleted. The same mistake was made last year when it was also placed under the Agricultural vote. One would have thought that the Minister of Agriculture as he gets older would learn but he makes the same mistakes every time.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to this fact, that while a change was made last year in connection with the prices of wheat we have two kinds of consumers. The one in the towns and the other on the platteland. The Minister is only benefiting the consumer in the towns. I don’t know whether he is aware of the fact but in the past the poor man could buy his bag of wheat for £1/2/6. and he could have it milled for 2/6d. so that his flour cost him £1/5/0. With the change in the price of wheat, the price went up to £1/7/6, and the miller got a refund of 5/- on every bag. The wheat still costs the miller £1/2/6, but the poor man has to pay £1/7/6, so the poor man’s cost has gone up by 5/- per bag. It is an injustice to the consumer on the platteland, the poor man who does not produce wheat himself, but who always buys a little wheat. Last year the price of wheat was fixed at £1/10/0. A subsidy has been employed to stabilise the price of bread, but what happend thereafter? And what is still happening every day? The wheat is sent to the various agents throughout the country. They send it away at once athough as I understand the Wheat Board imposes a certain obligation on those people to keep certain quantities locally. The position, however, is that the miller or the agent sends the wheat away, he sends it away thirty, forty or fifty miles perhaps to the Railway line, and from there it is carried by train and the railage amounts to 4/- or perhaps 5/-. After two or three months the wheat which is unavailable locally has been used up and now the local people have to order their wheat from elsewhere. It comes back over the same Railway line and has to be transported again from the station to a particular central area and the costs of transport incurred in that way are tremendous. Let the hon. the Minister visit the small towns on the platteland. He will find that the price of flour is £1/19/6 per bag, and 5/6d. per bucket. I regard this as a terrible injustice to the consumer on the platteland, and I say that steps should be taken to compel the agents or the millers to hold back sufficient wheat so that it will not be necessary to bring back meal from elsewhere and to incur extra costs of transport. In the third place I notice from a statement which the Minister made a few days ago that the millers are allowed to mix 5 per cent. soya beans and mealie meal with the wheat and they are also allowed to mix rye into the four from the wheat, so long as the bread is not marked as containing a hundred per cent. flour. Now I want to know from the Minister whether that bread is cheaper?

No, it is the same price.

If it is not cheaper, and the millers are allowed to mix in 5 per cent. of other ingredients, then they make an extra profit again. The millers who mix up their meal in that way put an extra profit in their pockets. I therefore feel that it should be laid down either that all of them must mix their meal or that none of them will be allowed to do so. Surely the Minister will agree that the other things which are mixed with the wheat are cheaper than the wheat itself, because if they were not cheaper, why then would the stuff be mixed? There is another point which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice, that on the platteland one finds many mills where wheat is milled, but where it cannot be sifted. That immediately deprives the ordinary farmer of the opportunity of obtaining fine meal. He never gets it. His shopkeeper does not supply it, because he cannot get it himself. Owing to the fact that the mill cannot sift the meal the farmer cannot get the 10 lbs. on every 200 lbs. which he is entitled to, with the result that the farmer never gets any sifted meal.

The hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) asked me to behave myself because I was one of his constituents. I must ask him, seeing that he represents me in Parliament and should set me a good example, not to distort things here. I don’t say that he did so deliberately, but he stated that the Minister of Agriculture had refused to fix the price of wheat at £1/10/, and that it was thereupon done by the Prime Minister over his head.

You know that that is so.

You know that that is not so, or at any rate you should know it. The hon. member used to be a member of the Wheat Board and this happened a year before. The Wheat Board wanted to fix the price of wheat at £1/10/- and the Minister of Agriculture said that he could not go beyond 26/3d. and that was the price at which it was fixed. Afterwards, during the session of Parliament, there was a Conference of Wheat Farmers and they sent a deputation to the Minister. The Minister asked what the price was which they wanted, and the wheat farmers said £1/10/-. The Government thereupon agreed to that price. Those are the facts. Surely my member of Parliament should stick to the truth. Now, in regard to Mr. Fotheringham, he is one of the biggest bakers in the country and I noticed that he made that remark after the price of bread had been fixed.

What was the price recommended by the Wheat Board?

Last year?

Yes.

It was £1/10/- and £1/10/6 for A grade wheat. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) knows that there is a Bakers Association in this country. We also have a baker on the Wheat Board, and the bakers come to the Wheat Board with all their data and all their returns, together with the Government experts who investigate these matters, and then they say that this or that is a reason able price. The Wheat Board then makes its recommendation as to the price that should be fixed for bread. Mr. Fotheringham is a member of the Bakers Association, and a very prominent member, and if he differed from them it is a pity that he did not approach the Wheat Board and that he failed to tell them that they had fixed the price of bread at too high a figure.

Will that question be investigated now?

It has been investigated. The Government has appointed a Commission to enquire into the baking industry and to examine the books. That Commission has reported, and acting on that Report the Wheat Board, on the advice of the Government experts and of the bakers themselves, has fixed the price.

I don’t want to speak about the Wheat Control Board. That Board will never be a success until such time as only wheat farmers are members of it. So long as bakers and millers are on the Board and the one tries to knock out the other it will not prove a success. We know what has been happening there and we know that the small millers have been knocked out, the small millers who used to help the farmers to get their wheat milled. I am convinced that the Wheat Board will never be a success so long as it is constituted in the way it is today. What I should like to know is how this £381,000 which is being asked for this so called stabilisation of the price of bread, is going to be spent. Whom is it going to be paid to? Is it being paid so that the bakers will get the wheat cheaply or is it to be paid in order to enable the millers to get the wheat more cheaply?

It is paid to the wheat farmers.

The Minister must not try to avoid the issue. To whom is this £381,000 paid? The position, so it seems to me, is that the money is not only used to stabilise the price of bread but it is also being used in respect of meal for other purposes so that those people will get it cheaply. We cannot find out what the exact position is. If a baker like Mr. Fotheringham says that bread can be sold more cheaply, if he gets his meal at the price now fixed by the Government, then there must be something wrong. Let us remember that it is not the Wheat Board which fixes the price but the Minister. The Wheat Board recommends but the Minister has final say. The Board is only advisory and has no executive powers. The Minister has to decide what the price is going to be. I assume that he gets advice from the Control Board but if Mr. Fotheringham makes a statement like that we have to take note of him. He is better able to say at what price bread can be sold, than experts. I don’t want to decry the experts; we all use them, but they are only human and they make mistakes, and I very often come across mistakes made by the experts. Consequently, if Mr. Fotheringham says that he can sell his bread more cheaply the Government should listen to him and investigate the position. We know what the position is in regard to these Control Boards. Take the Dried Fruit Board. We have the same position there. On the Wheat Board we have millers and others. On the Fruit Control Board we have packers. One of those packers told me the other day that he wished the Control Board had been in existence for a long time because he has now been able to buy a house and he is making money, which he could not do before. These business men who are on those Boards know far too much, they are far too astute for the farmer. He says that the costs of transport are very high and so on, but all the time it is the farmer who carries the stuff to the baker. These business people always get the best of things. In the last war the price of bread was no higher than it is today, although the farmers received a very much higher price for their wheat. Why is that? Is it because we have a Control Board today? It is no use either just fixing a maximum price, because if you fix the maximum price, the maximum price becomes the general price. Why should I sell my bread more cheaply than John or Jack? Surely I am a business man, and I sell at as high a price as I possibly can. We cannot expect Mr. Fotheringham to sell more cheaply than others. There is something radically wrong and it is no use trying to argue it away. The misfortune of the whole business is that we have the wrong people on the Board of Control and that is why we get all these failures. The Minister is given bad advice and the farmers suffer. The farmer has to pay exorbitant prices for everything he needs, and that fact is lost sight of. The farmer cannot add his additional expenses to his prices. The farmer cannot do that. If it costs the farmer 30/- per bag to produce wheat he cannot raise the price if it has been fixed at 30/-. He has to sell it at that price because if he does not sell it he is finished, and if he does sell it he still loses money. The farmer not only has the market against him but he also has the weather against him. He has to plough and he has to sow. He spends money and he takes the risk of having bad crops and if he does have a good crop then he has to sell it at this fixed price, even if it means losing money. That is why it is our duty to look after the farmer. The other people can afford to pay. If it is necessary to give more money for this purpose then we must give it, but don’t let us put it on to the farmers. There are people in the towns who know as much about farming as the man in the Moon—and we had instances of that from members opposite this afternoon, when they said that this amount was intended to give the wheat farmer a better price. In the last war when there was no control the price of wheat went up to £5 per bag, and the poor people had to eat potatoes. The poor can hardly afford to buy meal. I fail to see why the millers should have the right to mix beans and such things into the meal if the price remains the same. If the beans cost more than wheat then why should they mix them with the meal? We want clean meal, If there are people who like to have soya bean meal and baboon bean meal mixed with their meal, by all means let them put it in themselves. We have no objection to their doing so, but why should the millers do it? The millers have all sorts of ways of making money which we know nothing about. They take inferior wheat and they have machinery to get flour out of it. The miller will look after himself; he is quite able to do so, and he has shewn in regard to the Control Board that he can look after himself. It is no use telling me that if shares go up from 60/- to 80/- no greater profits have been made as a result of the Control Board system. It is no use saying that the millers have other business activities as well. It is perfectly true that they are perhaps doing more business through having destroyed the small millers, but the fact remains that the rise in the price of their shares shows that they must have made profits, and the poor man who eats bread has to pay for all that. I can assure the Minister of Agriculture that there are many poor people who are suffering great hardships. They come to me and to other members of Parliament with their complaints. But we have this fact in this country, that meat and bread constitutes a large proportion of our food. They are our principal items of diet, and the poor people have to have flour. It is the duty of the Minister to see that the poor people are protected and this is a matter which he cannot afford to play with.

This issue is being somewhat complicated by the discussion this afternoon, because it would seem as if different claims are being made. We now hear about the poor farmer. We hear on the one hand that the miller is quite justified in the price he charges, and we have been told that the bakers are justified in the prices they are charging. On the other hand, a big monopoly holder (Mr. Fotheringham) is alleged to have said that he would sell bread at 6d. per loaf if he were allowed to, and still make a profit on it. I think we are entitled to know—the public wants to know—how much of this money that is being paid by way of subsidy, is paying for an increase in the price of wheat, how much of that is going by way of an increase to the miller and how much of it is going to the baker, and I think the Minister should tell us firstly whether, in increasing the price of wheat, the government has satisfied itself that the cost of production of wheat justified that increase, whether the cost of the additional price to the miller has justified the increased charge of the miller or baker, and whether the increased cost of the flour is justified in the increase in the cost of bread. These are the three factors, and I think the Minister should give us full details so as to satisfy the public that not a fraction of a penny of this increase in the price of bread and not a fraction of the subsidy that is now being paid, is going in the form of profits to the farmer, the miller or the baker. I think we should further be told, in view of Mr. Fotheringham’s statement that he could sell bread at 6d. instead of 6½d. per loaf, whether the Wheat Control Board in making its recommendations put forward a unanimous resolution or whether there were dissentions. I have an idea that some of the members were dissatisfied with the recommendations of the Board and a statement from the Minister will be appreciated.

I only want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. According to this year’s estimates there is going to be a surplus of wheat. There is a very large shortage of mealies. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether he intends going back to the old type of bread so that we can get white bread again? In putting this question I am particularly thinking of the poor people. I am told that the same quantity of flour which in the past used to give people six loaves of bread, now only gives them five loaves of bread. That is the information which I have been given by many a poor person. The price of meat is so high that it has even gone up to 2/ld. per lb., and the result is that the poor people have to eat bread. They can only afford to eat meat on two or three days every week, consequently they have to depend on bread. I contend that those people pay too much for their bread, and as there is going to be a surplus of wheat and a shortage of mealies I want to ask the Minister to consider going back to the old type of flour.

I want to say something in support of what was said by the hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Henderson) this afternoon. People on the Witwatersrand got a very nasty shock when the price of bread was increased from 6d. to 6½d. per standard loaf. They are asking why they should be asked to eat food that is normally fed to cows and chickens, while the cows and chickens starve. We are told that we cannot import white flour because of lack of shipping space. But I want to ask the hon. Minister why it is that in Rhodesia they seem to have no difficulty in getting white flour. I want to ask the Minister why—recently several shipments of flour have been landed at Delagoa Bay—if it is possible to get white flour in these neighbouring territories, why it is that we should not be able to get flour in the Union when it forms such an important part of our diet. I also want to ask the Minister why it is that wheat should cost so much more in South Africa than it does in other countries. My information is that a bushel of wheat in Canada costs 3/7d.

That is incorrect.

My information is that in Australia it costs 8/9d. per bushel, in the United States it costs 4/10d. and in South Africa it is costing 10/6d., more than three times the price per bushel.

Where did you get that information?

You can tell me if I am wrong.

You are wrong.

He knows everything.

In the Wheat Market today, as I understand the position, in the United States and in Canada, I believe, there was a big carry-over from last season, and I understand that this year they have planted the smallest acreage for the past 17 years, and they are expecting a bumper crop.

And there is plenty of shipping!

I am not satisfied that that is the answer. In Great Britain too, there is a bumper crop. In Australia they have reduced the sowing by between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. I think it may be said that at the present time the world is glutted with wheat. In South Africa poultry farmers are experiencing great difficulty in feeding their chickens, and in consequence we are not getting eggs. The cows are being-starved, and we are paying more for our milk. I understand the people are today sifting their meal, and the result is that the bran is going waste. These are a few points on which the people of South Africa would like to be informed. With regard to the increased price of bread, I would like to ask the Minsiter why it was necessary to increase the price of a standard loaf from 6d. to 6½d. The standard loaf at 6d. produced to the baker a bigger profit than he has previously got. If I may say so, I think the trouble has not been so much in increasing the maximum price from 6d. to 6½d., as it has been in increasing the minimum price from 5¼d. to 5¾d. I want to suggest to the hon. Minister that if he will revert to the minimum price of 5¼d., the problem will solve itself because bread will then be sold at 6d. retail. There will still be a margin of profit. The bakers will still be able to pay Income Tax, and the public will be satisfied with the position. The price of 6d. per standard loaf was so high that it is common knowledge that many bakers were underselling, and the Wheat Control Board, I believe, has insufficient staff to handle the matter from the point of view of inspectors. The price is so high that many of the bakers who are not prepared to adhere to the fixed price are undercutting the price of bread, and that is done to the detriment of the bakers who are endeavouring to adhere to the fixed price. I hope the hon. Minister will give a reply on these points.

I only want to say a few words to the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), the new champion of the millers. He said that apparently I knew nothing about the wheat industry although I represent a wheat district. Anyhow, I don’t know whether the hon. member knows more about wheat farming than I do, but what I do know is that in his own opinion he knows more about the milling industry than I do. He tried to avoid the issue by saying that the millers made their large profits out of other business activities. That may be so, he knows more about the millers than I do, but let me give him these figures, which I have quoted in this House on previous occasions. I want to ask him to explain those figures to me, and I shall promise him faithfully that if he gives me a satisfactory explanation I shall not worry him again. The Minister did not reply but perhaps the hon. member for Kimberley, District can make a statement on the matter. I contend, and other hon. members have done the same, that when wheat in the past was sold at a higher price than it is sold now, bread used to be cheaper. Did the millers make any losses in those days? Were they forced to shut up shop? The hon. member is not going to tell us that the millers run their businesses for charity. They would not carry on their business if they did not make a profit. Now let me give them the figures. In 1915 the price of wheat was 29s. 11d. and the price of bread was 3.2d. per lb. That is about ¼d. cheaper than it is today. In 1916 the price of wheat was 33s. 2d. more than 3s. more than it is now, and yet the price of bread was lower than it was last year. In 1917 the price of wheat was 35s. 8d. and even then the price of bread was only l/5th of a penny more than it was last year. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Kimberley, District to explain to me how it was possible that the millers in those days did not make a loss. Or rather let me put the question this way: Where does the difference go between the higher price they now get for their bread and the amount they pay less for wheat? The increase in the price of their shares, which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has referred to, is an indication to show where the difference goes. The hon. member for Kimberley, District further said that I should have studied the report of the Wheat Commission. I did study it. The hon. member will recollect that I dealt with that report in this House last year, and he himself said to me that it would be better for me to talk about that report than about other matters. Let me remind him of one thing. There are members on his side of the House who declared here that the wheat farmers were flourishing. If the hon. member will look at page 42 of the Report of the Wheat Commission he will find that in the year 1938—’39 the farmers of the South Western District produced wheat at a profit of 5d. per bag; in the Western Sand Veld District at a loss of 7d. per bag; in Lydenburg at a loss of 3s. 8d. per bag, and at Brits—the part which according to the hon. member I know nothing about—at a loss of 5s. 4d. per bag. But the hon. member only reads those parts of the report which suit him in his milling purposes, and he does not read those parts which suit the farmers. There is something wrong in this matter as members on both sides of the House have shewn and we hope the Minister will give it his serious attention, and that he will create conditions where such anomalies such as those which we have pointed out will be removed.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the serious effect of certain arrangements which seem to have been approved by the Food Control Department working under his control. I had a telegram this afternoon from a prominent maize dealer in Pietermaritzburg. He says—

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the vote. It is vote 23, dealing with the control of the price of bread.

I have another telegram here which deals with the wheat question in relation to that particular subject. It deals with that phase of the subject. A suggestion is telegraphed to me from Pietermaritzburg to this effect—

There is a suggestion here that we should have white bread instead of the meal that we get nowadays, so that cattle and poultry feed may be made available. It is a suggestion that ought to appeal to the good sense of the Minister, and I only wish to say that the Minister has always been very curteous in receiving our representations. I am sure that he will investigate this matter. It is a matter of considerable importance in view of the serious position created through our having no bran or the byproducts of flour for the feeding of cattle and poultry.

In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) I have no great grouse against the matter which he brought before the House. Of course, it is an advertisement we have seen in the paper, but I would suggest this to him. It is argued on the other side of the House that most of the small millers are being killed, and even this advertisement that he relies on says that the small man has gone out of business, meaning that the small miller has gone out of business. I am not so sure that he has considered the question that they get the same price for grinding. Whether it is a small miller or a large miller, he gets the same price for grinding. If the large miller has made such tremendous profits as has been alleged—and I am not sure that it is all out of grinding because I think it is quite well known that some millers make quite large profits out of speculation in maize—so there must be something else wrong. The prices are the same.

But there are restrictive regulations.

No, every miller gets his quota of wheat, and ordinarily the small miller in a rural town should work more cheaply than the big miller.

Oh, no.

In any case, I wish to make this statement. The first matter that I dealt with when I became Minister of Agriculture was to determine the price of wheat for that year. I put to the head of the department two questions. I said to him, “Why this tremendous commission of 9d. for a bag of wheat? Surely people should be able to handle wheat at a smaller commission.” That was the first question. The second question was this: “It seemed to me that the difference in the price of wheat and meal was very much too large.” The reply was: “That is the price that the cost accountants have agreed to. That is the price that different committees on costing have suggested as the correct price for the miller.” I admit that I was not yet happy with this explanation, but since then we have appointed more committees to go into this question of the margin of profit to the millers. The Marketing Council appointed their Cost Accountants. I was not satisfied with that. I then approached my colleague the Minister of Commerce and Industries and asked him whether we could not get a joint committee to go into the matter. This was done and the reply was that the margin is not outrageous, the margin is not out of the way, that it cannot be said that they are making undue profits. That is my reply to the hon. member as far as millers are concerned.

Why is the price so high if they are only making a small margin of profit?

Well, the price of wheat is extraordinarily high in this country. The price of bread must naturally be higher if you allow millers and bakers the ordinary margin of cost. Most of this discussion arises out of the fact that Mr. Fotheringham alleged that he would be able to sell at 6d. per loaf if he were allowed to do so. Well, he was informed that he could sell at 6d„ but he did not do so. He is free to sell wholesale at 5¾d.

And retail, at how much?

He is free to sell at any price between 5¾d. and 6½d. per loaf.

It is not practical.

My suggestion is this. If I can make bread and sell it at a 6d. per loaf and still make a profit, I would sell at that price. I had a report from the Master Bakers’ Association on this, and they say that the price allowed to bakers is the correct price. I say that if Mr. Fotheringham can sell bread at 6d. and still show a profit, it seems to me to be very bad business on his part if he does not sell at that price. I would like to ask my hon. friends whether they know what the price of bread is in Australia.

About half of the price in South Africa.

The price of bread in Australia is 6½d. for cash and 7d. for credit. And that is for white bread, brown bread, or wholemeal. That is the price. I can give my hon. friend the latest figures. We must not forget that Australia is a wheat exporting country. The little wheat that we have been able to get in, we have got from Australia. Australia is a wheat exporting country and their wheat is two-thirds of our price. There the price is fixed at 6½d. for cash and 7d. for credit, so it seems to me that we cannot be so far out. Perhaps I had better just deal with a few of the matters which have been raised. The hon. member for Troyeville asked me to tell him exactly what the increases are. The increase of price from last year to the producer is 3/9d. per bag, to the miller it is 5d. and to the baker it is 3d. per bag. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) has asked me why not import flour. Well, the hon. member must realise the difficulty. I am not satisfied yet that standard bread was not the correct thing. If you get the proper meal and bake it properly you have a very wholesome bread.

You cannot mix beans with flour.

My hon. friend should make some enquiries into these things.

I have enquired.

His enquiries cannot have been too good

Why should it be mixed? Why cannot he mix it himself?

If you go to a miller today and ask for a bag of meal you get wheaten meal. The amount of mixed meal and mixed bread sold in this country is altogether negligible.

Why not let the people mix it themselves?

What does it matter, it seems such a trifle?

It is only a loophole for dishonesty.

No, there is no loophole; some people prefer to have meal mixed with Soya meal and the miller is allowed to put in 2 per cent. of Soya meal but he must mark it as mixed meal. The profit which can be made on mixed bread and mixed meal is altogether negligible. He is not allowed to put in more than 2 per cent. of Soya meal and 5 per cent. of Rye, which is almost as expensive as wheat, and 5 per cent. of Maize, which is also almost as expensive as wheat The profit he can make is negligible. The hon. member for Orange Grove has also asked me why we do not import more wheat, and why we do not produce more wheat. Well, this is not, such a very good country to produce wheat. You cannot produce so very much at the price, but I say that rather than let the people go short of bread I would prefer to put the price up to £2.

The world is full of wheat.

Oh, yes, and the world is also full of ships. I wish I could get the surplus commodities which are availbale in other parts of the world. If the hon. member would give me the ships I would be very pleased to get all these things.

†*The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) and other hon. members are very much concerned over the fact that this vote appears here under Agriculture. I fail to see what difference it makes. Anyhow, I am responsible for this item. I am responsible for the price which the Wheat Board has fixed for flour and wheat, and it has to be found somewhere. I have to account for the money and that it why it comes under Agriculture, but the vote says clearly that it is an amount for the stabilisation of the price of bread. Last year we changed the heading of the item but the fact remains that I have to account for it.

To whom does the money go?

To the wheat farmers; they get 30/- per bag. The State finds the money and it is handed to the Wheat Board to pay for the wheat.

Does the Wheat Board get the money? To whom does the Government pay it?

To the Wheat Board, and the Wheat Board buys the wheat from the farmers at 30/- per bag. In regard to the other points I shall continue my reply in English.

†You see the position is this. Last year the price of wheat was put up to 26s. 3d. and 25s. 9d. per bag. That meant that the Government had to subsidise to the extent of £1,000,000. Well, the Government either had to do that or put up the price of bread by ½d., to cover the price of wheat, so the Government decided to subsidise. Last year the Government decided to increase the price of wheat to 30/- and 30/6d. That meant that it would take £2,000,000 to compensate the farmer if the price of bread remained stationary. Well, the Government decided then to continue paying £1,000,000 in subsidy but to let the other £1,000,000 be borne by the consumer in raising the price of bread. I am not going into the arguments why that was done unless hon. members specially want me to do so. But that is the position, and that is why the price is fixed at 6½d. I would remind the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) that the price of bread today is still lower than it was at the beginning of the war.

It is different bread.

The Health Department says it is better bread.

You cannot even get 1 lb. of flour today.

That is a different question and the hon. member knows why that is. I have explained to the House why the description of this Vote is correct and why it is given as stabilisation of price. I have tried to explain that the miller has to pay more. The miller this year gets more than he got last year when, of course, wheat was cheaper, and I have explained that position.

My question was how we can prevent the people on the platteland having to pay £1 19s. 6d.

Last year the price was far below 30/-, now it is 30/-. Last year it was 26s. 3d. and the year before 23s. 6d.

But now the flour is mixed up together with soya beans and the farmer cannot get flour, the people on the platteland cannot get fine meal.

He can buy the wheat.

Do you start from the assumption that they all get 30/-? But on the average farmers only get 26/-.

There are naturally various grades, but the fact remains that that is the price which the farmers themselves proposed at the Conference. They argued that if they got that price they would be satisfied and then they would co all in their power to produce.

The Minister’s speech was very disappointing. Unfortunately he failed to reply to the objections raised by all sides of the House. What he should have replied to was the question why the price of bread is 6½d. today? He should have replied to that question, both from the point of view of the consumer and the point of view of the producer. He did not even try to reply to it. There must have been something radically wrong with the Government in the last war or there is something wrong now. When the farmers got £3 for wheat in the last war the consumers had to pay 6½d. for bread. Now the wheat farmers on an average get 26s.

No.

Very well. They get a maximum of 30s. and the price of bread is 6½d. The difference is so tremendous that there must be something radically wrong.

The quality of the bread in those days was poor.

That does not explain the tremendous difference. Today the wheat farmers get an average of 26s. and in those days they got £3. There is a tremendous gap and the Minister cannot give us an explanation. We say that, the millers are now charging exorbitant prices. The difference between the price which the wheat farmer gets for his wheat and what the consumer has to pay for bread is quite inexplicable. There is something wrong. The millers are protected here by people like the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) and by similar turncoats. They are the supporters of monopolies, and one cannot say anything in this House against the millers. They also get protection from the Minister. It is quite inexplicable how the millers in the last war were able to pay £3 and supply bread for 6½d. and yet make a living while the wheat farmers today get a maximum of 30s. and the bread still costs 6½d. And yet the millers still come to the Government and say, “In Heaven’s name, do something, we cannot make a living.” One thing is certain, and that is that the millers will never vote against the Government. They will never vote for this side of the House. Why not? Because this side will say that if the consumer has to pay 6½d. for his bread then the wheat farmer can be paid a better price for his wheat. The wheat farmers are passing through very difficult times. Fertilisers are very expensive and hardly obtainable. Implements are terribly expensive, and practically unobtainable, but they have to produce. They get no help from the Government, but the Government expects them to produce. Everything they need is expensive but the utmost they can get for their wheat is £1 10s. and no more. Why does not the Minister study the price at which wheat is being imported today? It is a great deal more than 30s. Let him look at that, and here we are spending almost £600,000, and what for? To stabilise the price of wheat. The country is laughing at it. The price has been stabilised at the expense of the wheat farmers and the Minister simply refuses to answer our questions.

What the Minister has said is perfectly correct. And he is quite correct that Mr. Fotheringham is entitled to sell his bread at 5¾d., but what he does not quite appreciate is that it is impossible for him to sell his bread at 5¾d. wholesale and at 5¾d. retail, and the reason for fixing the price at 6½d. retail is to allow the retail margin of profit. If the minimum price is reduced to 5¼d. Mr. Fotheringham will sell his bread at 6d. retail. I may say for the information of the Minister that Mr. Fotheringham is selling at 6d. retail subject to the bread being sold on coupon. The difficulty is that it is the minimum price which has been increased. The difficulty does not arise from the increase in the maximum price. If the minimum price were reduced to 5¼d. no bread would be sold for more than 6d. Time will prove the test. I don’t think the Minister appreciates the strong feeling that has been aroused on the Rand on this matter. I would suggest that he should reduce the minimum price to 5¾d. and if he wishes to leave the maximum price at 6½d. he can do so.

The hon. the Minister gave us a reply here which cannot possibly satisfy even his own side of the House. The Minister by means of evasions tries to give the House the impression that the position is quite sound, but as the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has shown, he has not answered the questions that have been put to him. He tries to avoid giving any answers by pointing out that the price of wheat last year was fixed at 26/3d. and that the price of bread thereupon went up by ½d. per lb. An amount of £1,000,000 had to be provided for that purpose out of the pockets of the taxpayer. He tells us that the maximum price this year is 30/- and that the price of bread as a result has gone up by 1d. The consumer now has to pay ½d. more and the balance has to be made up by the State. We contend that it is unnecessary that the consumer should have to pay ½d. more and in support of this contention we point out that the price of bread during the last war was lower while the price of wheat was almost double what it is today. The Minister does not even try to reply to our statements. Is it so difficult to ask the millers to explain the position? Why does not the Minister say to them, “Look here, charges are being made that the bread is being sold at the same price as it was sold during the last war, when a great deal more was paid for the wheat. What is your explanation?” The Minister can ask them that question, and if the millers have a satisfactory answer they will no doubt vouchsafe it, because surely they don’t like to have all these charges continualy made against them. Year after year these charges are made and the Minister declines to go into them properly. The Minister in an interjection a little while ago remarked that the bread was worse in the last war. I know that in those days we had to eat the so-called Burton bread, but today with soya beans and mealies mixed in the flour the bread cannot be much better than it was then. Anyhow, in those days the farmers got £3 for a bag of wheat and today they get more than half less, while the price of bread is still the same. And now the price of bread has been put up and what is the result? The result is that the people of the towns who are not properly informed are inclined to blame the producers, and they take up the attitude that the farmers are being protected and that they have to pay. Is that fair? The Government is responsible for the fact that the consumers in the towns are under the impression that the farmers are being spoonfed. The millers did not go bankrupt when the price of wheat stood at £3. Are they likely to go bankrupt now if the price is 30/- without there being an increase in the price of bread? What evidence is there that there is any need for the raising of the price of bread? The Minister says that an investigation has been made. Well, one can prove a lot with figures but I don’t think that he will be able to explain this difference by quoting figures. He receives certain statistics which are so confused that nobody can make anything out of them. Until such time as the Minister has produced reasons why the wheat farmers could get £3 for their wheat in 1914—’18 without the price of bread being higher than it is today, we cannot possibly be satisfied.

There is another aspect of this matter which I want to deal with. It has repeatedly been stated that the farmers get £1 10s. for their wheat. The man in the street who does not produce wheat himself imagines that wheat throughout is sold at £1 10s. per bag. But that price is only paid for the best grade of wheat. Now I want to ask the Minister where this wheat of inferior quality gets to, this wheat for which a lower price is paid? As soon as wheat contains a certain percentage of foreign matter such as rye, wild oats, barley etc., the price goes down. What becomes of that wheat? It is thrown holus bolus into the mill and as it comes out so the consumer has to eat it. What becomes of the wheat for which a lower price is paid, the wheat for instance which has sprouted, not in the stack, but before we could cut it, as happened this year? What becomes of the wheat which is alleged to have developed blight in the stack? For thousands of bags a lower price is paid. That is where the miller makes his big profits. We remember that in the Free State a few years ago we were alleged to have had blight in our wheat, and that tremendous quantities of wheat had to be sold for 10s. and 12s. 6d. I am not at all satisfied yet in spite of the investigation that was made that we should have suffered such a heavy loss there. And then one also gets the bleached wheat, that is to say wheat which had to be dried and which bleached a little bit. What has become of that? How is the producer protected under the system by which milling takes place today without any sifting? One hardly dare risk buying meal today because one gets this tough stuff in the meal. I only mention rope. After three days it is so thready that one cannot eat the bread. That is the crux of the whole matter. The millers make profits through buying inferior wheat. What guarantee have we got about the quantity of first class flour that has to be in the bread? The pollard is in the stuff, practically all the bran is there, but how much first grade flour does the consumer get? How can the consumer be sure that the bread he buys consists one hundred per cent. of wheat which costs £1 10s. per bag, and that it is not made of wheat which has been bought at 12s., 13s. and 14s., because there was blight in it, or because it has suffered from some other disease. How is the public protected? My experience as a consumer, who although I am a wheat farmer, finds it convenient sometimes to buy meal, is that we sometimes buy inferior meal. It is no use sending wheat to a mill. The mill mills on a large scale and we practically exchange our wheat for meal. It suits our convenience because we don’t have to wait and that is why we sell our wheat and buy meal, but what guarantee has the consumer got? He eats inferior bread which does not contain the percentage of first class flour which it should contain. An enquiry should be instituted into the contents the meal should have, so that the consumer will not get bread containing hardly anything but bran, all the pollard and all kinds of bad stuff, which should not be there. I started off by saying that a certain percentage of foreign matter was allowed in the wheat, but if that foreign matter exceeds that certain percentage then it means a reduction in the grade of the wheat. It means that the miller buys the wheat more cheaply. If he mills that wheat he does not remove the foreign matter, he simply mills it in, and the consumer who buys the meal gets a large percentage of this foreign matter instead of the proper percentage of flour.

I wish to associate myself with the complaints raised by this side of the House because I feel that we are playing into the hands of the millers today, and we are doing so to such an extent that the country is suffering as a result. If there is something wrong with wheat, if it contains little kernel burn, it has to be sold as being below grade and we know that the price is very low then. I know of cases where the miller was prepared to make a trivial reduction of 6d. per bag, thus paying 6d. less than the fixed grade price of Al wheat. He was prepared to buy wheat suffering from this disease at that price. The miller was quite satisfied to pay 30/- per bag for that wheat instead of 30/6d. But he is not allowed to do so, and that wheat has to be marketed as being below grade, and the millers probably buy it at 13/3, 14/- or 15/- per bag. That wheat is milled and is sold to the public and the bread costs 6½d. as it is calculated on the basis of 30/6d. for the wheat. In other words, the wheat from which they make the bread does not by any means cost the millers 30/6d. The average price of wheat is now fixed at 26/- per bag but then we get years such as the present one when we have minor defects in our wheat. People have a little “kernel” burn or some of the wheat has sprouted and wheat from which first grade bread is produced is bought by the millers at a low price with the result that they make a profit which is totally out of proportion. Those profits on the large quantities of wheat bought by the millers were not taken into account when the profits which the millers should be entitled to make were fixed. I feel that there is a serious anomaly here, and the whole matter should be gone into. If we look at the huge profits which the millers make on the wheat they buy the public has a right to demand that a proper investigation shall be made into this whole question. The huge rise in the shares of milling companies has already been referred to. There must have been tremendous profits, especially in years like the present, otherwise the shares would not have gone up in the way they have done. I say that that applies particularly to years like the present, because we have had a considerable amount of rain this year and the farmers have found it difficult to get their crops in. This year more than other years we find small defects in our wheat with the result that our wheat is classified at a lower grade and is classified as below grade, but it makes no difference to the consumer. He does not benefit from it. And that is where the millers make their huge profits. Then there is another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) declared that the wheat farmers were in clover because they got a fixed price, and then he told us that wheat could be imported more cheaply. Wheat has been imported into this country, but we find that the average price at which that wheat could be sold was 32/- per bag. The price was higher than the average price in our own country, so there is absolutely no truth in the contention that the country would have had cheaper bread if wheat had been imported. Another matter which should be borne in mind is this, would we have had as much bread as we need if the wheat farmers had not done their utmost to produce wheat. It should also be remembered that the costs of production have gone up tremendously. Our costs of production have gone up to a greater extent than people imagine. It is impossible for us to obtain the necessary fertilisers and there are only small parts of this country which can produce wheat without fertiliser. Don’t people realise the difference it makes in the production of wheat if we are unable to secure the requisite fertilisers. If the production of wheat drops by one bag per morgen it means that the costs of production go up by 3/- per bag. If that fact is taken into account it must be clear that our costs of production have gone up tremendously. It has also been stated that the wheat farmers have been benefited by this so-called subsidy which is paid out under this vote. That is not so. The profits which the wheat farmer is able to make on wheat have been fixed years ago, and no additional profits are allowed. It is only the increased costs of production which have been added to the price. No, I feel this, that the debate which has been carried on in this House can only lead to the consumer and the producer being put up against each other, and as hon. members opposite have raised a discussion in that spirit they have certainly rendered a disservice to this country. If ever there was a time when the producer and the consumer should co-operate because their interests are identical, this is the time. This side of the House is in favour of commodities, products, being supplied to the consumer as cheaply as possible. To me it is very clear however, where the fault lies in regard to this matter, and I say again that the unlawful profits which the millers make through their buying good wheat in abnormal circumstances at a low price should be gone into very carefully.

What is so striking is that the Minister has tried to reply to all the points raised here with the exception of the point in regard to the large profits which the millers are making. What is behind this business, that the Minister refused to answer this question concerning the large profits which the millers are making? I do believe that there is something behind it all. We have had this position, that he individual who is responsible for the report was more concerned with the protection of the report than the treatment of those who gave evidence, and it is clear to us that there must be something behind it all. When we proved to the Wheat Commission how much profit the millers had made I was told that I was making unfounded political allegations. That brings me to the point that I have very good reasons to be suspicious of what is behind the report. We had a body there which went very thoroughly into the whole question and which had its evidence all ship-shape. They gave the Lydenburg Cooperative Mill as an instance. They got 2s. 6d. per bag as milling fees and when the year was over it was proved that they had made a profit of 1s. on every bag. If that large mill which is run on strict business lines, and which has everything recorded in its books, shows that it gets 2s. 6d. per bag for milling, and if it makes a profit of 1s., then what about the other mills? That is the reason why I am suspicious. The report which the Minister hides himself behind is not worth the paper it is written on. I feel that I am entitled to say this, judging by the treatment meted out to us. As we on this side of the House have been insisting on an answer all afternoon, we now want to know why the Minister does not reply. I am not going to say any more. I only want the Minister once and for all to answer the point which we want a reply to.

There is another matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice and I want to put a question to him. I want to know whether British Basutoland, which is also a wheat producing country, comes under the control of the Union Government so far as this matter is concerned?

Which country is that, Basutoland?

Basutoland is protected by and comes under the British Government. Let us call it Basutoland so long as the Minister knows where it is. It is a wheat producing country and my question is whether it comes under the control of the Union Government in regard to the manufacture of bread. I say that in Basutoland white No. 1 meal is obtainable. It can be obtained there for sale to the natives but our white people are obliged to eat the bread which the Minister puts before us. Bread is a staple food of the workers and of the less privileged classes. Bread and a bit of meat, and also mealie meal. On a later occasion I shall speak about mealie meal. The cow meal which I give to my cows is better than the mealie meal which white people have to buy now to eat at table. That is the result of the control exercised by the Minister. In my home the bread which we eat is baked at home ever since I was a baby. But with the best will in the world it is impossible to make decent bread, edible bread, of this mixed meal unless it is baked fresh every day. And we know there are large families which have to bake large quantities at the same time, and who cannot do it every day. I can confirm what another member on this side of the House has said, that a family today gets less bread out of the same quantity of meal than they used to get in the past out of pure flour. And then they get this useless bread. The Minister must give his attention to this matter. He should be impressed by what we have said because we are dealing here with a staple food of a large section of the community. The Minister must see to it that those people get bread which is edible.

I do not know whether the Minister realises that the whole trouble in connection with the fixation of prices is due to the fact that the composition of the Wheat Control Board is altogether wrong. For that reason I think that the Government should go into this matter, with a view to seeing whether a change cannot be brought about in this respect. In the first place the Minister will agree with me that the respresentation of wheat farmers on the Wheat Control Board is of such a nature that they have no decisive influence on the Control Board. There are the millers and the capitalists. They have the say. Their say is of such a nature that one might say they have practically the sole say, and I say that the time has arrived for us to bring about a change.

But you are now insulting the other members of the Wheat Board.

No, I do not insult them. But I want to say this, that in comparison with the interests which they represent, the millers have much greater representation on the Wheat Control Board than the wheat farmers.

Do you know what the representation is?

Of course I know it, otherwise I would not say this. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he wants to deny this, since he is now taking the part of the millers.

No, I am not doing it.

You are trying to defend them. Why are you shaking your head now?

The hon. member must address the Chair.

The interjection made by the Minister of Agriculture clearly gave me the impression that he represents the millers or, at any rate, that he is engaged in representing them, and I want to ask him explicitly whether he is doing that. He dare not deny it. Then I also want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he knows that all the small millers who did very good work in the past and who assisted the wheat farmers, especially in the sparsely populated parts of the country, are now facing ruin, and I should like to know from him why the Government put a stop to the activities of the small millers. The Minister says that he is aware of the position, and in that case he ought to be aware of the fact that a small miller cannot obtain a licence. Why is that? In my constituency on the settlements, wheat is produced on a fairly large scale and whenever application is made for a licence to erect a mill, these people cannot get the licence. I should very much like to have a reply from the Minister on this point. I should just like to say this to the Minister, that in my opinion it is scandalous that the big millers should have all those powers and rights in their hands and that they are enabled to kill the small millers. Let me tell him that those people are rendering an important service to the farmers in that area, especially in the North-West, and that the people in those areas have to suffer a great deal of inconvenience as a result of the action of the Government. No, the Minister may try to defend the big millers, but I want to tell him that he is responsible for the fact that the people in those areas have to suffer inconvenience. Members on the other side, who supported the Minister, told us that we could import wheat at a much cheaper price than that obtained by our farmers. Let me point out to them that imported wheat, which previously came from Canada usually, and which was imported because the millers intimated that they must have th? wheat for the purpose of blending it with our wheat so as to get the right mixture—that was their excuse—that that wheat is produced in the North-West. I do not know whether the Minister is deliberately ignorant and whether he pretends to be ignorant, but let me tell him that the same wheat which they imported for certain purposes, can be obtained in the North Western parts where the same wheat is produced which is necessary for the blending. If that is the case, why do you give a bigger price for that imported wheat than that which is given to the farmers who can produce the same wheat in the North Western parts? Since that is the case, you will agree with me that the Minister is either ignorant or that he is reckless in connection with the interests of wheat farmers. No, the time has arrived for us to see to it that justice is done to the people of our own country, and that we do not provide better facilities to other countries than those we provide to our own people. That is precisely where I find fault with the Minister. He pretends that he knows so much, but when it comes to realities in this House, then he knows nothing in connection with those matters which he must control. I want to put this further question to the Minister, whether he knows that there is a certain section of the country which can obtain white flour even today, whilst the rest of the population is debarred from obtaining white flour. I want to protest against the fact that preference is given to a certain section of the population, that section which does not work very hard but which nevertheless succeeds in living on the fat of the land, as against the majority of the people. We know who that section is.

Why don’t you say it is the Jews?

I say that certain people obtain white flour in our country, while others cannot get it. That is not just, nor is it reasonable, and that type of thing-must come to an end, that certain people in the country should be afforded preferential treatment and that they should receive commodities to which they are not entitled. Let us all be placed on an equal footing at least; why should they have privileges which others do not enjoy? I hope that the Minister will come to the conclusion that the composition of the Wheat Control Board is altogether wrong, and that something ought to de done to bring about a change in the future.

This is the first time that this House has an opportunity of discussing this question of the control of buildings, and I think that after everything which has taken place since the restriction was imposed on building, we are entitled to demand a statement from the Minister. The Minister suddenly imposed restrictions on building in the middle of last year. No one could erect a building costing more than £100 without special leave from the Minister. All buildingmaterials were frozen, some of them 100 per cent., others 75 per cent. etc. It was extremely difficult for anyone to obtain the necessary building materials. It is, of course, possible for the Minister to say that this step was necessary because all the employees and all the building materials were required for war purposes. It was necessary to erect defence works, hospitals, camps, etc., everywhere in the country. The Minister can say that all the materials and labour were required in connection with that, and that they were required urgently.

The hon. member cannot discuss Public Works in general, at this juncture. He may only discuss the increase in the Vote.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that this is the first time that control of building has been introduced. In the previous Budget there was no Controller of Building Materials, and this is the first opportunity we have of discussing the matter. You will observe that nothing appears in column 1.

The hon. member may proceed.

I want to say that the Minister can say that all the labour and building materials were required for war purposes; but a feeling has arisen in the country, and this is something in connection with which the Minister owes us a statement, that in those cases where permits were issued, favouritism was shown. People who urgently required a building, a building not only for their personal interests, made application because the building was also in the public interests, but their application was refused. But when a certain section of the population makes application, then the permits simply stream in. That is the impression which prevails in the country.

Are you making an accusation that there is favouritism?

I say that that is the impression which has been created in the country and for that reason I want the Minister to explain to us today on which principle he determined the importance of buildings. What, in his opinion, were the important buildings in respect of which permits were issued? I should like the Minister to tell us that clearly. In the second place, I want to put this question to the Minister. As far as one can ascertain the largest number of buildings in connection with the war and defence have now been completed. The greatest portion of the programme has been completed, and there is not the same necessity to concentrate all materials and labour on that. For that reason I should like to know from the Minister whether the time has not arrived for him to relax a little in so far as this matter is concerned. As a result of building restrictions since June, an enormous need for housing accommodation has arisen in the country. Wherever one goes, in big places and in small places, one finds a need for housing accommodation and people cannot obtain houses. Well, the most urgent portion of the defence programme has been completed and now I want to know from the Minister whether he contemplates giving a little rope in the future, and whether he will be prepared to give favourable consideration to applications for permits in the future. I shall be glad to have this reply from the Minister.

The speech of the hon. member is a perfectly reasonable one. This is the first time this has appeared on the Estimates, and it is right, proper and fitting that the House should have some knowledge of the work of the Building Controller, who happens to be myself. I assumed control at the beginning of July. Prior to that many permits had been granted by the Controller of Man Power for buildings, and it was necessary, in order to ascertain the position, to insert an advertisement in the Press cancelling the permits granted by the Controller if building had not started by the 15th August. And the many complaints are due to the fact that many of those buildings had been started just prior to the 15th August-buildings which had never been passed by me. I brought into existence a Building Council, representative of all parties and persons interested in building, the architects, the Labour Department, the Defence Department, the Public Works Department, Municipalities and master builders, and we discussed the position as we understood it to be at that date, and had we taken the step, that probably should have been taken, an embargo would have been placed on all building, I realised that that would have been fatal so far as the industry generally is concerned, and so far as the Government is concerned, and we agreed to allow certain classes of building to proceed. As the hon. member pointed out, at that time the Defence Department was employing large numbers of builders, nearly all the artisans in the various places of South Africa, but particularly on the coast, in Durban, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. That position has eased considerably.

On what principle do you grant permits?

On this principle, if application is made for the building of a house under £1,500 or £1,600 that application is granted. Hon. members have seen me with regard to houses of £2,500 and £3,000. In that case permission has been given to enable people to spend £1,500 or £1,600 on a house to get it started. I as Building Controller am anxious that the position should be restored as speedily as possible, but there are certain classes of buildings which are taboo—bioscopes and theatres and places of that description, but what we encourage is buildings of the type I have described. Municipalities have been asked to get on with their sub-economic housing and economic housing schemes. These figures which I am going to quote will show that we have not been holding up anything more than we could help. 1,940 permits have been granted since the 9th July, 1942, involving a total amount of £3,500,000. The permits passed are at the rate of approximately £619,000 per month or about £7,500,000 per annum.

Are these entirely private buildings?

Oh no, there are Government buildings for which 23 permits have been granted, involving £170,000. The Transvaal Provincial Administration has had 74 permits granted including permits for two large hospital schemes, involving over £500,000, the Cape Provincial Administration 20 permits, Natal 23, the Free State 4, the Railways and Harbours 7. Fourteen permits for sub-economic houses have been granted involving an amount of £277,000 and 243 permits for Municipal and Public Utilities involving £1,200,000. All that has been done. I am as anxious as possible to grant permits and if hon. members have any complaints I would like to hear of them.

The Defence Department does not come into it.

No, I have no control over Defence, but Defence building is declining and it will enable us to grant further releases of permits. We have not refused any permits for buildings of £1,500 or £1,600, but what we have done is to alter the design of architects, we have made them substitute South African material for imported material where we felt that they had too much imported material in their designs. And if hon. members will look at this vote they will see an amount of £500 for the work of the Investigating Committee. That Committee is brought into being for the purpose of finding substitute materials for imported materials, and I can assure the House that that Committee has done very valuable work. Many of the things which we depended on so far as housing was concerned, such as sewerage and sanitary ware, which formerly used to be imported, are now manufactured in South Africa Advertisements in respect of a competition have been published in the Press to try and get a concrete roof to take the place of wood. This Committee has succeeded to a certain extent, but it is possible that others may be able to put forward a better proposition, and I hope at the beginning of next month to have a house erected in Johannesburg built wholly of South African material carrying a tile or slate roof. If any hon. members have any complaints about people not having received a fair deal I shall be pleased if the matter is brought to my notice to try and rectify it. But the complaints have been few and far between.

It was very interesting to listen to the Minister, and I just want to touch upon his last remark. He said that an amount of £5,000 was being made available for investigation into the possibility of manufacturing building materials locally. He was mistaken, the amount was only £500. He says that defence is not included in this vote, because he has no control over defence. I know that “defence” controls all of us. For that very reason I want to say something in regard to this vote. A number of public works in respect of which money was voted were discontinued, and control of building materials was introduced, not only control over the importation of building materials but everything which existed here was placed under control by the body over which the Minister has no control and over which we have no control either. I protest against that state of affairs. Housing is one of the biggest problems today and ten times as many houses should have been built in order to meet the needs. That is essential. But everything is spent on so called defence. All our materials were attached for that purpose. Now the Minister wants to investigate the question of manufacturing local materials. One of the necessary items in connection with housing is cement. There again nearly everything is swallowed by defence. The people of South Africa get what they require little by little. I know what takes place in my home town because I take a great deal of interest in its development. People cannot obtain employment because everything has been brought to a standstill and then they have no alternative but to enlist. I protest against this system. The first requirement of the people is housing.

One realises that control is a necessity and one understands that all material is frozen. Now, if one sends in an application for a single door or a single window or for any material one has to fill in a form and one has to say where and from whom one wants to buy that article. The controllers are busy people and we are told that they are understaffed and overworked. These are the reasons given as to why they are so slow in replying; when you have received a permit it is quite possible that the particular storekeeper from whom you want to buy has sold out. Now you cannot under your permit go to another dealer; you have to go back to the controller and make a fresh application and say everything all over again—whom you want to buy from and all the rest of it, and at the end of a few months you may get a reply, and the same thing happens all over again. That seems unnesessarily annoying. Surely the controller has a full list of all the frozen articles and he must know how many doors and windows there are in the country, and he can at once say “You can get what you need”. The present method seems unnecessary, and if there are any reasons for it, perhaps the Minister will tell us what they are, because control is unpopular, it is intensely unpopular, and to aggravate that unpopularity by methods of this sort is wrong. I am interested to hear that permits are being given for people to build wherever possible. I have a case which was brought to my notice the other day. It was the case of a farmer living under the Drakensberg. He wanted no material—the material was all on the farm. He wanted to put up a building. The building was to be thatched, but the bricks were to be made on the farm, and all the material was there, but the controller refused to give him a permit. No reason was given. Why aggravate people in this manner? It does not seem to me that the spirit of control is affected in any way by putting up a house on a farm and yet the application was refused. I shall give the Minister the name of the man concerned outside the House, but these are points which he should take up with the controller. I am apropos of this very much reminded of an old story where the great painter Millet was asked how he got his wonderful colours in his pictures and how he mixed his paints. And his reply was “My friend, I mix my paint with brain”. If some of these controllers could mix their work with brains we would get on very much better.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) mentioned a case here just now which it is difficult to understand. I would also like to quote a case and ask the Minister to say on which grounds the application was refused. This occurred in the main town of my constituency, George. You know that recently the headquarters of the South-Western Defence Force was transferred from Oudtshoorn to George. That caused a large additional population. There is a big Air School Camp. This also brought about an increase in the population. Refugees from other countries were sent there and that resulted in an increased population. There is no accommodation for people who pass through George and who want to stay overnight; there is no accommodation to be had at an hotel. One cannot obtain a house, nor a room at the hotel. Then one of the hotels burned down and the person who then took over the building applied for a permit to repair it. There is no boarding to be had at all. He gave the Minister the assurance that he required no building materials because he had them. The Minister could have granted a permit on condition that he would not apply for materials. Why was that permit refused? That is one of the things which passes all understanding. This control is exercised unwisely. I personally saw the Minister in Pretoria in regard to the matter, and he said that I should wait for a little while. I hope he will now tell us why this permit was refused.

I would like to have a little information from the Minister of Public Works, because I notice that an additional amount is being asked for under Vote T for committee members who are not civil servants. Can he give us the assurance that none of the civil servants receives an allowance under this Vote? With regard to the appointment of additional staff, I think the time has arrived for the Minister to change the position in his department. Can he give me the name of one Afrikaner whom he appointed as Chief Controller for the purpose of controlling building materials? As far as my knowledge goes, only English-speaking civil servants who retired were appointed temporarily again. Are they the only people with brains who can control such matters? It is remarkable, but the Minister is known for it that he’ obstructs and retards the progress of Afrikaners in his department, and that he has no time for them. At a later date, in connection with the Post Office, we shall again bring this matter before the House and ask for reasons, but it is a shame that the Minister should carry on in this way. We shall not tolerate it in the future that he promotes the interests of only one section of the population and does not take into consideration the other section. With regard to the permit system, I want to ask him whether he really knows on what basis these permits are granted. I should like to hear from him why certain members of the public can obtain permits while others cannot and why in certain cases materials were refused which the Department of Defence does not require. Dealers are in a position to sell these goods, and the Department of Defence does not require them, but permits are nevertheless refused to certain persons. It is not just and fair. The time has arrived for the Minister to look into these matters and not only to listen to officials who are unsympathetic towards a certain section of the people. What allowances are paid to these retired officials who are re-appointed now? It is not stated here that they are in receipt of an allowance, but I should like to know what allowances are paid to them. There are a large number of these officials who have the sole say in connection with building materials. Then I want to ask him why the platteland is neglected and why people in the platteland cannot obtain permits for the construction of buildings? Cannot arrangements be made so that materials will be available not only to the building contractors of the large cities, but so that a portion will be made available for building contractors in the smaller towns? These smaller towns and the platteland districts can no longer be treated in this way by a Minister who has no sympathy for the platteland and who knows nothing about the conditions there. He harms the platteland as much as he can, and continually demonstrates that he has no sympathy for the platteland. I have already invited him to visit the platteland and to convince himself that these people are also entitled to certain privileges which other people enjoy. He has not done this.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that Municipalities had been told that they could go ahead with their sub-economic housing schemes, and I assume that that would not have been done if there were not sufficient material available for the purpose. I want therefore to take this opportunity of putting a specific question to the Minister. I want to ask whether there is sufficient timber for flooring material for sub-economic housing schemes. I ask that on account of the following experience of mine. The Worcester Municipality has for some time been engaged on a sub-economic housing scheme for its Native population, and the houses they are erecting have cement floors which are strongly objected to by the people who will have to live in the houses. I know that some time ago it was the deliberate policy to put cement floors into this type of house, but that is not the case in this instance, because at the instance of the local community I approached the municipality and the engineer and put to him a specific request whether wooden floors could not be provided for these houses. The reply was that the Engineer and the Council had no objection, but that the timber was absolutely unobtainable. In view of the Minister’s statement that Municipalities have been told that they can go ahead with their sub-economic housing schemes, and the obvious implication that carries with it that the necessary materials are available, I want to ask whether or not the timber for flooring in sub-economic housing schemes is available in the country?

In reply to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) he asks whether there is flooring available for sub-economic housing. He objects to cement flooring. The Central Housing Board, in consultation with the buiding control, framed plans suitable for sub-economic housing. Unfortunately those plans provided cement floors, and in Cape Town and coastal towns cement floors are useless. We are anxious to find something that will be a substitute for ordinary flooring, and they are turning out a material in Durban which will be just as effective as ordinary flooring, it is made from a composition of wattle bark after the tanning has been extracted. I cannot give hon. members any further information, but I hope this is going to solve the question for sub-economic and also ordinary houses.

Has that been used anywhere?

Experiments have been satisfactory, the material has been sent to the University of Witwatersrand, where tests are being carried out. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), if he will listen to me, complained bitterly that no Afrikaansspeaking person has been appointed a controller. He confined the whole of his remarks against the Controller of Building Material. Now, the man in charge of that is Mnr. Borckenhagen.

No, he is not the head of the Building Control, you know it as well as I do.

Since when has Borckenhagen …

been controller? Practically from the inception. Mr. Holgate was Controller of Building Material till about November, and Mr. Borckenhagen was appointed when Mr. Hoigate became Deputy-Controller of Building. I suppose Mr. Keet is not Afrikaans-speaking either?

He cannot speak Afrikaans, I mean a man who can speak Afrikaans properly.

Can he speak better Afrikaans than you can?

Then the hon. member talks about favouritism. I don’t know anything at all about favouritism.

Don’t you?

No, I don’t, I wan’t you to give me a case or cases that have been turned down.

It is not cases that are turned down, but cases that are turned up.

These people have nothing to complain about, because when they get permission to build that implies that they can get the materials to build with. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) referred to two specific cases, and I know about both of them. In the policy that we adopted we excluded hotels and guest houses, and both these come under that category. They were not turned down, they were asked to make application in six months time. At that particular time we did not know how far we could go with houses up to £1,400 or £1,500. We wanted to encourage that class of building. The hon. member for East Griqualand referred to the difficulties in regard to material. I have nothing to do with building material, I am merely Controller of Building, but a permit granted by the Controller of Building enables a man to carry out the building that has been passed with the necessary materials.

What we complain of is that there is differentiation between one applicant and another. I will quote a case in point. I wanted to build cotages for workmen on my farm. I applied and after considerable time I got permission to build them, but the permission given to me was so circumscribed in regard to a tremendous amount of necessities in these houses which I was not allowed to put in. I could not put in wooden floors; I could not put in electric light and half-a-dozen other things. Then, Mr. Chairman, a short time ago a friend of mine built a house, and after about a year, something went wrong with the floors. It is quite a nice house, it cost about £2,000, but you could not walk on the floors because they had rotted underneath. He applied for permission to put in new floors, but they would not grant him permission. Now, here was a house in every way satisfactory, but nobody could live in it because the floors had given way, and the Minister will not allow new floors to be put in.

There is no timber.

I would like the hon. Minister to go to Hermanus and see the palaces there that Cape Town’s idle rich are putting up along the seashore. Many of them were started only a few months ago, or at any rate within the last year, and many are now completed or practically completed. These are not tenements or houses under a sub-economic housing scheme, but palaces for the idle rich, the play boys of Cape Town and their friends who go and spend those well-earned and necessary week-ends which the late Minister of Commerce and Industries advised us all to take. That is what we call differentiation.

Is there timber in those houses?

I do not know, but there is a lot of very good bricks in those houses. That is the differentiation we object to, and I would like the Minister to enquire into that. These palaces are being put up there. Where a man has a house and the floors give in, and it is absolutely necessary to put in new floors, he is not allowed to do so. If a man wants to build houses for his workmen, he is circumscribed as to what he is allowed to put in. Then there is another point, this is a dictatorial department, and many of the officials in this dictatorial department are acquiring very dictatorial manners, and I think if the Minister were to send a circular round that department to the effect that they should at any rate show a certain amount of courtesy to people who come to see them about business, it would be very beneficial indeed. It is a general complaint that if you go into an office in this department you are treated as mud. The Opposition are accustomed to be treated as mud, whether we deserve it or not. If the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) were to go in there, he would also be treated as mud.

Well, that is all right.

That would be perfectly correct. But Mr. Chairman, we complain of this differentiation; why should I be treated as mud, who do not deserve it, and the hon. member for Kensington, be treated in the same manner as I am? But, Mr. Chairman, there is a genuine ground of complaint that they are in this department adopting a dictatorial attitude. There is a great lack of courtesy in that department, and I hope a word from the Minister will be able to put that matter right.

There is a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Senator.

No, no, not yet.

He talks about palaces at Hermanus. I went out to Hermanus and I saw some of them, but as I explained before, this control only came into existence at the beginning of July. On the 15th August I caused an advertisement to be inserted cancelling all permits that had been issued for buildings which had not started by the 15th August. We only gave them three days notice. These buildings that are complained of started before that date. With regard to the dictatorial attitude of officials in the department, I myself have taken up that matter with some of these people, and I am hoping that we will have no repetition of it. Unfortunately I have to agree with what the hon. member says, some instances have occurred, I have had them brought to my notice, and I have taken the necessary action. He complains about not getting floor boards. Well, Mr. Chairman, I told hon. members that when a permit is granted for buildings that includes all the necessary things to carry on those buildings. But they have no timber to give you, that is the trouble. I have already mentioned that an investigating committee is pushing on enquiries with regard to some substitute for flooring, and I hope they will be successful. With regard to these palaces at Hermanus, I do not suppose hon. members would like me to take up the attitude that buildings partially erected must be stopped. All you have to do is to go to Muizenberg. There hotels and a cinema are being put up, and there is a road house just before you get to Muizenberg, these started before the 15th August. That is the trouble, I have inherited this. I want to make it quite clear that that class of building has no hope of being permitted under present conditions.

The hon. Minister says that flooring boards cannot be obtained, but I know of cases where permission was refused although they had boards. They still have the boards today, but these people are not allowed to build. The Minister also referred to sub-economic housing. I want to tell him that in our area the poor people say that the Government has now discovered a solution to the poor white problem. They say that the Government permits people to build houses which are of such a nature that the people who live in them will all die, and that the poor white problem will then be solved for the Government. I want the Minister to understand that houses are being built in which Europeans have to live, houses with sand or mud floors, without doors, without inside doors, with a galvanised iron roof, and without a ceiling. If a permit is granted to build under those circumstances, it does not help at all, because these people who have to live in these houses will all die. It is the poor people who require these houses, because they cannot afford to pay rent. Surely steps can be taken to see to it that these people are provided with flooring boards. They can make some plan, because the municipality is prevented from making flooring boards, even though they can get them secondhand. Then these poor people also have to live in a house which has a sand or mud floor. I should like to see, if permits are granted to these people to build, that care is taken that they can obtain the necessary material. It is no use issuing permits if the materials are not available. As the houses have to be built at present, the people living in them will all die.

The Minister wanted to mislead this House.

Order, order.

It is out of order to say that the Minister is misleading the House.

Withdraw.

In that case I will say that the Minister tried to tell this House something which is not correct.

Order.

He knew very well what I was talking about. The discussion concerned building materials, and he wanted to make this House believe that what I had said was wrong. He wanted to give us to understand that the Controller in the Cape Province is an Afrikaans-speaking person and that therefore my facts were not correct. I think that this is not only unreasonable on the part of the Minister, but it is unfair. The Minister ought to know that Mr. Harvey is not the sub-controller, but that he has the sole say in connection with permits and building materials in the Cape Province. He ought to know that unless Mr. Harvey gives his consent, one cannot obtain building materials. He knows that the Controller in Pretoria has no say in the Cape Province. I notice that the Minister of Justice is trying to pass on information to the Minister. I think it will be much better if the Minister of Justice confines himself to his own department. I think it will be very much better if he fully acquaints himself with matters concerning his own department, instead of sitting here and eating peppermints and then not being able to give a proper reply because he has a peppermint in his mouth. Mr. Harvey is an ex-civil servant. I should like to hear from the Minister what such an ex-civil servant receives. The Minister tries to make out that ex-civil servants are the only people who are prepared to do something for the State free of charge. I should like to know what such an ex-civil servant is paid. I am entitled to this information, because an additional amount is being asked for here. I have nothing against Mr. Harvey personally, but my argument was that there was not a single Afrikaansspeaking controller in the Cape Province. What happened then? Instead of the Minister telling us what the position is, he wanted to sidetrack me and refer me to the Transvaal although he knew very well that that Controller in the Transvaal has no say in the Cape Province. I hope that the Minister will not from time to time try to take in the House in this manner.

Order!

Yes, that hon. member must wait until the day he becomes a Minister, and then he can express his opinion.

I think the hon. Minister of his own accord ought tp try and explain to us why it is necessary for him at this particular time suddenly to spend this large sum on motor transport. I think the Minister of Finance will agree with me when I say that nothing ought to appear in a Supplementary Budget which can be postponed at all in the new year. That is a sound principle. Only such items as cannot be postponed under any circumstances should appear in a Supplementary Budget. That is number one. The Minister must satisfy us that the world would have come to an end if these motor cars had not been provided to the officials. Were these motor cars so urgently required that they could not wait until the money was voted in the new year?

No further motor cars are being imported.

Why must they be bought before the new year?

It is no reply to say that motor cars are no longer being imported.

Were these motor cars bought out of charitable motives towards those people who require them? I think the House will agree with me that it is a principle on which we must insist that nothing of a supplementary nature must figure in a Budget if it can be postponed at all until the next year. We know that these motor cars were not purchased for military purposes, otherwise we would be told that this is something which is necessary in connection with war services, and that it was so important that it could not be postponed. But these motor cars were bought for ordinary officials. We live in times when every person is compelled to use a motor car as little as possible. Here, it would seem, that the Government is encouraging people to buy motor cars. I think it is the first time in the history of Parliament that we ask for £46,000 for the purchase of motor cars in a Supplementary Budget.

There is an increase of about 120 per cent.

Yes, there is an increase of more than 100 per cent., and I think that we are entitled to a statement from the Minister.

I should like to know on what basis the hon. Minister proposes to buy these motor cars. He will remember that last year the Auditor-General objected to the fact that motor cars were bought through the Government garages. The Auditor-General drew our attention to the fact that these purchases went through one big motor firm in Pretoria, and that this firm then received commission on all the purchases made by the Government. I should like to know whether in this case effect is given to the recommendation of the Auditor-General, namely, that these purchases must take place not only through one person but by means of open competition. This is an important matter. If the Minister places all the purchases in the hands of one person, then that person makes an enormous profit. We should like to know whether the Minister is carrying out the suggestions of the Auditor-General.

I am not going into the question raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) but the number of cars at present in use are getting to the end of their life, and other cars have to take their place, and moreover there has been a tremendous increase in the work of the Government garage, and these cars are essential.

Are the drivers careless now?

It is not a question of careless drivers. It is the extra work in connection with the war. Take social welfare. In 1940—’41, the monthly account for social welfare was £338, this month (April, 1942) it was £473. The Mint account has gone up about 400 per cent.

You should have anticipated that.

I think you are right, but the point is that the Government require these cars. We have to satisfy the Treasury.

They seem to be easily satisfied.

They were far from satisfied. With regard to the other point the hon. member referred to, there is a board which deals with that as the result of the Auditor-General’s report.

I do not think it is reasonable on the part of the Minister not to reply to this question properly. I know that there were complaints in the Defence Department when the first batch of motor cars were purchased. Thousands of pounds of profit were made in that transaction, and today they buy their motor cars direct from the factory, and I should like to know why the Government cannot do this as well. It is said that these motor cars are bought through agents who receive big profits. That is surely unnecessary. Why must they be bought through one person?

They are bought through the Tender Board.

Then the Tender Board should buy the cars direct from the factory. Why must they be bought through agents? The other day I saw a beautiful car belonging to the Government. It was marked GG and the person who drove the car came round a bend so quickly that there is probably nothing left of the car today. If the Government is so anxious or concerned about the position, then they should at least see to it that this sort of thing does not take place. They themselves must exercise care. The original estimate was £34,000, Now an additional £46,000 is being asked for; in other words, there is an increase of more than 100 per cent. If the Minister is not competent enough to draw up his estimates, then he must come and tell us. In this case the Minister is 136 per cent out of his figures. I think that there is definitely something wrong. There is something behind this thing, and we should like to know what it is.

I really do not think that the hon. Minister can expect us to be satisfied with his reply, when he says that a large number of cars became unfit for the road just at this particular time. We can understand that there is the usual depreciation on motor cars, and that officials who used their own motor cars in the past can no longer do so, or that the Government is now short of supplies, but surely we cannot accept it as a fact that such a large number of motor cars became unfit for the road just at this particular time, so that the Minister is forced to come here with additional estimates, in which he asks for an additional £46,000. If the Minister cannot give us another explanation, we cannot accept this amount under any circumstances, and I suggest that the sum of £46,000 should be deleted.

It is very difficult to follow the mental processes of some hon. members opposite. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) gets up and says it is a horrible thing, it is a financial sin of the first order to put down so large an amount on the Additional Estimates, talking, sir, as if we were living in normal times. We have been listening the whole afternoon to a debate in which it was stressed that you cannot even put a new wooden floor in a house today. Why? Because there are no wooden floors to put in. The hon. gentleman knows that the supply of rubber in this country is not 10 per cent. of the demand; he knows, or he ought to know, that when America switched off from the manufacture of cars to munition production twelve months ago, and ceased to make a single motor car, there were 8,000 new motor cars only in this country, this country had a stock only of 8,000 new motor cars to meet private needs and the needs of the Government. These very same gentlemen who are now moving to delete this item and who criticise the Government because it stepped in and bought these cars, are the very same gentlemen who, if the Government had not done so, if the Government had missed the chance of doing this, would have got up and would have wagged their fingers at the Government from the Opposition benches and they would have said “You are absolutely unbusinesslike. You missed a chance and the Government cannot function because they did not get those cars.” And they would say, “And why cannot it function?—because when you have a chance of buying cars you fail to do so.” The task of trying to get any sort of agreement from the Opposition is really an impossible one. Whatever you do is wrong and therefore it is just as well to go ahead and let the Opposition say what they like. Now the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) has moved the deletion of this without knowing anything about the matter. Supposing the Minister said, “Very well, I am sorry I have upset the Opposition. I shall accept your motion for the deletion of this item.” What would it mean? I suppose that these cars are needed for the use of the Government Garage, one must assume that they have reported that they need those cars and that they have convinced the Treasury, the very vigilant Treasury, of their needs. I hope next time the hon. member goes to Pretoria and has to use an official car he will be able to get one. Or let us assume that there is a change of Government and he becomes a Minister and he has need of a car, and he cannot get one—I hope he will realise in that event, which is very unlikely—that the fact of his being unable to get a car is due to his having queered the Government’s pitch. It is unreasonable and the atitude of the hon. member is unreasonable. Now, the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) raised a point here. This is a hardy annual at the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee. It concerns not the purchase of cars for the Government Garage. If the hon. member will cast his mind back, these purchases in respect of which commission was paid to a certain firm in Pretoria, were purchases for the Police and the Defence Department, not purchases for the Government Garage, because those purchases are made by public tender under the authority of the Treasury.

Vote put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—64:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Egeland, L.

Friedlander, A

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van der Byl, P. V. G

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—50:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst. B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

I just want to put a few questions to the Minister in connection with the expenditure on this vote. I notice that there is an amount here of £640 for the purchase of a motor boat. I do not know whether the Minister now proposes to deport the Asiatics by means of a motor boat, because this in connection with immigration. I should like to know on what this amount is being spent. I do not know what the position is, and I put this question only with a view of obtaining information.

In connection with these votes on the Additional Estimates, I think that it will be very desirable if, when the vote in question is discussed, the Minister concerned can give the House some information. This will save time. The Minister of Finance gives an outline, when he proposes that the House should go into Committee, but he does not give the details of these votes. Here we are dealing with a new vote, and I think that the Minister ought to get up and give us the information. I am thinking especially of the second item, namely an amount of £420 for overseas publicity which has not been voted hitherto. It is described as follows in the estimates: “Publicity outside the Union (including subscription to the United Nations’ Information Office, New York).” We do not know what this relates to, but we should very much like to know what type of nonsense this is. There is enough absurd publicity in South Africa in connection with the war, and also in other countries, and it is not necessary for us to contribute this further money in respect of publicity in the United States. I must say that the name United Nations has been ill-chosen in connection with New York, if one looks at the quarrel which is going on in the North between the Americans and the English.

This refers to publicity in New York and not in Hollywood.

There I did, at any rate, make a success of one thing, which is more than that hon. member can say. I wonder whether this matter has any connection with the propaganda which comes from New York to this country. I want to object to the fact that the consular official of another country should furnish information in our country which is nothing but political propaganda. I have no objection to a country advertising itself in another country, but in this case brochures, which contain nothing but pure political propaganda, are sent to members by the consular official of the United States. The Minister ought to look at it. It is beyond the pale of ordinary etiquette that one country should do this to another country. These brochures contain lovely pictures, but they are nothing but political propaganda. It is war propaganda and if it is necessary to make war propaganda, then let the Government of the country do it, but it is unheard of that another government should make all sorts of propaganda through the medium of its consular officials. I hope that the Government will put a stop to this, and will point out to the American Consulate that this may not be done. There is sufficient distasteful propaganda on the part of our own Government, and we do not need the propaganda of another government as well. This emanates officially from the American Consulate, and I hope that the Minister will put a stop to this and that he will tell us why this £420 has to be voted for an information office in New York.

Perhaps it would save discussion if I explained this item of £420 under the heading “Publicity.” This amount has been provided in order to enable the Union to subscribe to the United Nations Information Office which has been set up in America, membership of which has been take up by all other members of the United Nations. The purpose of this Information Bureau is to give information in America concerning all nations comprising the United Nations, information on matters of international importance, affecting these Nations, and this office set up in America will give the widest publicity to the information through the medium of the Press, the Radio and the Cinema.

What about?

I think my hon. friend will agree that there is not much difference between New York and Hollywood as far as publicity value is concerned!

Oh, there is a lot of difference.

My hon. friend as an experienced man knowing American conditions, knows what value is attached to publicity in America, and I think he should welcome the opportunity of letting the American people know a good deal more about South Africa, letting them know what we are doing in South Africa, letting them know about our industrial efforts, and matters akin thereto. My hon. friend realises that these things are of value in letting the American people learn something about South Africa. The vast majority of them know very little about South Africa, about the developments which have taken place in our country in recent years, and we have a golden opportunity now of opening up our country, and of letting the people of America know what is going on in this country.

What is Father Close doing there?

I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Railways, through his Administration, has also for a long time past been doing a certain amount of publicity work in regard to travel and tourists, and this work may quite possibly in the future be co-ordinated by the Information Office in New York and may have very valuable results as far as the future is concerned.

Why does it come under your vote, under “Interior?”

It it under Interior because the information will be forwarded by the Bureau of Information, which is a sub-department of the Department of the Interior. The information will be co-ordinated at this end—that is information for dispersal in America. Now the amount of the vote consists partly of subscriptions for December to March and the balance is made up of items which will be spent on the exhibition of posters and other publicity material. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (General Kemp) who asked for an explanation regarding the purchase of a motor launch—I admit that the item is perhaps somewhat misleading, bearing in mind that this motor launch has been purchased for use in Durban Harbour. Well, it is not for pleasure trips or for the transport of Asiatics. It has been purchased to enable the Immigration Authorities to deal more expeditiously with the inspection of ships in the Harbour.

I am afraid that the explanation which the Minister of the Interior gave in regard to this sum of £420 is not at all satisfactory. For many years large sums of money have been spent by the Department of Railways in connection with publicity in America. The Minister referred to it, and the Minister of Railways knows it. Those advertisements still appear in American journals. To say now that this £420 is being spent in order to advertise South Africa, to advertise South Africa’s products in America—unless the Minister can furnish supporting proof, I am not prepared to accept that. It is clear that it is being spent for one purpose only, and that is to make war propaganda, to tell America what South Africa is engaged in doing in connection with its “war effort. If the Minister had admitted that.

I did say it.

No, you did not do so. The Minister said that it was in connection with the ignorance in America in regard to the conditions in South Africa, that it was necessary to tell America what takes place in South Africa, and to give general publicity to South Africa. Now the Minister admits—now that I have challenged him—that this money is for no other purpose than to make war propaganda. Are we not spending more than enough money on the war? We are already spending £96,000,000 in one year. We must remember that this amount is for four months. The Minister said that the subscription was in respect of three months of the year. That would mean, on this basis, that we would pay £1,600 for the whole year out of the pocket of the taxpayer in order to tell America about South Africa’s war effort. No, this is improper expenditure. I am surprised that the Minister was not honest about the matter, and that he tried to create the impression that this money was voted for general publicity purposes.

No, I did not say what it was intended for.

He said that this publicity was necessary because the Americans knew so little about South Africa. Now that I, who did that work there myself, draw his attention to it, he realises that he cannot say this, and now he admits that it is for war propaganda. This is improper expenditure. We are spending quite enough on the war, and I therefore move—

I second the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). In his reply the Minister gave an evasive answer in regard to an international matter. Whatever he may say and whatever his object may be in joining hands with the United Nations, this expenditure is nothing but war expenditure. We are not concerned with advertising a “war effort” in America, nor is it necessary for us to advertise South Africa in America. America is engaged in appropriating Africa, and I do not want to contribute a single penny in order to help America in doing that. As the hon. member for Beaufort West has already said, America is not a client of ours, but an exploiter, and I do not want to contribute a single penny towards our further exploitation by America for war purposes.

The Minister concerned is not in his seat, but perhaps the Minister of Finance will give us the necessary information in connection with this vote.

The position is this. The Chamber of Mines agreed to make provision at its own expense for a cost of living allowance to pensioners under the Miners’ Phthisis Act. As hon. members know, the Chamber of Mines is responsible for the sum which is paid by way of pension and other awards. But our Government is responsible for the administration. They were prepared to pay a cost of living allowance, but this entailed additional administrative costs, for which we are responsible, and the object in asking for this £1,590 is to cover those costs.

Can you tell us what the scale is?

No, I am sorry, I cannot furnish that information. It is not at Government expense that this is done. We are only responsible for the administrative charges.

This is a most important vote and it invites discussion, and I want to ask the Minister to report progress.

I move—