I hope you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, to make use of thirty minutes, and I want at once to move the following amendment on this vote—

I do not do so because I want to do the Minister any material damage, but because we want him to understand that we on this side and also the country outside have not much confidence in the agricultural policy not only of the Minister, but particularly of his Government. We have reason to complain about the agricultural policy of the Minister and his Government, because we do not know of any considered and estimated agricultural policy on the part of the Minister and his Government. On the contrary, we find that when the Government does anything, it does not act as the result of considered and ordered plan, but only because it is obliged to act as a result of the force Of circumstances or pressure on the part of the public and the farming community. And if it acts then, we find usually that it causes confusion instead of its action having the desired result. Today we hear much talk from members and other persons who have much to say about social security. What is not sufficiently realised by them is that we cannot talk of social security as long as sufficient food supplies and also goods for our factories are not produced in our country. It is self-evident that when we speak of social security, account must be taken in the first instance of adequate production, and for that reason we must, in any programme of social security, make a beginning with this essential position which is indispensable for social security—steps must be taken to ensure that we have regular and adequate production of the requirements of our population and our factories. And we shall not have such adequate production, unless that production is payable, unless we have payable prices for those commodities that are produced; and where we live in such an uncertain world as today, it is self-evident that the agriculturist cannot give all his attention to the necessary production, unless he gets the assurance that there will be security and certainty for his industry. In other words, social security cannot be obtained unless security is assured in the first instance to agriculture. The farmer looks for a certain security, for certain guarantees. Conditions after the war will be very different from what they are during the war and from what they were before the war, and for that reason the agriculturist looks with concern to the future, and he has reason to ask that there shall be certain security guarantees, that measures shall be taken to ensure those guarantees. The agricultural population asks for an estimated and ordered agriculture, and when it asks for that, it usually receives the answer from the Prime Minister, such as it recently received, that the farmer must himself work out his salvation and draw up plans, and then the Government will decide whether it will carry out those plans. It is here that we find fault with the Government. It is unconcerned and is unwilling to act of its own accord. It follows a policy of letting matters develop, the policy of laissez faire. No policy will come from it. That we learned from the Prime Minister. The Government can only be compelled to act when it is kicked and driven to it, and when it acts then, we can only expect the confusion and disruption that we have had in the past. We come to the Minister of Agriculture and we ask him to present a considered policy to us, a conscious and pre-considered policy. We want an ordered agriculture in South Africa; we want the Minister to tell us where he is heading and what he is willing to do. The markets which exist for certain products have already disappeared as a result of the war, and we also know that many of those markets will probably never return again. Unless the Government has a fixed policy in connection with those particular industries whose markets have been lost, how must the people who are involved in those industries recover themselves? I think, for example, of the position of the fruit industry. Nobody can doubt that the fruit industry, both citrus fruit and deciduous fruit, is confronted with a position of uncertainty. During the war, it is self-evident, there is no export market for that fruit industry. But the question is whether that market will be restored after the war. It does not look like it. Will an impoverished Europe, will a Europe that has collapsed again be in a position to import luxury articles from abroad? We dare not assume that, and if that is the case, and we fear that it will indeed be the case, then we ask what the Government is doing now to give those fruit farmers an assurance concerning the future. The only answer that we have received hitherto is the answer that we received from the Prime Minister — those people themselves make plans for the future. The Government is unconcerned. If that is the attitude of the Government. I say that the farmers will be bitterly disappointed. The demand for certain products has on the other hand been intensified. But the question is whether that intensified market will continue to exist. Will the demand for wool, for instance, continue to exist? We hear that everywhere in the world great suspicions are being raised in connection with the wool situation. Will there be the same market as there was before the war and during the war? Will we be able to count on the same market in the future? Will there not perhaps be a collapse of the wool situation in the world? In all probability there will be a downward spiralling of prices, and we fear that in the case of wool it may be very serious. A great part of the world is, as far as wool is concerned, thrown back on itself today. The Continent of Europe can obtain practically no natural wool, and they must fall back on the manufacture of synthetic wool. They have raised the manufacture of synthetic wool to such a point that after the war those countries will be unconcerned about natural wool, and if that happens, we fear that the most serious conditions will arise. We ask the Government what it is going to do in connection with such industries and the marketing of commodities in connection with which it is doubtful whether there will be a market after the war; what has the Government done already, and what does it intend to do to meet that situation; or is it unconcerned here and is it going to do nothing? The Prime Minister said the other day that the Government will not act, but the farmers must act and suggest plans. But when at the start of the war it was probable that the farmer would derive the benefit of the intensified demand for products, the Government was not unconcerned, but it intervened and it fixed maximum prices. When the farmers could have got the benefit of the increased prices, also for wool, then the Minister of Agriculture was not unconcerned, but he intervened; he did not allow the farmers to market their wool freely, but the Government intervened and sold our wool at fixed prices to the British Government. It prohibited the wool farmers from getting the benefits that they had in the last war.

You are talking now against your better judgment.

If there is anyone who knows the opposite of what he says here, it is the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler). The Government was not unconcerned then, but took the leadership upon itself and immediately sold the wool to England. Not only did it take those steps, but in connection with other products it made use of the control boards, not in the interests of the farmer, but in the interests of the Government, to keep the price of products low. I do not want to find fault with the Government on the ground that it took steps to protect the consumer against excessive prices because there was a scarcity of certain products. I am eager to see protection for the consumer, but when the Government did so, and when it took it upon itself to intervene, why does it now say that with regard to post-war conditions, it is not its duty to give leadership, why is it unconcerned about that problem and why does it say that the farmers must suggest plans? No, we look to the Government, and the fault that we find with the Minister of Agriculture is that he does not consider himself the leader of the farmers. No, he is the brake which hinders the progress of the farmers. Instead of being the „touleier”, he is the man who turns on the brake. That is the fault that we find with him. We ask him to take account of the particular circumstances and to announce his policy—to tell us what he is going to do in view of those circumstances lying ahead for the agricultural community. Let him take a leaf out of the book of the Australian Government. In Australia a Director of Agriculture was appointed, and the task was laid upon him of investigating not only war production, but especially post-war production. We want to ask the Government to do something similar and to estimate now for after the war, and not to wait for the evil day of low prices and lack of demand. In connection with the external market we want to ask the Minister to tell us whether the Government will continue with the stupid policy that was followed before the war of trading only with certain spheres and not outside those spheres; we want to know whether the Government again want a sort of Empire trade and will exclude other countries. If that is the policy of the Government, we can foresee the worst consequences. The Government must not only announce its policy, but it must let the whole world understand what the policy of the Government will be after the war, namely, to trade with all countries, also with the Continent of Europe, and that it is prepared to conclude agreements with those countries, and that we are not going to limit ourselves only to the British Empire and America. Only when we receive that assurance and when the world knows it, may we feel secure, in the circumstances, that every attempt will be made to make our position secure after the war. Especially with regard to internal marketing do I feel that we want to urge the Government to make a statement. We shall have to fall back after the war particularly on our internal market. We ask the Government not only for an ordered agriculture, but in addition also ordered internal marketing, and where the public and the farmers in South Africa have repeatedly made representations to the Government to improve internal marketing conditions, we have not yet heard anything from the Government about what it intends to do to improve conditions. On the contrary, the Minister of Agriculture a few years ago promised a commission of inquiry into internal marketing. How far has it come? How far has he implemented that promise? Was that commission appointed, and if he did not appoint it, why does he not do so? Does he not want to improve the internal marketing conditions? Does the Government not realise that here lies the key to the position in connection with social security? Where the Government is always talking of social security, it must realise that it cannot establish it in South Africa unless it improves the internal marketing situation. Does it not know that there are terribly large gaps between the price of the products that the producer receives and the price that the consumer has to pay, and what is the Government doing to remove that gap or to narrow it? The Minister promised to appoint a commission of inquiry, but he goes no further. We ask the Government to act and to institute an inquiry, and then to come to the country with definite proposals to improve this position. The Minister of Agriculture has probably noticed that there was a discussion in the British House of Lords on a motion which was introduced to the effect that the distribution of food products in England was too dear, and one of the speakers showed that it cost £850,000,000 to distribute foodstuffs to the value of £650,000,000 in the country, with the result that one-third of the population in England is undernourished. One need not refer to South Africa to realise that those conditions are much worse here. But if we ask the Minister of Agriculture to intervene, he waves his hands high in innocence, promises an investigation, but there is remains. Unless the Minister institutes the inquiry, we shall have conditions here in South Africa where the consumer is incited against the producer, and that is one of the greatest misfortunes that can strike us. Because the Minister does not eliminate the high costs of distribution, the consumer is incited against the producer, because he must buy the product of the producer at a much dearer price than is necessary, and he suffers. It is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to intervene and to take steps to reduce the costs of distribution much below what they are at the moment. We shall never obtain social security in South Africa, unless we can considerably reduce the tremendous costs in regard to distribution of food. The Minister must intervene. When he wants to investigate this matter, he must call in the help of the producers, and also the help of the consumers. The fact that such a great expense is connected with the distribution of food supplies is due to the fact, perhaps chiefly due to it, that the consumer in South Africa has hitherto been unconcerned and ignorant about this condition of affairs. For that reason I want him also to bring in the consumer in South Africa and encourage him to take an interest in this matter, and to take steps on his part to reduce these tremendous costs of distribution. What have our producers done, for example, to remove by means of co-operative organisations that tremendous gap between the price that the producer receives for his product and the price that he has to pay for it. I want to ask the Government to take steps in that direction and to call in the help of consumers and producers, and to see how far costs of distribution can be reduced to a reasonable proportion. Only when we have a system of guaranteed prices for the primary producer, when production costs are brought to a minimum, and if we have a wage rate that will make it possible for the workers in South Africa to buy the products of the producer, can we talk at all of social security. Now I want to put a few questions to the Minister in connection with problems that are confronting us, more particularly in connection with the marketing of products during the coming season. What is he going to do in connection with the wheat industry? He knows that the wheat farmers are confronted with a greater danger as a result of the shortage of fertiliser, the danger that during the next season they may not be able to produce enough. Now I want to know from the Minister whether he has taken steps or will take steps to help in those conditions, not only to take steps to help in the shortage of fertiliser, but also to ensure that the fertiliser will be equally divided. Do you know what the position is now, where we have to do with a shortage? Farmers have applied; certain farmers received 100 per cent., and others not 20 per cent. In such circumstances, what may we expect from the next crop? Unless real action is taken, there will be a shortage with the next crop, and then our country will be confronted with a serious crisis. How far does the Minister think he will be able to supplement the shortage of fertiliser; and will he consider providing the wheat farmers and other farmers with ground kraal manure by providing particular facilities for that? We know that with the usual low railway tariff on kraal manure, facilities were given. The Minister will have to go much further than he is going now to help the people in that respect. A particularly acute situation has arisen, and the Minister will have to take organised measures to make ground kraal manure available to supplement the shortage of supplies of fertiliser. In connection with the wheat industry I want to ask whether the Minister will not consider giving the wheat farmers better representation on the control board. Will he not allow the wheat farmers a technical adviser on the control board? If that is done, they will be in possession of all the details in connection with the industry, when they have to act on behalf of the wheat farmers. I want the Minister to make at least one technical adviser available, so that he can act as adviser of the wheat farmers. He ought actually to be a representative or official of a central wheat organisation. Unfortunately, no such thing exists.

You are a stranger in Jerusalem.

As long as there is not one central organisation, the Minister can allow one representative for the north and one for the south. With regard to the Marketing Council, too, I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider giving better representation to the farmers. Instead of one farmer there must be two. A farmer from the north may be the best man in the world, but he cannot possibly be acquainted with the details of farming in all parts of the country. He will be acquainted with farming in the north; he will know about wheat cultivation and maize cultivation in the north, about stock farming, but very little about fruit and other activities here in the south. I want to ask him to put at least two farming members on the Marketing Council, one for the north and one for the south, to give the farmers in that way better representation on the Marketing Council. In connection with maize I am eager to know from the Minister what the prospect is for the next crop. I think he said recently in answer to a question what the next crop is estimated at. It is clear that there will not be, as we hoped, such a crop that there will be a surplus. It is even possible that there will be a shortage, and I want to ask what the Minister is going to do to meet that shortage. Is he going to wait, or is he going to take steps now, and does he intend to divide the maize in time according to the needs of the country? Will he define the food consumption, the dairy consumption and the needs of the poultry farmers, so that the people may know where they are? And if there is a shortage so that all the needs cannot be provided, will he take other steps to fulfil those needs. Do you know what happened in the past season? There were poultry farmers who could obtain no supplies, and there were dairy farmers who could obtain no supplies, and the result was that those poultry farmers had to sell for the meat market. Will the Minister let those conditions continue, or will he supplement the shortage in time according to an estimate? There was a time when the people had to sell good laying fowls for the slaughter market, and that while the Minister allowed large quantities of oats to be given to people to feed race horses, and barley to the brewers. This grain could have been used for fowl feed. We see the unconcerned attitude of the Minister, and we want to ask him and his Government to act in time now. We want to know from the Minister what he is going to do. Then I also want to learn from him whether the Government has answered the hint that has been given from England in connection with the provision of maize to India. We recently read in the newspapers that it was made known in the British House of Lords that a request was addressed to the Union Government by the British Government to send 2,000,000 bags of maize to India. We want to learn whether the Government received that request, and what the Government intends to do in that connection. We put the question, because we have reason to be afraid. When the Rhodesian Government made such a request, the Minister sent 400,000 bags of maize to Rhodesia, with fatal consequences for our farmers. Has the Government received that invitation from the English Government, and what was the answer of the Government? Then we also want to know from the Minister what the Government intends to do in connection with the potato farmers. The Government went out of its way to encourage the farmers to plant potatoes, and does the Minister know what the price of potatoes is now? I received a report from Oudtshoorn last week that the price of potatoes runs from 2s. 6d. to 7s. 6d. per bag. These are people who were encouraged by officials of the Government to plant potatoes, and they are people who are dependent for their existence on this type of farming. What is the Government doing now to help that situation? Is the Government going to continue to compete with the farmers by planting potatoes on such a big scale at Pongola and Vaal-Hartz, and throwing a portion of them on the market, so that the potato farmers are not given the opportunity of making use of those markets? Then I also want to know what the Minister is going to do in connection with the meat market. We know what they did in the past. They twice intervened in connection with the fixing of prices, and we know what the consequences of his action was. He disrupted the whole meat market. The Minister will have to realise that he cannot intervene in economic laws in a fast and loose manner. If he wants to do that, he must come with a considered plan. If he fixes prices, he must consider the consequences and make provision for them. The meat farmers have reason to be dissatisfied with his action. The Minister may say now that he wanted to prevent the fluctuation on the market. The farmer himself does not like fluctuations. When prices are fixed, the Minister must also fix a minimum price, and so prevent fluctuations and an opportunity for speculators to enrich themselves to the detriment of producer and consumer. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has moved a reduction of £1,800 of the Minister’s salary. We know that it is purely party antics. If I had the right to reduce the Minister’s salary, I would do so with pleasure. I know that the Minister is unpopular in some quarters. What Minister of Agriculture is not unpopular; what one has there been in the past who has not been unpopular? It once became so serious with a minister of agriculture in the Nationalist Party that they had to put some one else in his place. There was so much dissatisfaction among the farmers. The agricultural policy of the old Nationalist Party was such a wretched policy, it was the most wretched policy we had ever known, and that was the reason why they have disintegrated and now sit there in groups. That policy of the old Nationalist Party — of which I was one of the founders — is the reason why I am now sitting here behind the present Prime Minister.

Together with the Jews.

If I can assist the country together with the Jews then I will do so. The Nationalist Party came into power in 1924 with the vote of the Jews. Then the Jews were good. I say that the Minister of Agriculture who we have now has one of the most difficult tasks on his shoulders that a Minister of Agriculture has yet had, and I admire him for the way in which he carries out that task. I congratulate him. He stands his ground now just as he did so during the Boer War. He is a fighter for Afrikaner rights, and we are proud to have such a Minister of Agriculture. The leader of the Nationalist Party in respect of farming matters has today blamed the Government for the wool agreement. I ask the hon. member to convene a congress of farmers in the Union and to propose there that this wool agreement with the Imperial Government should be discontinued.

You know that it is too late now; that it can no longer be done.

Let him convene that congress and let him see how many farmers will vote for a proposal that the wool agreement should now be discontinued. Not a single farmer will vote for it, and I doubt whether the member for Oudtshoorn will vote for it himself. He knows as well as I do that it was the best that the Government could do in the circumstances for the wool farmers throughout the country. They have shouted for an open market …

And you have acted like a lackey of the Empire.

We do not take very much notice of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker). We do not regard him as a responsible man on the other side. I was present at meetings which were held to protest against the wool agreement. At those meetings the Government was charged with having given our wool to the Imperial government with which to win the war. I was present at the meeting in Burgersdorp, and I saw how the farmers were incited against the agreement. Why do we now no longer hear any more of those protest meetings? If the hon. member for Oudtshoorn thinks that he is leading the farmers, and that he has the confidence of the wool farmers, then I ask him to convene a meeting of wool farmers and to propose there that we should cancel the wool agreement with the Imperial government. No, this wool agreement has saved us. They stood for an open market, and where is the open market now? If we did not have this agreement, where would we get an open market? This agreement is the best thing that the Government has done for the wool farmers of the country, and the wool farmers will be grateful for it for many years yet. The hon. member has spoken about the market after the war. But we cannot say in advance now already what the policy must be which we are going to follow. There is for example this agitation in connection with a wool factory and the marketing of our wool. I do not believe that the factory will help us very much. We do not know what the conditions in the world will be after the war. If the world collapses, and we we can process only two per cent. or three per cent. of our wool in this country, it will not help at all; it will not help us in any way to have a wool industry here to market our wool. We will have to see what the conditions are, and make arrangements accordingly. In order to do this we will need a strong and powerful government in our country to help us to solve all the difficulties. Therefore I know that the farmers in this connection will see that the Government is returned to the House much stronger than it is now. Every responsible man feels that there will be difficult conditions after the war, and to meet these difficulties we will need a strong Government. That is all we do at present. Hon. members talk about fixing prices. We have agitated for many years in this respect and we have obtained the Marketing Act, which was passed unanimously, to achieve this purpose through control boards. I know that the Minister has a lot of difficulty in this respect, especially in regard to the maize industry, but I want to say this in connection with the Maize Control Board, that I think we should give them a chance. They have been functioning for practically only a year, it is practically a year now that there has been sale through one channel. Give them a chance. Perhaps they have made a lot of mistakes. Who does not make mistakes? The control board system is a new system and it is still in the trial period, and I think that the Maize Control Board will improve from time to time. I am speaking from experience from the Wheat Control Board. There sits the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) who was also a member of the Board. We know of the dissatisfaction which existed in the first two years. We had to travel through the country and explain matters. Today there is no longer dissatisfaction, because it is working like a machine. Everyone is satisfied with a few exceptions, like Mr. Arthur Barlow.

But he is your friend.

Yes, why not?

He is just as much a Roosite as you are.

I was a Roosite and I am glad about it, because I think it did a lot of good, the action of Tielman Roos. But I do not want to allow myself to be led from the point. These control boards have come to stay. We will perhaps have to make changes here and there. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has suggested something in connection with the Wheat Control Board, that we should have central control boards, one for the north and one for the south. He claims to be the leader of the farmers, but when he says this he is not the leader of the wheat farmers. The wheat farmers held a conference at Paarl a few days ago. The wheat co-operatives of the whole country were represented there, and we discussed the question of central organisations for wheat farmers. They expressed themselves against two central bodies. They have Sasko, the central co-operative association of the wheat farmers, and even the Transvaal and the Free State do not want a second body.

You are distorting what I said. At the conference at Paarl they gave effect to a suggestion which I made three weeks ago.

The hon. member is a stranger in Jerusalem. Six weeks ago, or two months ago already, the matter was discussed at a conference in Pretoria. [Time limit.]

With your permission I would like to make use of the half-hour privilege. I want to say a few words about the maize industry. The maize industry has in the past years to a great extent become a political football, and not only that, but the industry has also been the football of agitators who want to gamble and exploit the position. It is very clear that the Government of the day must stand firm in this respect, that the maize industry must cease once and for all to be a political football in our country, and it can only happen if we, with the experience we have behind our back, improve every year on the position as it exists today. This industry is the staple industry of the country. On it is built up to a great extent the labour supplied to the gold mines, and if the maize industry collapses, the gold industry will receive a set-back from which it will not recover quickly, because the nature of their labour is such that it wants maize and nothing else as a staple food. Further it is very clear that other sister industries can be successful only if they can obtain sufficient maize. The dairy industry in the country is today a highly specialised industry. It is controlled, but its life also depends to great extent on the food which the maize industry supplies. The supplying of milk in the large cities, the supplying of butter, everything is indirectly dependent on maize. Then we have in the native reserves the position that millions of natives depend on maize for their food, and if you go to the farms, then you find that farm labour is so constituted that probably 90 per cent. of the farm labourers cannot be fed on meat and bread alone, but they demand maize. The less privileged section of the European population, especially on the platteland, are dependent for their existence on maize as food. Therefore it is so necessary that the Government should make the best brains in the country available to see that the industry does not develop in an unhealthy direction. The best plans must be made for this purpose. The section of the population which derives its existence from the production of maize, the producers of maize hardly pass a single year without anxiety. From year to year there prevails a nervousness among the producers owing to the uncertain conditions which are created practically every year. They never know whether they are going to get a paying price for the product. They never know that the price is not going to fall to a level below the cost of production, or that it will perhaps soar. Now the position is today that the whole country longs for an authoritative statement from the Minister and his Department in connection with what the position is going to be this season, and I hope that the Minister in the course of this debate, will make a definite statement. From next week he can expect maize to begin coming in, but many people feel uncertain and they do not know whether they should begin to gather in the harvest, because of the uncertainty that prevails. It may be that if they have a great quantity which they can deliver now, that they are holding it back because they expect that the price will perhaps later, in six or seven weeks’ time, rise by 1s. or more in comparison with what it is today. Therefore I hope that the Minister will put an end to these uncertain conditions. I just want to say that I assume from the conversations we have had with the Minister, that the matter has already been arranged between him and his Department, what the price will be this year. But I cannot omit to tell the Minister that I have received letters and representations from my constituency which is a maize area, in which the people say definitely that under the existing circumstances they think that 17s. 6d. plus the bag will be a reasonable price for this year in view of the increase in price of other articles in the country. I want to prove this. The mealie producers in our country have complained for years and years that the production of maize is uneconomic. Many of the people have battled for years and years to keep their head above water in the hope that something will happen to enable them to rehabilitate themselves. Now is the propitious time, when everything in the country is on a better basis as result of war conditions, to enable the maize producers to become rehabilitated to some extent in these years of high prices. It is essential almost imperative, that this should happen. From time to time there is an agitation, especially in the press in the large cities, against control boards in respect of our primary products. As one who represents a farming constituency, I want to ask the Minister not to lend his ear to the artificial agitation in the large cities. I would be one of the last persons to exonerate the control boards of all blame, but we must remember that it took a tremendous struggle to get the control boards. They are today in the experimental stage, and because they have perhaps made certain blunders, we dare not condemn and abolish them out of hand. If we do this, we will be thrown back to the conditions which existed before, when the industry was the football of a small group of people who continually planning in order to be in a position to gamble with the essential food of the people, and the Government must keep a watchful eye on it. If dissatisfied voices of the farmers are raised about mistakes, which the control boards have made in the past, then we must assume that they have the best intentions to guide the matter in the right direction, but we may no longer allow the chaos which has existed in the past in the maize market, when the farmers were the football of the speculators, of exploiters who got away with the cream. The farming community will not tolerate such a state of affairs in regard to maize. Now I think that the Minister as well as his Department in the past year have had an experience which they would not like to see repeated, an experience that they were faced with a shortage of maize. That in itself is striking evidence of the necessity of precaution and control. I understand for example that the Minister carries over 1,000,000 bags every year until the Department has information about the harvest for the following year. I do not know whether this was done in the previous year, but they were caught this year and it perhaps proves that a 1,000,000 bags are not sufficient, and that another 1,000,000 bags must be carried over so as to ensure that there will not be a shortage of this important foodstuff. The food position of the nation demands that adequate pre cautions be taken. We dare not allow a shortage to exist of this important article, and the precautions that the State takes is an insurance policy to protect the food situation of the nation. In this connection I want to mention a matter which appears important to me. In our country there are co-operative storage places everywhere. Here in the Western Province there are wheat co-operatives with sufficient storage capacity during certain times of the year for their wheat, but after a time the storage places become empty. Is it not possible to work out a system whereby the two organisations, the maize industry and the wheat industry, are more closely co-ordinated so that they supplement each other. Take for example the Western Province. There is a large number of dairy undertakings and factories, and the grain farmers use maize. Is it not possible for them to get maize from the maize producing district which is the most closely situated to the Western Province, and to store the maize for a certain period of the year in their storage places? Then the maize can be distributed from their own storage places. I think it is practicable. The Minister has at his disposal the good brains of his Department. There are officials with good technical and practical experience, and they should be able to evolve a system of distribution in respect of this important product, so that we do not have a repetition of the difficulties we have had. There is yet another point I want to raise. The position this year it that if control had been eliminated, then the maize price would undoubtedly have risen to £1 or £1 10s. a bag. This would have been the case last year already. Kaffir corn for instance, I understand that the price has already reached 37s. 6d., because it was not controlled, and it might rise to £2. It appears to me to be a very unhealthy state of affairs to say in one case: The product must be left free, we can let matters take their course, while in the other cases we keep the price down. It is not the farmers who in most cases get the increased price, but the product is gathered up by speculation sharks. They keep it and then exploit the consumers in the city. With the result that the urban consumers take part in an agitation, and hostility develops between producer and consumer. It is an unhealthy state of affairs. As regards the maize industry, this year the influence of supply and demand has been eliminated. This is a state of affairs that exists during the war years. I want to ask the Minister whether he has yet considered what the state of affairs will be when the war is over and we get a setback. Is research work being done for means and methods that can be employed, so that we will not again fall back into the conditions of uncertainty which we have had in the past, because we dare not allow those conditions of uncertainty to return as in the past. I want to ask the Minister to make a statement about the price that will be fixed for maize for this year.

I would like the hon. Minister to tell me something about the Government experimental farm — I think it is an experimental farm — in the district of Barkly West. The name of the farm is Silver Bullet. The Government bought this farm some years ago for experimental purposes. It was experimenting on that poisonous herb which grows in the Northern districts, which is called „Vermeerbos.” It is not a pretty name but like most Afrikaans names it is highly descriptive. It causes the disease known as „Vermeersiekte,” and some years it is a very serious thing. It is a bush that produces prussic acid poisoning. About 30 years ago this bush was unknown in these parts. Today, in the course of 30 years it has spread from Vryburg right down to Prieska, and it has come out of the North-West and it has spread halfway into the Free State. It is causing very serious concern amongst the farmers because there is no remedy. Once cattle and sheep eat this herb there is no cure. They simply pine away. Some years ago the hon. Minister was good enough to buy that farm, and he was going to experiment on it. I would like to know from the Minister what the Government is doing there and what developments have taken place. I would like to know what buildings have been put up and paddocks and I would also like to know how many technical men are engaged there and what progress has been made, whether they have discovered a remedy or antidote for this disease. I have impressed on the Minister of Agriculture and upon previous Ministers of Agriculture the importance of the North-West Cape. I know years ago people were inclined to pay very little attention to it. This is an important area of the country. All the bush, which grows in that area is sweet bush and is excellent fodder for stock. I have never known the people in that part of the country to trek. On the contrary, I have known farmers from the Free State and the Karoo to go there during the dry seasons. That part is an asset in this country, and I would like the Minister to pay particular attention to it. The ground is not expensive there, and the farmers do not come to the Government so often for assistance, and I think that is all the more reason why the Minister should give this matter his attention. The next point I want to raise is in connection with a botanical survey of the districts of Kimberley, Barkly West, Hay and Herbert and that part of the country. I would like to see a botanical survey of that part. The Government is very busy—in fact it is one of the main planks in its platform impressing upon us that we must look after our pastures. We have heard a great deal lately about soil erosion and many conferences have been held on the preparation of our veld. Only yesterday there was another conference. All these things are being done to improve our pastures. I imagine that if you want to improve your pastures, you must start with a botanical survey, so that you can know what is on the veld and what it not there. The other day I was speaking to a botanist about a certain poisonous herb, and he said: “Don’t imagine that this herb is the only poisonous herb there; there are sixteen others.” I think the first thing which is necessary is for us to make a start with the botanical survey so that we can know what to eradicate and what to preserve. I hope that even during the war, the Minister will give us an idea when he will start a botanical survey. The third point I want to make is this: We know that in this country we have all the plagues of Egypt and perhaps more. Most districts are infested with internal parasites, and I rember some years ago the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Coller), I think, said that if the farmers did not dose regularly their stock, even in the best districts, they would lose all they had in the course of two years. He said that if the farmer did not dose, he could put up his shutters and go and live in the towns. I think this indicates what a serious problem the internal parasite is in this country in practically every district.

Not in every district.

The farmers at present have the greatest difficulty in getting remedies for internal parasites. We have been trying to get petrum and nodular worm remedy. We are unable to get even the simple remedies today. We are told to produce. We must have these remedies in order to save our stock and I would be very much obliged if the Minister would get in touch with Onderstepoort and instruct them that the farmers should get as much of these remedies as they require without delay. The fourth point I want to raise is in regard to the distribution of bone meal-phosphates. The Minister knows that in various parts of this country, in the “lamsiekte” areas, no farmer can farm unless he has phosphates. There will be general bankruptcy in the country amongst the farming community in a few years time if the farmers cannot get phosphates. I should like to know what the position is and whether these people in the “lamsiekte” areas are going to get preference. I listened to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) when he was speaking about fruit farmers and the marketing of their fruit. I know how difficult the position is, but I want to say this, that in those areas in the Northern Cape where all the big rivers converge, large quantities of fruit are grown; today there is a fairly decent market; but even in these times when there is a fair demand for fruit, partly due to war conditions, and when money is plentiful, even in these days the farmers often sell their fruit at a loss and do not as much as get back the price of their boxes. A man came to me the other day and told me that he was getting 18s. 6d. for 50 boxes; that is 4½d. a box. Well, we know what the price of boxes is today. The wood and the nails cost more than 4½d. In other words, the man is getting nothing for his produce, which costs him a lot of hard work, and I want to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to this, so that he can go into the position.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) has said and also with what the hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys) has said about the difficulty of getting cattle disease remedies. It is certainly something which deserves the attention of the Minister. But I have risen as a representative of maize producers to associate myself with the pleas of the hon. member for Hoopstad in the interest of the maize farmers. Now I want to say this to the Minister of Agriculture: This is the eighth year I have got up in this House to plead together with other hon. members in the interests of the maize farmers. The position of the maize farmer is today even worse than it was eight years ago. The maize farmer is the Cinderella of society. I will tell you why. In the past years when there was a drought, or the threat of a drought, the export of maize was discontinued when overseas prices were high, because there was a fear of starvation in one or other native reserve. The export was again permitted when the overseas prices had fallen, and we farmers had to accept shillings a bag less. In other words, because of the Government’s obligation towards the whole population, the maize farmer was prevented from getting a higher price. I appeal to the Minister. This year he can do justice to the maize farmers and I will prove it. In the past it was continually said that a higher price could not be paid to the maize farmers because there was not an internal market big enough to absorb the maize, and that therefore maize had to be sent overseas at a lower price. This year the Minister cannot say that. As regards the basic price and the calculation of it by the Minister and his Department, in which there are learned doctors of economics and others, and with the assistance of boards, I want to say this: When you fix the price, do you also take into consideration the strength that is taken from the soil to produce a bag of maize? Do you take into account the exhaustion of the farmer’s farm when production costs are calculated? I claim that the maize price is not paid on what the soil exhaustion price is calculated to be. The price which the farmer gets does not enable him to restore the fertility of the soil which he takes from it to produce a bag of maize. This is a serious charge, but it is so. If we get a price of 7s. or 8s. then account is taken of the production costs of the farmer, and the invested capital and super-phosphate which he uses to make the soil dissoluble is taken into account, the cost of labour and certain incidental production costs, but no investigation is made as to what it will cost the farmer to put the potash and humus back into the soil which he has taken out by the production of maize. Now I want to ask the Minister to take these things into account when he fixes the price this year. A lot is said about the Maize Control Board. Let me say that I do not want to place any blame on the Maize Control Board. I have worked in close co-operation with control boards in the past years, but I also know that when under the existing war conditions the Maize Board is blamed, it is often the policy of the Government which is the cause of the prevailing conditions. The Government is perhaps forced to follow a certain policy in respect of the supplying of maize. Then the Control Board is blamed while it is a matter that rests with the Central Government. I therefore do not want to take sides with those who attack the Maize Control Board in connection with the faults and failings in the system in the past. I am prepared to say that I am in favour of a system of complete control, and if the Minister wants to make an effort to control the interests of the farmers properly, then he will get us on this side as supporters against the members behind him who advocate: “Collins must go.” That agitation arises out of the fact that they have made millions out of maize and they want to do away with control so that they can again make millions. I have pleaded for the wheat farmers for eight years. Most probably this is now the last year. My constituency has been eliminated, and perhaps this is the last time that I will plead here for the maize farmers, but my plea is just as earnest as it was in the past. Everything is more expensive today and we have had crop failures and the maize farmers have gone through a very difficult time. I ask the Minister to take all these circumstances into account, the increased price of fertiliser and implements and labour, and the exhaustion of the soil. The Minister may say that it is imaginary that the prices are so much higher that the maize farmers cannot exist. I am a director of a large farmers’ co-operative and I can give hon. members the assurance that many farmers are going to bring in their harvest in our area, while they will not be able to meet their obligations from the return in respect of fertiliser or ploughs which they have bought. As regards this year’s harvest, I think that it will be barely sufficient for internal use. But let us for a moment assume that the harvest will be greater than the internal consumption, then the Minister knows that in Rhodesia and in all the territories north of us there is practically starvation, so that in spite of the shortage of shipping space, as a result of which we cannot export, a reasonable price can be obtained for every bag of maize we produce. In view of the fact that there is no difficulty as regards the market, and in view of the fact that the maize farmers in the past have been placed in such an unfavourable position, I want to ask the Minister again to fix the price in such a way that the maize farmers will have a chance to put away a nest egg for the depression which faces us after the war.

When I speak now, I want to leave the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) alone, because it is such a serious matter that I want to touch upon, that we dare not make a political matter of it. It is the future of wool. In South Africa approximately £160,000,000 has been invested in the wool industry. The wool industry provides an existence for some 45,000 wool farmers, of which 25,000 derive their existence exclusively from wool. In Australia they produce 300,000 bales of wool and the return is approximately £50,000,000, while the return in South Africa is approximately £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 a year, and in New Zealand about £10,000,000. If the industry is destroyed in our country, in Australia and in New Zealand, what is going to happen to the thousands and thousands of people who in the past have derived their existence from wool? I want to offer a warning. We must keep the matter out of politics and stand together and save the wool farmers.

Hear, hear.

I am glad that the Minister agrees. I hope that he will give us real assistance. In 1936 South African wool interests and those of Australia and New Zealand met in Melbourne and they reached an agreement whereby their interests could be protected. A great wool exchange was to be established which would include all the wool producing countries, including the Argentine, Uruguay, the United States, and other wool producing countries. We realised the danger of the synthetic material. You remember that before the war already South Africa realised the great danger. We then concluded the German wool agreement to protect the farmers to some extent. Germany’s credit was bad and therefore we made an agreement with Germany, not in order to destroy the old system, but because it was in the interests of the wool farmers as a whole. Germany promised to use part of the wool for the manufacture of clothing and the woollen goods were then sent all over the world. The chief aim, however, was to combat the synthetic material. Australia felt that we had done the right thing, and they also made a treaty with Japan in order to combat rayon. There are people who speak lightly about the matter. Naturally there are people who take a great interest in the matter, like brokers and buyers. They look to their own interests, but I want to ask the Minister not to forget the masses who make their living from wool for the sake of a small section who look to their own interests. Let the Minister appoint a board after te war which will act in co-operation with the other wool producing countries. It must not be limited to South Africa. The synthetic material is beginning to become a very great danger and as a result of the war the danger is becoming even greater. On the Continent of Europe, wool is almost unobtainable. What happens? Since synthetic material is used throughout the entire continent, they have installed machines to manufacture synthetic material. Even in America this is the case. A great authority like Douglas Woolf, 15 years ago predicted that rayon which is only one of the synthetic materials, would drive the natural fibre from the world. He says that eventually it will happen that rayon will take the place of the natural fibre. What can the Government do now? We dare not sit still. We can achieve something only if we co-operate with other countries. The Atlantic Charter says that all raw materials must be rationed after the war. Let us see to it that in regard to wool we will also get our ration. We must introduce a system whereby the speculation which existed before will be eliminated. Then a basis must be found on which our farmers can sell on the value of the wool according to types. You cannot do this unless you eliminate the speculators and buyers who before the war exploited the position. We dare not allow the wool industry to be destroyed for the sake of a few, even if there is an agitation from a small section, because there are thousands of people concerned. Neither do we want to drag politics into the matter. I just want to point out the danger that threatens us. Fifteen years ago rayon was used in America on a small scale. Later it killed silk altogether. And remember that rayon is only one of the synthetic materials. In 1930 127,000,000 lbs. were manufactured in America, in 1936 298,000,000 lbs., in 1939 it was 379,000,000 lbs., in 1940 it rose to 471,000,000 lbs. to 473,000,000 lbs. in 1941 and to 652,000,000 lbs. in 1942. That is what has been manufactured in the United States of America alone, and it amounts to this, that it is almost three times as much as the wool which we produce in South Africa. Rayon is now being used as a mixture with wool. As long as this happens we still have a chance. During wartime there is a rise in prices, and it gives us a chance. There has been a rise in wool prices throughout the world, just as in the last world war, but we also realise that after the war there will be a gradual fall. After the previous war there was a big rise for a short time, but later the price fell to a level which was uneconomic. This threatens us again. I want in this speech to judge the matter quite impartially, and not drag in politics. Is it not worth while to work in the direction I have indicated? I have asked the Prime Minister what his attitude is in this connection. I am convinced that we should work in this direction. I ask the Minister to give particular attention to the wool industry and to bring it to the fore. In Australia we see how Mr. Scully has brought the wool industry to the fore. He realises that if wool were to be eliminated, Australia would be bankrupt.

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

I only want to point out the dangers we have to face after the war. “Rayon” is not the only threat to us, but there is other synthetic material, such as “nylon” and “casein” and other products, such as “protein-fibres,” “cornmeal,” etc. I have a pamphlet here which I would like to show to the House and there it says that they have already started manufacturing “casein” out of cream in South-West Africa, and I understand that arrangements have been made between our Government and the Ministry of Supply for permits. I want to know whether the hon. Minister can tell us how far they have made progress with the casein product in South Africa. I want to say that any manufacture of “casein” in this country will be to the detriment of the wool farmer, and though we do not want to prevent new industries, we want in the first place to see to it that the wool farmer can exist. I want once more to ask the Minister to be very careful and to afford the wool farmers all possible assistance so that they can market their wool in the cheapest way possible.

I wish to raise the question of East Coast Fever in Natal. The whole position is not only unsatisfactory but most dangerous, and I do not think that in the forty years that we have had East Coast Fever the position has ever been as grave as it is at present. I do not intend dealing with the position in Northern Natal—there are other hon. members who will do so. But I wish to deal with the position in my own constituency where we have had a very serious outbreak quite recently. The place where this outbreak has occurred has for years past been looked upon as a dangerous spot. It is at Middle Rest. During the past seven years we have had three independent outbreaks in this area and we have had investigations by the Veterinary Department and they were fully acquainted with the circumstances there. Now the position with regard to this new outbreak is this. During the last 14 months there has not been a single inspector in that area. The farmers there have been left entirely to themselves and I blame the Veterinary Department for this fresh outbreak for the failure of any supervision. Because at regular intervals we have had outbreaks there before. We had a meeting with the Veterinary officers at Mooi River in regard to this outbreak and they assured us that the blame did not rest on them at all. The fault, as they explained to us, lay with the methods of the Department in Pretoria. As you know, Mr. Chairman, they have no right to appoint or dismiss any inspectors. This is done in Pretoria. During the war we have with the greatest difficulty been able to cope with the position by means of a skeleton staff of inspectors in Natal. For fourteen months in this area there has not been a single inspector in that particular part of the country. We do not know how long that outbreak had been undetected. We do not know what the smear position was in that area, but we believe that the disease has been undetected there for a long period. In fact, we know that cattle from that area before the outbreak was discovered have been moved to various parts of the Province. The Mooi River Farmers Association were in danger of having their stock yards closed and that area being put into quarantine which would have meant that there could have been no cattle sales there. From the fact that two head of cattle had to be allowed to leave there, and were traced to Mooi River Station, where our sales yards are, we were in serious danger of being closed for many months. Now we feel that due to the centralisation of control in Pretoria, and all the red tape that entails, our chief veterinary surgeon and his staff are at a distinct disadvantage in not being able to appoint men available for that work. They first have to recommend a man to Pretoria, and it takes a month to six weeks before they can get confirmation, and the result is that when they get the necessary authority these men either got other jobs or have changed their minds about a job which is not very attractive. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is not advisable and possible to give the Veterinary Department in Natal a little more discretionary power in the way of appointing inspectors. There are men there who although the jobs were not very attractive, offered their services, but by the time their appointment was approved of, they had gone or taken on other jobs and we in Natal are living in dread of fresh outbreaks of East Coast Fever at many points. We are in daily danger of new outbreaks and I think the Minister knows what that means. It means that where an outbreak takes place the men in that area are practically ruined because there can be no movement of stock for eighteen months or two years, and the farmers are left with the cattle on the farms without being able to receive an income from those cattle. I hope the Minister will do something to improve matters in Natal, because as he knows, farmers are threatening now to take the law into their own hands because, as they say, the position is impossible at present. I shall say no more about that. I now want to ask the Minister if he will make a declaration about the meat position in this country. We have heard speeches from this side of the House in which members, representing towns, have warned the Minister about the shortage of meat, and in some cases they have advised the rationing of meat. One hon. member even went so far as to suggest meatless days. It is felt by cattle farmers that there is quite sufficient meat in the country for all our requirements and they feel that none of these measures, such as rationing or meatless days, are needed. I hope the Minister will make a statement on the whole position and that he will also tell us whether he will take any action in the matter. I hope he will not take any of the steps that have been suggested unless he has been able to get information that there is likely to be a shortage. We from our side are quite sure that that is not the position, that there is sufficient meat in the country, and it is really a very excellent thing for the cattle farmers that there is this great demand for our stock. It will relieve the position of overstocking on the farms, and what nature has done in the past in getting rid of surplus stock we shall now be able to do for ourselves by marketing practically everything that we want to market. I hope the Minister will not do anything to interfere with our marketing of livestock.

The hon. the Minister will remember that the question of the Decidious Fruit Board was brought to his notice during the second reading. I will be very glad if the Minister will give us the assurance that he will go into that question, and I will be glad if he can tell me what he intends to do. I want to tell the Minister that since this matter came before the House, I have come into contact with farmers, not only in the Western Province, but even in the Transvaal. Now that the matter has been made public, there is the greatest unrest and dissatisfaction because of the manner in which the fruit farmers who are not exporters, are treated. I want to urge the Minister to tell us what he intends to do, and that he can no longer continue with that policy. We have suffered loss for four years, and the farmers today fear that they will be in the same position in the coming season as they were before. Today they must compete with a section who are subsidised by the Government. I also want to ask the Minister if it is not possible—I see that he is now going to appoint a commission of inquiry in connection with the marketing of citrus fruit—and I want to ask him whether it is not possible also to appoint a commission of inquiry in connection with decidious fruit to find out what can be done to assist the decidious fruit farmers. I do not want to say anything further about this at this stage. I merely want to know from the Minister whether he will go into this question.

The last time this question was discussed I practically submitted a scheme to the House. Then the Minister replied that maize had been fixed for the coming season at 12s. 6d. a bag. Then already I warned the Minister that it was too early, that he could not do that. After that time a drought set in, and great damage was done to maize, and the farmers held general meetings. At most of the meetings it was decided that they wanted 17s. 6d. for the coming season. Some went so far as to say that they wanted £1. We in the House then thought that people who represent maize farmers should serve on the committee, people who represent all the parties; i.e. a person representing every side. On the other side there was the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha), from the New Order, there was the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne), of the Afrikaner Party, there was the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard), and I represented the Herenigde Nasionale Party. We then came to a decision—I want to put it very clearly—we then came to a decision that we did not want to drag politics into the maize industry but we felt that we should properly protect the interest of the maize farmers. We then discussed the position thoroughly. I know that it is quite possibly too early to fix this price, but we realised the difficulties from the consumers’ point of view, and we came to the decision that it would be desirable for the Minister to concede at least 3s. 6d.; i.e. that he should fix the price for the coming season at 16s., with the bag, and 15s. a bag in the grain elevator. We as representatives of the maize farmers, felt our responsibility. We knew that when we returned to the platteland, we would have to give account to the farmers. We would have to say why we did not carry out their decision. Therefore we agreed to ask the Minister and the Department of Agriculture to fix the price for the following season on the basis I have already mentioned. I realise that it is a little early. We gamble to a certain extent with our maize farmers. I can imagine that if we get a few good rains, we will get about 22,000,000 bags, but you must remember that a lot of damage can yet be done. There can quite possibly be an early frost. If frost falls early, then I feel that there must be an increase in that respect. The Minister must understand well that we are meeting him and we want him to meet us as well, The Minister has insisted on 12s. 6d. but I hope that after he has listened to the speeches on both sides, he will soften his heart and fix the prices as we asked. Then there is something else about which I am very anxious, and is the fact that the consumers have difficulty in getting maize. I therefore want to suggest that the Minister should increase the moisture content to 20 per cent—he has already conceded from 12½ per cent. to 15 per cent. Let him fix the basis on that level until the consumers have sufficient maize and then he can, if necessary, again reduce it to 12½ per cent. I do not want to repeat what I have said earlier about the damage which farmers have to suffer.

Will there be maize with 20 per cent. moisture content?

I telephoned my son on Tuesday and the moisture content of his maize is 16 or 17 per cent. and he can deliver now. It means that it must remain there on the farm. He cannot sell it, and the consumers have difficulty in getting maize. I want to ask the hon. Minister why he does not increase the moisture content. I can give the Minister the assurance that I as a maize farmer have threshed maize with a moisture content up to 22 per cent. I do not believe that you can put it in a store room because if you store it for two months it becomes musty; but here the maize goes from hand to mouth. Immediately it is harvested we must sell it. I am not a poultry farmer, but my experience is that if you give wet mealies to fowls, they lay more quickly and better. Now the Minister may ask how can you grind it? I know what I am talking about. The greatest millers have drying machines and they dry maize and then they can grind it. Then some of them have dry maize, they mix it, and then they grind it. We on this side are always accused of dragging in politics. This is not the case. I want to discuss the matters here outside of politics. The hon. the Minister was right when he said that I was a bad politician, but he cannot say that I am a bad farmer. I want to appeal to the Minister to increase the moisture content to 20 per cent. The farmer will then get more than the fixed price because it is really water, and then he will take the trouble to put his harvest on the market early, and in this way we will meet the consumers. Then there is another point about which I am anxious, and that is the fertiliser question. It has already been mentioned here, if we can only get 50 per cent. of our fertiliser requirements, then it is going to bring down the production by at least 25 per cent. Now I want to ask you whether the country can afford to produce at least 25 per cent. less maize. The best harvest that we have ever had was something over 29,000,000 bags. Take away a quarter of it, then you get about 22,000,000 bags. At that production we have not even sufficient for our own use. Here I am speaking about the best season we have ever had. I want to suggest that the Minister should do his very best to see that fertiliser is made available, to the farmers.

There is one question I wish to bring before the House this afternoon. I see an item here giving a small increase of £8,600 for the protection of water sheds. It is No. 6. I do not think the amount set down is enough in view of the position prevailing today. A great deal of attention is being paid to this question in the Eastern Province at the present time. The matter has been take up by various associations and also by well-known public bodies in the Cape Eastern Districts. This matter has been ventilated here before, but I do not think we have got very much further. It is very important to those who live in the Eastern parts of the Cape because it affects our water supply. I understand that the flow of the river today is not what it was some years ago. Many years ago these areas were covered with grass and vegetation and there was a plentiful rainfall. But now the rainfall has decreased, the grass has gone, and in addition there has been a certain amount of soil erosion. This soil erosion is going on because of the lack of grass, because of overstocking in these areas, and also I believe that in some areas it is due to native locations. And there is no doubt that large quantities of soil are being washed away into the sea, soil which could be conserved. Now, surely there are ways and means of conserving these areas, and restoring them to their former glory. We should go on with the planting of trees and take other steps. The position is very serious. I look upon it in this light. In our part of the country, especially from the Keiskama to the Kei we have to look forward, especially in the larger villages and towns, to a supply of water from these areas, and if we do not pay attention to this denudation of the soil, and to what has been going on in our water sheds, then I am afraid that the outlook so far as our water supply is concerned is going to be very serious in the future. I hope the Minister will take notice of this and tell the House today what his Department intends doing in this matter. Some years ago I made a strong appeal for the establishment of an experimental farm in the coastal area. I don’t want to deal with that today because the Department, in its wisdom, has established the experimental farm Dohne, not far from the coast, and the experts employed are available to us on the coast, but I want to appeal on behalf of a certain area right through from the Kowie River to the Kei, which could be developed as one of the best fruit areas in the Cape. I believe it could really become a second California, perhaps a little better than California. The difficulty has been, from what I heard, that the farmers’ experiments with fruit have not been entirely satisfactory. I spoke on this subject four or five years ago, when I made this statement—

I would like to make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of these farmers to come to their rescue and see what can be done in that area in order to develop fruit culture there. We have been told over and over again that after the war industrial development must take place. Alongside that, why should we not develop in other ways; and one of these is the development of this area I have been speaking of. I want the Minister with the experts at his disposal, to help the farmers to determine which fruits to grow, and where they are most suitable. For instance, on one side of the river you can grow pineapples to your heart’s content, and on the other side you cannot grow them at all. There is the same difficulty with avocada pears, bananas and other fruit. This is where I want help for the farmers who would, I am sure, place plots at the disposal of experts for experiment.

I am very sorry that representatives of the mealie farmers every year for the past eight or ten years have had to come and plead on the floor of this House for a decent price for their products. The mealie farmer surely is one of the people who has to produce, he is among those who have to work hardest to produce his commodity, and his is undoubtedly one of the products exposed to more dangers than any other product. The Minister has been accustomed for the last five or six years before the war to a condition of affairs under which the mealie farmer had to take 4s. 6d. to 6s. per bag for his mealies. We understood that position in those days. There used to be over production and the surplus had to be exported. The position today however, is different. Last year the Minister fixed the price of mealies at 15s. per bag. Everybody knows that the crop was a very small one. The Minister must admit that if he had not fixed the price the farmers would have got 30s. and 40s. per bag for their mealies. The Minister, however, fixed the price at 15s. and the farmers had to be satisfied with that. Even today, before we were able to start ploughing for this season, the Minister fixed the price at 12s. 6d. He said that he would guarantee that the farmers would not get less than 12s. 6d., but the impression which he created was that he fixed the price at 12s. 6d. I am unable to associate myself with the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) who has agreed with a number of his friends that the price should be 15s. in the elevator and 16s. in the bag. The Minister of Agriculture knows perfectly well, and so does the hon. member for Ventersdorp, that mealies have to be sold through one channel, and if the Minister accepts that suggestion then that will be the price which the farmer will get. Our great difficulty with the Minister was that whenever he fixed prices, he fixed the maximum price and not the minimum price. If he were also to lay down a minimum price, there would be a fluctuation and we should be able perhaps to get better prices. Under present conditions, however, if the Minister were to adopt that suggestion that will be the price which the farmer will get, because there is no question of that being the minimum price. The Minister should know that costs of production during the course of the war have gone up very considerably. A plough which used to cost £20 is now costing £40 and £45. Plough shears which used to cost 7s. 6d. now cost 15s. Bags which used to cost 8d. now cost more than 1s. We can see the results of this increase of costs right throughout the country. The Minister does not know how large the crop is going to be. I do not know what he estimates it to be, but I can assure him that there has been an early frost in many parts of the country. In Rouxville, Smithfield and a large portion of Ficksburg and Fouriesburg the mealies were killed by frost several weeks ago. There are parts where the farmers, on account of the drought, cut down their mealies three weeks ago. I expect that the crop is going to be very much smaller than the Minister anticipates. Right throughout the country we find farmers’ organisations and mealie co-operative societies agitating for a higher price. The minimum which I have been asked to insist on is 17s. 6d. per bag, plus the bag. I can tell the Minister of Agriculture that unless he is prepared to fix that price he is not going to get any mealies. I say that the farmers are justified, and especially are mealie farmers justified, in demanding a payable price, and if the Minister is not prepared to do as he is asked he should release the mealies so that they can be sold on the open market, and then the farmers will get 30s. Starvation conditions are prevailing in certain parts of the country and the people are waiting for mealies. The hon. member for Ventersdorp has told us that the farmers are afraid to get their crop in. They are perhaps putting their mealies on the market even now, and the pressure afterwards will become so strong on the Minister that he will be forced to raise the price, and if that is done it will be an injustice to those who have already brought in their crops. The sooner the Minister takes the bull by the horns, the sooner he decides to grant the farmers a price which will pay them, the sooner can he expect this trouble to be solved. There is another point which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is the position in the meat industry. As things are on the market today the position is that the buyer estimates the weight of the ox or of the sheep and he buys according to his estimate, and he pays the price calculated per 100 lbs. Many of those estimating the weight make their estimates too low, which leads to an unsatisfactory condition of affairs. We want to suggest to the Minister that he should give instructions to the Marketing Board that our meat must be sold by dead weight. That will mean that the Municipality will be compelled to provide scales so that the meat can be weighed. We want a minimum price for the various grades—for the super grade, for the medium and for the compounds. Then the farmer will know what the position is. If he has incurred expense in fattening his stock, he will know what he can expect for his ox or for his ewe. There can be no deception. The meat is graded and it is paid for according to the class in which it is graded. That is what the farmer wants. He wants to know what the various grades of meat are worth on the market, and he wants to know that he is going to be paid out for the correct weight, according to the quality and the weight of the animal. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should give this his consideration. That is the grievance which the farmer has today and the only alternative is to do what I have suggested if we want to solve this difficulty.

I want to deal with a few of the points which have been raised so far, and I want to inform the Committee what the Government’s decision is in regard to mealies and wheat. If I fail to reply to all the points which have been raised now, then I shall do so later on during the further course of this debate. In regard to mealies I agree with the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) that it is perhaps the most important product in this country, and that the industry is a very important one. It would be futile for me not to agree with them there. Last year when we did not have enough mealies proved to South Africa what the value of mealies is to this country. I wish to express my appreciation to those members of Parliament who have come together and who have dealt with this question entirely apart from politics. They have helped me tremendously and they have made it possible for me to determine what we consider should be the price. They have acted differently from what the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) has done. I am glad to say that the two members of his party who came to discuss the matter with me adopted, to my mind, a more responsible attitude than he did. I don’t want to go into the whole history of this mealie question. The Government last year stated that it guaranteed a price of 12s. 6d. per bag, no matter how large the crop might be, and I have never yet said anything else. I have never yet said that that was going to be the price this year. Anyone can see what has happened as a result of the drought in this country, and it would have been irresponsible on my part to have fixed the price at that stage. According to the information I have received, it appears that this year’s mealie crop will be between 20,000,000 and 23,000,000 bags.

How much more is that than last year?

Last year’s crop was 16,000,000 bags. There can be no question therefore of the price not having to go up. I have informed the Mealie Board which is sitting at the moment, that the Government has decided that the price of mealies now standing on the lands, that is the next crop, will be 16s. per bag in bags, for the best grades, delivered at the sender’s station.

Is that for grades 2, 4 and 6?

Yes, for the best grades. The mealie farmers know what I mean. That is grades 2, 4 and 6, the same grades as last year. I hope that that is clear. 16s. per bag delivered in the bag at sender’s station. Do not let us misunderstand the position now and again cause confusion afterwards.

That is 16s. at sender’s station and the farmer who supplies the mealies does not pay the railage.

Yes.

And what about the elevators?

That will be determined by the Mealie Board with my approval. The position therefore is that the farmer gets 16s. in the bag. I am sure that the farmers accept that price. I am glad that the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) has spoken in that same spirit. I am convinced that his experience will assist me if an agitation in favour of the price being higher should arise. As hon. members know, the mealie season starts on the 1st May. For the season starting the 1st May the price is what I have announced. At the moment there is a condition of emergency in this country. Mealies are particularly scarce and I am therefore offering the farmers the same price for the mealies which they deliver as from tomorrow. The price as from tomorrow will be 16s. per bag. My own idea was that we should not fix the moisture content in view of present conditions—we know it has been fixed at 15 per cent.—and that we should allow the farmers to deliver their mealies, whatever the moisture content was. That was my personal idea which was supported by the members whom I consulted on the subject. I quite understand the advice given to me by those hon. members. On the other hand, most of the mealies which are now being delivered will not have a higher moisture content than 15 per cent. because those mealies were dry after they had ripened. The Mealie Board does not appear to quite agree that the moisture content should be fixed above 15 per cent., but I hope to get things right so that the farmers will see things through with their mealies, if only they are not so wet that the water runs out of the bag. With these mealies it is a question of hand to mouth, and I hope to be able to induce the Mealie Board not to take the moisture content into account as the mealies are to be consumed at once, and so that the farmers will be paid according to the weight they deliver. But what I undertake is that the moisture content can go up to 15 per cent. And then I also want to make this offer to the farmers who now want to get in their crops. If they apply to the Mealie Board and undertake to collect their crops before the 15th April, to deliver their mealies before that time, then they will be supplied immediately with bags. We have not got all the bags and there is still a question of price. But the people who get in their crops at once can get bags immediately.

At what price?

I don’t know exactly at what price. It will not be an unduly high price. The consumer will pay the present price until the 30th April. I cannot introduce an alteration immediately so far as the consumer is concerned and somebody will have to stand the loss. Probably it will be the Government. I have tried to meet the farmers and I want to appeal to them to assist their fellow farmers during the periods of shortage, during the next six weeks. I am convinced that members opposite will assist me to get in the mealies in April because mealies are very scarce indeed. If we know that farmers will supply mealies before the middle of April, or a few days afterwards we can proceed to hand out some of the mealies which we still have in hand, to the people who badly need them. That is why I am so keen about this matter, and I am appealing to farmers to assist me in the matter. I only want to add this, the position being as it is, it is clear to me that we shall have to take control of the new crop from the very start. We have last year’s experience behind us and we know more or less where the difficulty lay, we know more or less where we failed and where we succeeded, and I can only say this, that I hope we shall be able to ensure the establishment of an organisation which will give a fair amount of satisfaction to the country, not only to the consumers but also to the producers. And now I want to deal with the wheat prices. The Government agrees with the wheat farmers that like last year it is fair and desirable to tell them what the price is going to be. The determination of the price naturally is provisional, because as hon. members know the actual fixing of the price as a rule takes place when the crop starts coming in. It is then that the price of wheat, meal, bread, etc., is fixed. Hon. members will know that I have told the deputation which met me that I would ask the Wheat Board to decide, I would ask the Marketing Board to consider the matter, and that I would immediately give a decision. I have carried out my promise in that respect.

But we have not yet heard what the price is going to be.

The Wheat Board has discussed the matter and has recommended that the price should be fixed at 40s. per bag for wheat of class B, grade 1. They say that on account of a shortage of fertilisers it is pretty certain that this year, whatever the position may have been in the past, we must take it that the yield will be six bags per morgen, and that on that basis we must calculate the position. The Wheat Board thereupon calculated on the basis of six bags per morgen, that the costs of production of wheat would be 33s. 11d. per bag. That includes everything.

Does that also include the remuneration for the enterprise?

Yes, that includes everything, the remuneration for the wheat farmer, increased cost of living, 5 per cent. interest on capital, a reasonable profit etc. But the Wheat Board said that over and above the 33s. 11d—6s. 1d. should be paid as an encouragement to the wheat farmer. I notice that the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) is laughing. I suppose he wishes that he were a wheat farmer. The Marketing Board thereupon went into the matter. They say they can find no fault with the calculation of 6 bags per morgen for this year. On account of the shortage of fertiliser the yield will, of course, be less than in the past. Generally speaking, they agree that the calculations of the Wheat Board are fairly accurate. They only differ to the extent of 2d. with the Wheat Board’s calculations. They put the costs at 33s. 9d.

What will that mean on the price of bread?

Just wait a bit. The Marketing Board said that if provision was made for increased cost of living, for interest on capital and all these matters, then there was no necessity to give the farmer more than 1s. 3d. by way of encouragement. The Marketing Board therefore recommended a price of 35s. per bag for wheat of Class B, Grade 1. The Government, however, felt that it would rather err on the right side and it has therefore decided to fix the price of wheat at 30s. per bag for Class B. Grade 1. That is 1s. more than recommended by the Marketing Board, and it has therefore been decided that the price for B1 wheat will be 30s. per bag in the bag. I want to emphasise that that is a final decision.

How did you get at 40s.?

That is what the Wheat Board recommended. I agree with the Marketing Board that the Wheat Board put it too high, to give the farmer 6s. 1d. per bag by way of encouragement. The deputation which met me also asked me to fix the price for the other three products, namely Rye, Barley and Oats. The Marketing Board has given me their opinion. The price last year was 23s. 6d. for Rye, 15s. 6d. for Feeding Oats, with a 6d. per bag for Factory Oats. The price of Rye was 15s. 6d. for Feeding Rye, and 18s. 6d. for Brewer’s Barley. The Marketing Board has now recommended 21s. as the price for Rye, 14s. 6d. for Oats, and 14s. 6d. for Barley.

Why do they arrive at a lower basis?

Here again the Government has fixed the prices higher, although we admit that last year we fixed the prices at a rather high level. There was a bad crop and although we laid down rather high prices, and although I was rather nervous about the whole position, I have decided to leave the price this year at the same level as it was last year. The price of Rye therefore remains at 23s. 6d. per bag, the price of Feed Oats 15s. 6d. and the price of Factory Oats 16s. The price of Feed Barley remains 15s. 6d. and the price of Brewer’s Barley has been increased from 18s. 6d. per bag to 20s. per bag. That is for six Row Barley, and the other will be fixed accordingly. I just want to say that we have gone very carefully into the whole matter. I feel that the farmers have been given a satisfactory price, and I want to emphasise that these prices must be regarded as final. The wheat farmers will only be making useless attempts if they make any representations to me or to the Prime Minister with a view to getting higher prices.

What have you decided about tobacco?

I have not yet come to any decision about tobacco because I have received no reports yet. As soon as I receive the reports I shall deal with that. I have been very busy lately and the hon. member will pardon me if I do not make any statement about tobacco at this juncture.

†Now, sir, I promised on a former occasion to tell the House what the rinderpest position is. Hon. members will remember I told them that rinderpest, which had broken out in Tanganyika was giving trouble, and we feared it would come down to the Union. There seemed to be reasons why veterinary surgeons and other people thought it was actually coming down towards the Union. Now, as I have told the Committee before, we agreed with Northern and Southern Rhodesia, Tanganyika and Nyasaland to take certain steps, and I can only say that at present the rinderpest position, from the Union point of view, is fairly satisfactory. Tanganyika still has rinderpest, but there is none in Nyasaland or in either of the Rhodesias, and we are satisfied that the steps that have been taken so far have served to protect the Southern territories from this dreaded disease. The first step which was taken a few years ago was to immunise all cattle in the Southern Tanganyika belt, along the border between Tanganyika and Northern Rhodesia. The Union took part in this work, and our officers helped.

It was brought down by buffaloes.

Buffaloes were found dead in large numbers, but it would seem that rinderpest was not the cause. As I told the House on a former occasion, it was an almost inaccessible and very unhealthy spot where these buffaloes were found, and there is no evidence that it was rinderpest. There is now a solid block of immunised cattle between Tanganyika and Northern Rhodesia, and these cattle with their progeny must be immunised from time to time. At Shiwa, we have an experimental station where again the Union is taking part, and where they are endeavouring to fabricate a serum that will immunise for good. They are making fair progress there, but I cannot say they are satisfied that it will be effective. At present we know that we must revaccinate.

Are the fences we have put up any good?

Yes, I am coming to the fence. The great danger from rinderpest was, of course, immediate, and it was decided to put up a temporary fence on the southern borders of Nyasaland. This fence, together with the shooting of game towards the fence from both sides seems to have been fairly effective. The fence is being repaired from time to time; the idea is to put up a more permanent fence which has not started yet because of certain difficulties. Our officers had conferences from time to time with those of the northern state, and they say that although the position in Tanganyika calls for unceasing vigilance, I believe they have reason to be fairly satisfied with the position as it is.

†*The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) put a question to me about the Deciduous Fruit Board. From what I understood him to say, I believe he wants me to abolish the Deciduous Fruit Board, or give the Transvaal fruit farmers more representation on it. I am not quite sure that the hon. member quite understands the position. The idea from the very start—it was long before the war—was that the Deciduous Fruit Board was to be established in order to deal with export fruit. During the war fruit could not be exported, and the Deciduous Fruit Board was thereupon given further power so as to try to sell the fruit in the country, or otherwise deal with it in a different way. The Deciduous Fruit Board can turn the fruit into dried fruit, can make wine, or process the fruit in some other way. The object of the Dried Fruit Board was, as the fruit could not be exported, to try and convert that fruit in our industries by turning it into jam, dried fruit, etc.

And they are offloading part of it on to us.

The hon. member knows that there is an agreement with the K.W.V. under which the K.W.V. are to take some of the grapes. The only fruit where the Board markets the lot, where it takes over the lot from the farmer, are plums and pears. The members have to market their own peaches and also the excess of their export quotas. The Deciduous Fruit Board only takes the pears and the plums. The hon. member is correct when he says that there is competition between the Cape and the Transvaal. This competition is not on the part of the Deciduous Fruit Board, it is on the part of the fruit farmers in the “Boland”. That competition has existed for the last 25 years and it is not a competition which has come from the side of the Deciduous Fruit Board.

But is not a subsidy paid on that fruit which is controlled by the Deciduous Fruit Board?

A fixed price is paid to the producer. The hon. member said that fruit was sold on the Johannesburg market at 1s. per box. We have the same position in regard to fruit as we have in regard to potatoes which are sold at 2s. 6d. That sort of thing happens occasionally. The hon. member should not lose sight of the fact that the Transvaal comes into the market early with its peaches, and that those growers get very good, prices for their fruit. It is wrong to create the impression in this House that that is always the price obtained in the Transvaal. What is more, I do not think the hon. member will object to our helping those people who have founded the whole of their industry on the export market. They are unable to export now. The Government is not keen on paying subsidies, but if the Government does not do so those people will have no means of a livelihood. It goes very much against the grain of the Government, it is very much against my wishes, nor am I quite sure that the best use is being made of the subsidy. I therefore want to tell the hon. member that I have considered the question of appointing a Commission to go into the whole question again. We have already had a Commission. That Commission did not supply me with any information which I could use. The Deciduous Fruit Board was appointed before the war and consists mainly of people from the Cape—people who have been accustomed to export. There are ten members, one of whom represents the consumers, one member comes from my Department, and one represents the Transvaal and the Free State. If we look at the matter in relation to the fruit supplied the hon. member will find that the Transvaal and the Free State are entitled to less than one member. I do not think there is any reason at the moment to make any change. But as I have said, I am considering the whole position, and I hope to be able to get people to investigate the whole situation. It is difficult to find people at this stage to enquire into a matter of that kind. I shall do my best, and I think we should leave the matter at that for the time being.

†Mr. Chairman, I said when I started, I did not intend to deal with all the matters that have been raised, but I thought I would tell the House at once about these very important matters. I shall reply as the debate goes on to the different points raised from time to time.

I am sorry the Minister went out of his way to deliver a sort of ultimatum to the wheat farmers. As a representative of wheat farmers I want to assure him that the wheat farmers will not be satisfied with the Minister’s attitude. I want to assure the Minister that the wheat farmers will be deeply disappointed, and I do not think it redounds to the Minister’s credit that he has adopted that attitude towards the wheat farmers. Now what is the argument? He says that after the matter was considered by the Wheat Board and by the Marketing Board he has come to the conclusion that 36s. is to be the price for the best grade of wheat.

It is for class B, grade 1. For Class A it will be a 6d. more.

Assuming the price for the best wheat is 36s. 6d. There are, however, six grades of wheat. I doubt whether the average which the farmer will get will be 30s. per bag.

Where do you get that from?

I shall be glad if the hon. member can show me that it will be more.

It will work out at about £1 9s.

There we have another authority, and I think he knows as much about it, or more, than the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler). But let us assume it will be £1 10s. per bag. The Wheat Control Board itself came to the conclusion that the costs of production were 33s. 11d. per bag. Consequently, the average price which the wheat farmer gets is 3s. 11d. less than the costs of production laid down by the Control Board. The Marketing Board did estimate the production costs as being lower but I do not think the farmers will agree with the costs of production as calculated by either of those two Boards. On the contrary, I feel that the representatives of farmers will agree with me that the cost of production today is higher than those calculated by those Boards. My information is that a memorandum was laid before the Minister in which, after his careful investigation of the position, throughout the Union, the conclusion was arrived at that the costs of production amounted to £1 16s. 6d. per bag.

I have never seen such a memorandum.

I am prepared to accept the Minister’s statement that he has not yet received it. That is my information, and the Minister should have had it. But I can say that so far as my own constituency is concerned a very thorough investigation has been made by the management of the Co-operative Society and they have come to the conclusion that the costs of production in my constituency are £1 19s. 6d.

How is that?

I don’t know; probably because as a result of the war costs have been driven up.

I shall tell you. It is because the farmers deliberately exhaust their land by also trying to grow tobacco.

There the Minister gives the whole game away. In spite of this so-called exhausted soil our production per morgen is still a good deal larger than in the Cape. How can these poor Cape farmers come out on that price? Whatever may be the reason of the production costs having reached such a high figure, the fact remains, and the Minister cannot deny it, … . and I ask how the farmers in Brits can possibly produce wheat at 36s. 6d.?

I deny the correctness of your data.

Unfortunately I cannot give the Minister the assurance that my figures are correct. These figures have been given to me and they were calculated by the Committee of the wheat-growers at Brits in collaboration with the manager of the Co-operative Society. They know local conditions better than anybody else and I think they know what they are talking about. According to their calculations the costs of production are just under £2. But what does the Minister say in his own report? What does the report of the Commission appointed by the Minister himself say—I am referring to the Commission which was appointed a couple of years ago? I gave the figures on a previous occasion and I do not want to repeat them, but according to the figures given by the Commission it would appear that the wheat farmers in Brits during the past few years have been producing a large proportion of their wheat at a loss averaging 5s. per bag. Or does the Minister also want to reject that Commission’s report? I can assure the Minister that the farmers will be very disappointed. Everyone is terribly disappointed. Why did not the Minister accept the reasonable price of £2 per bag? The Minister may perhaps say that the consumer will then have to pay too much, but that is not so. I repeat what I have often said, that during the last war the price of bread for quite a few years was lower than it is today while the price of wheat was well beyond £2 per bag.

I pointed out last time when the hon. member was not here that he took the price of a 1 lb. loaf of bread and not of a 2 lb. loaf.

That is a brand new explanation. I got the figures from the Minister of Commerce and Industries for a 2 lb. loaf. He will be able to find it in Hansard. If the Minister of Commerce and Industries gave me the wrong information, that’s not my fault. The previous Minister of Commerce and Industries gave me the figures showing that the price of a 2 lb. loaf during the last war was l/8th of a penny cheaper than today, but the price of wheat in those days was nearly £2 per bag.

The hon. member can look up Hansard and see my reply to his contention and he can see my refutation of his figures. His figures are wrong.

The Minister cannot blame me if his colleague gives me the wrong information. My memory is not leaving me in the lurch. He spoke of a 2 lb. loaf. I shall go into it. In spite, however, of what the Minister has said, I still hope that he will reconsider the price. There is no reason to accept it as a law of the Medes and Persians and to say that the price of wheat must now be fixed as suggested by the Minister. The Board of Control of the wheat industry does not agree with the Minister. They recommended a higher price. If the consumer were exploited there would be something to be said for the Minister’s argument, but it will not necessarily make the bread much more expensive to the consumer if the price of wheat is raised to £2. If the price of bread goes too high it can only be because certain millers want to make more profit. Let the Minister then restrict the profits of the large millers.

You are now imitating Arthur Barlow.

Before the hon. member joined the Government side and became a miller and a capitalist he agreed with us. I want to ask the Minister very earnestly to reconsider his announcement. The wheat farmers cannot be satisfied with it. We do not want to make any threats but if the Minister considers everything, the rising cost of production and so on, he will see that a price of £1 16s. per bag does not constitute an encouragement to the wheat farmers to produce, especially in the Western Province. If the Minister reckons that he is going to encourage a large production in the Western Province and elsewhere too by means of that price he is making a serious mistake.

We appreciate the increased price that the hon. Minister has announced for wheat and maize, and we do feel that that will insure an adequate production of these essential foodstuffs in this country. We are happy that he arrived at this after consultation with non-political opinion from both sides of the House. I would like to assure the hon. Minister that if he took notice of all that is said on the Opposition benches, for instance, the statements made by the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler), and if he gave them all they wanted, it would be a homopathic cure which would kill them politically for good. If hon. members on the opposite side were only more reasonable in their demands we would have greater satisfaction and much increased happiness in this country. We realise the great responsibility that has rested on our Minister of Agriculture as food controller, and though we appreciate the high technical nature of these services, we do hope now that with the experience gained that those responsible will be able to administer control so as to gain a greater measure of confidence and support from the public. Though we members of Parliament have been enveloped in complaints against control and criticisms regarding shortages, we do believe that if more accurate information were given in regard to the shortage we would obtain a greater co-operative effort from all. I think that this country does appreciate the reduction in the price of bread. We do hope that that will be maintained. That is the outcome of control. It would never have been possible if we did not have a Wheat Control Board. In spite of all the criticisms we have against our Control Boards, they have rendered us in these days one of the greatest services which the country has received from the Government, and I hope that now that the Mealie Control Board has weathered their first year of control, they will be able to evolve a scheme that will ensure a more adequate and a more constant supply of maize, not only to the natives to whom maize is an essential commodity, but also to the stock farmers, the producers of beef and mutton and our poultry, pig and dairy industries. We realise also that the Minister must concentrate on fertilisers to provide for greater returns from our lands. There is no doubt that our return from agriculture per morgen cultivated in this country ranks amongst the lowest in the world. If we could have a better system of fertilisation of our soil, there is no doubt that the farmers would be able to produce at a much lower cost. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. Minister could make some statement in regard to the supply of Arsenite of Soda and Tobacco Extract. With the incidence of East Coast Fever in our midst and the immunity of some of our ticks to arsenic, it is essential also to have Tobacco Extract. Today Arsenite of Soda cannot be obtained at all, and we hope the Minister will make some statement in the House today to assure us that the farmer will have at least 50 per cent. of the Arsenite of Soda manufactured in Rhodesia made available to them. The farmers need Tobacco Extract and also Arsenite of Soda which has proved one of the most effective dips in the country, and we must also have in view the production of our products on an economic basis. The question of wool control has been raised here today. I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister. I know that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) has said that in these days when we are faced with a threat from synthetic fibres, we must look to the future of the wool industry. Well, if we are to have control as envisaged by that hon. member, then we must have a certain amount of power under the Marketing Act. Most of our young wool farmers are today on active service, and with the shortage of petrol which makes adequate representation from the wool farmer impossible, I think that the time is quite inopportune for us to seek powers under the Marketing Act. I would suggest that if we could have an extension of our present scheme and if the British Government could buy all our wool for two years after the war instead of one year, then we would have ample time to evolve a scheme, to consult with the other wool growing countries of the world and to ensure an adequate return to this the most important product in the country. I would appreciate it immensely if the hon. Minister would make a statement in regard to our dip. Arsenite of Soda is an essential commodity. I would also appreciate a statement from him in regard to the supplies of Tobacco Extract. I hope that the Minister in these difficult times will be able to make these supplies available to us so that we can cope with this blue tick which the veterinary department has acknowledged is immune to arsenic poisoning.

We must be fair and reasonable. So far as the price fixed for mealies is concerned I think it is very satisfactory. I think the Minister felt that there was a shortage, that it was war time, and that it was his duty to meet the farmers. I think it is satisfactory. Our part of the country, which has to buy mealies, will naturally have to pay high prices, but we have to give and take. In regard to wheat I only want to say that I am sorry the Minister did not accept the recommendation of the Wheat Board, but I want to say quite openly that I think that more than 80 per cent. of the wheat producers of the Union will be satisfied with the price the Minister has announced. I am a wheat farmer, and, of course, we have had many difficulties and many setbacks as a result of frost, hail and drought, and our fertilisers are very expensive, but I do think that every wheat farmer can produce wheat at the fixed price announced by the Minister. I only want to say this to the Minister, that he has to keep his eyes on the distribution system which is causing a lot of trouble. Our natives in the Eastern parts have no food. If he had looked ahead a bit and if he had said: “There will be no mealies for a month or so”, we could have held back some of our wheat in order to feed the natives. We did not do so.

You can get wheat for the farmers.

That is so, but it means a lot of trouble and expense to get hold of wheat again. If we had known it a month ago we could have held back our wheat to give to our labourers. Anyhow, I think we should realise that one cannot satisfy everybody. One cannot satisfy every farmer and every wheat farmer, but as a producing wheat farmer I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture—which I rarely do—because we always feel that if we do so we may perhaps not get what we want. Even now we don’t get half of what we are entitled to, but I must be honest and say that any wheat farmer can produce wheat at that price. I have sent a telegram to the Eastern areas where they have had nice rains, and I have told them not to sow oats but to sow wheat again.

A fortnight ago the hon. Minister told us that the supplies of mealies in the country were not sufficient for the needs of the country. Since then a more or less general statement has been made to the effect that the position has improved. I would be very grateful if the Minister could give us a more concrete statement as to the extent of that improvement. Obviously the question of price is tied up with the question of supply and demand. There is an uneasy feeling in some quarters that there are supplies in the country in the hands of speculators, which are not under the control of the Mealie Board. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that aspect of the matter has been investigated, because it would not be the first time in the history of this country that speculators have juggled with the food supplies of the country in order to fill their own pockets. I have just returned from a short visit to the Transkei, and I would like to assure the hon. Minister that although the situation there has improved somewhat, it is still very critical indeed, in spite of the rains. There are parts where there is no grain to be had, and in other parts the position is so bad that when a few bags of grain do arrive, the natives come for miles to secure a few pounds of mealies. If the people are going to be forced to use the coming crop in its green form, you are going to have a shortage again within a few months. I do sincerely hope that notwithstanding the improvement in the prospects of the Transkei, steps will be taken to see that grain supplies reach the natives at once and for the following weeks to come. I can assure the Minister that at the moment there are many people in the country who, if not actually starving, are not very far from facing starvation. The question of price naturally interests me. I see by the smiles on the faces of my hon. friends here (the mealie farmers) that the Minister has effectually wiped away their tears. I want to make it quite clear that it is not my object to try and force the mealie farmer to accept a price which is not economic. What we have pointed out is this: That you must be prepared to sell to the people at a price which they can afford to pay, and I want to state here quite definitely that the people cannot afford to pay the price on the present fixation. In 1941 the price was fixed at 8s. 6d. or 10s., so the price today will represent an increase of 7s. 6d. or 6s. per bag. If the Government is satisfied that that advance is justified by the increase in the costs of production, then I for my part will have nothing to say about it from the point of view of the consumer, but until such time as you raise the economic standard of the African people who have to live particularly on these mealies, you must be prepared to face the question of subsidisation, and I should like the Minister to consider this and to make a statement in that connection. Today you have an opportunity of increasing your internal consumption, and I think it is a reasonable suggestion to make that if you are prepared to subsidise export, then surely it is even better economically to subsidise internal consumption, particularly where you have a tremendous portion of your population who are unable to pay the fixed prices. If the price is 16s. per bag, it seems to me that the native in the outlying areas will have to pay at least 18s., and there is no doubt that he cannot pay that. As I have said, the suggested price is an advance of nearly 100 per cent. on the 8s. 6d. which was the price in 1941. I should like hon. members to bear in mind that nearly everything the African needs has gone up in price. I would urge this very strongly upon the Minister and if in his generosity he could wipe away some of the tears of the people I represent, viz. the natives, I shall be very glad indeed. It has been said that the Mealie Control Board has reserve funds. I do not know whether that is true. The statement has been made to me, and I should like to ask the hon. Minister if it is true, and if so, what that reserve fund is for. I have not much more time at my disposal, but before I sit down I should like to ask the Minister this question in relation to East Coast Fever. There are many districts in the Transkei where we have had no East Coast Fever for the past 18 months. I would like to ask the Minister whether he cannot relieve those areas which have been free from East Coast Fever for the past 18 months, of these trying East Coast regulations.

The Minister today announced the prices for wheat and mealies. Now I want to bring to his notice that there is one other important production which is so important that people cannot do without it, and that is meat. The Minister has now fixed the price of mealies on such a basis that it is becoming almost impossible for us in the North West to feed our cattle with mealies. The Minister should realise that we do not get the mealies for 16s., but to that 16s. must be added railage, transport costs, and so on, often amounting to 3s. or 4s. per bag. I do not want to say anything against the interests of the mealie farmers, but if the Minister fixes the price of meat he must take into account the fact that there are many farmers who often for long periods have to keep their cattle alive with mealies. During the past twelve months we have suffered considerable damage and many farmers in the North West have lost a lot of stock. The most important product of the North West is meat. And I want to ask the Minister to take note of the fact that he is making things very difficult for us in that part of the world. Meat is a very important product, and even the Bible says that without meat and bread one cannot live. Has not the time arrived for the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the distribution of meat? Something must be done to do away with the tremendous difference between what the farmer gets and what the consumer has to pay. Things cannot go on like this. I said a few weeks ago that under normal conditions a farmer in South Africa can grow rich if he gets 6d. per lb. for meat on the farm, and I added that the consumer under normal circumstances should not pay more than 8d. The Minister must see to it that the gap between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays is made smaller. We cannot tolerate the present position any longer. I notice an amount of £350,000 on this year’s estimates for wheat. Has not the time arrived to allow a subsidy on meat for the sake of the consumer? We have had one of the most serious droughts South Africa has ever known, and I do not know whether the Minister realises how a drought increases the costs of production so far as cattle are concerned, when a farmer has to contend with heavy losses. I hope the Minister will go into this matter and will see what he can do. In the third place I drew the Minister’s attention to the necessity of taking the control of the meat markets out of the hands of the Municipalities. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that last year the Municipality of Cape Town made a profit of £30,000—by which it was able to reduce its taxes—at the expense of the meat farmer of South Africa. When that sort of thing is going on the meat farmer feels that he is being unfairly treated, and the Minister cannot expect us to be satisfied when he simply tells us that he will have the position thoroughly enquired into. I strongly protested at the time, but in 1938 a Commission of Enquiry was sent to Australia and another one was sent to America. We have been told that a scheme for the appointment of a Meat Board is on its way, but we cannot sit here year after year and wait for something to be done in regard to this matter. The Minister should realise that there is a great demand for meat today. Shipping may be curtailed fewer convoys may come here, and there is a possibility of our having a surplus of meat afterwards. The whole meat position is so serious that I do not know where to start in order to convince the Minister that he should immediately go into this question with the object of doing something because we can no longer go on as we are doing today. Both the farmer and the consumer are being exploited in a terrible manner. I make bold to say that at least from 60 to 70 per cent. of the people in South Africa do not get sufficient meat. They can’t afford to pay for it. The farmer does not get the benefit of those high prices. Those large amounts of money go into other people’s pockets. Let me give an instance and mention the case of Mr. Fanie Naudé. I believe the Minister knows him. He told me a fortnight ago that he had sent slaughter sheep to Johannesburg. After they had been held over for a week to fetch higher prices they were sold at 16s. 6d. and 19s. 10d. Now, where does the profit go, because the prices of meat are not coming down? In Cape Town we are still able to get meat for 1s. 1d., 1s. 2d., 1s. 3d. and 1s. 6d. In Durban and Johannesburg the price has gone up to 2s. per lb. but the farmer does not get those prices. It is the speculators and the big butchers who make the profits, and as I said a few days ago I want to repeat that there are some powerful people who have control of the whole of that trade. They are principally Jews, and we who are living far away on the platteland are unable to compete with them. But if the Minister were to take the meat position out of the hands of the Municipalities, and if he were to give us the assurance that there will be cold storage trucks to carry the meat at ½d. per lb., and if we were to guarantee the position for the next ten years, then I personally, and others, would send meat to Cape Town and sell it here for 8d. There must be something wrong at the moment. The Minister said that if necessary we could have a Commission of Enquiry, but I do not know whether we can wait any longer. This question must be gone into at once. At the moment there is a big demand for meat, but the market fluctuates to such an extent that one hardly dare send one’s meat to Johannesburg or to Cape Town. One may possibly have to hold over one’s sheep, and we know that every day they are held over they lose from 2 lb. to 3 lb. in weight. Cannot the Minister enquire into a scheme and build as many cold storages in this country as are required? He could build cold storages at Beaufort West, De Aar, and Naauwpoort and places like that, where the meat could be received, and that meat could then be delivered in Johannesburg and Cape Town, and it would have the same taste as it had in the Karroo. Cooled meat does not lose its taste. It is different from frozen meat. I personally have made experiments and even on Summer days like today we can supply meat within twenty-four hours after it has been killed without there being anything wrong with it. If we have cold storages and cold storage trucks we can kill the meat up country and send it to the big markets. At the moment we have to pay 1d. per lb. on our meat. If the live animal is sent we pay less than ½d. per lb.; whereas 50 to 60 sheep can be put into a truck we can load from 200 to 250 carcasses in a cold storage truck. That, again, shows that there is something wrong, and that it is high time for us to give our attention to these developments. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give us an answer and to tell us what he intends doing. We want to know from him whether he is going to fix meat prices again, and we want to know whether if he does so he will also lay down a minimum price, so that we may be protected against exploitation on the part of the wholesale dealer. [Time limit.]

I should like to support the hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys) and I should like to know from the Minister what the position is in regard to research work into the eradication of the vermeerbos. A farm in the district has been purchased and research work is being carried on there. The matter is one of great importance to my constituency. We are very anxious to know what progress is being made, and I should like the Minister to make a statement so that people may know what the position is. If we can eradicate this pernicious bush in those parts of the country the value of the ground will be greatly increased. There are people, too, who are very anxious to have a botanical survey made. I do not know whether it is possible to do anything of that kind during the war, but if it is possible my constituency will be very grateful. We should like to know exactly what types of plants it is worth while preserving and what types should not be preserved. I get many letters in that connection from my constituency. We have passed legislation for the protection of certain forests. We are all in favour of our forests being protected, but the law sometimes makes difficulties in its effects. Many farmers make kraals of the white haakdoring and they are not allowed to do so.

But they can get permits to do so.

They say that the magistrates are not prepared to give them permits. The Minister is also aware of the difficulties today in regard to fencing. Fencing wire is unobtainable and is terribly expensive, and as the poultry gets through the wire, the farmers have been using this “wit bos” to put up against the wire. But now they are prevented from doing so. One of my constituents has written to tell me that the officials have informed them to use limestone. The individual who gave that advice cannot know anything about farming. How can one close a fence by using limestone—even if the fence is only two wires high? One would have to spend more than the farm is worth to break all the stone and cart it along. The Minister must give his attention to these matters. It is giving me a lot of trouble and it causes dissatisfaction. Another farmer, a certain Mr. Kotzé, took me to his farm and showed me that the wit haakdoring is increasing to such an extent that I am afraid that if we had gone into the bush we would never have got out again. If a sheep or a buck goes into it it will never get out again. This farmer wants to thin out the bush so that his stock can get to the grazing. The law, of course, is there, but the Minister should give instructions to the magistrate so that every case can be dealt with on its merits. I also want to say a few words about erosion. I concerned myself with this question of erosion many years ago and in 1917 I proposed a motion in the Provincial Council asking for the Government’s attention to be directed to the danger of erosion, and suggesting that the Government should be asked to contribute on the £ for £ basis to the expense which the farmer had to incur in combating soil erosion in order to preserve his veld and to stop the soil being washed away. I pleaded that cause during all the years of the old Nationalist Party, and I continually drew attention to this matter. But in those days we were too much taken up by our party struggles and we had no time for matters of that kind. One of the greatest things the present Prime Minister did was when he took his place in the Coalition Cabinet and gave attention to the combating of soil erosion. We started that work and we have had a little experience of it now. A great deal of money has been wasted in that connection. Many things have been done in a wrong way. I now find that a sort of Erosion Trust has been created so as to keep the matter alive and before the public. I don’t quite understand what share the Government has in that work, and what the object is. I do not know whether the only object is to make propaganda. It will be no use only to make propaganda. I don’t want to plead and ask the Government in time of war when labour is scarce and when we are fighting for our very existence, and when we are sacrificing everything for our freedom, and for the sake of holding our own—in those circumstances I do not want to urge the Government to tackle the matter. But I want the Government to start organising and to get its plans into ship shape order so that when the war is over we shall be able to tackle this great national matter in a proper way. I think the Minister will agree with me that this really is the greatest national problem in the whole country. Anyone advanced in years passing through the country and seeing how the country has deteriorated and is being destroyed cannot help being concerned about the future. Then there is another matter. It is not only erosion which is causing this country to deteriorate. We also have noxious weeds in this country doing a lot of harm.

The khaki bush.

Hon. members opposite are trying to make a joke of this great problem. We have other noxious weeds and bush overrunning this country. For the last twenty-five years I have been travelling over the road this side of Dordrecht. Years ago there used to be a green bush there. If one looks at it now one will see that no animals will eat the bush there today. It grows freely and if one passes there nowadays one sees that the whole country is overgrown with it. It will cost us a lot more to clear the ground of that bush than the ground itself is worth. We have to pay attention to these things. I do not know the name of that bush but next time I pass there I am going to cut off a branch and send it to the Minister. That bush is occupying the land there to an ever increasing extent. And so one can go right through this country and come across all sorts of weeds occupying more and more of the land. I should like the Minister to give instructions that attention shall be paid to these things. [Time limit.]

I regret that I cannot associate myself with the thanks which was expressed to the Minister in connection with the fixation of the price of wheat, for the simple reason that I think that there will be dissatisfaction in regard to the fixation of the prices, and we can say that we are speaking on behalf of the largest number of wheat farmers when we say that they are disappointed because the Government has taken it upon itself to fix the price at 4s. less than the Wheat Board recommended. Why has the Wheat Board been created? When the decisions of the Wheat Board suit the Minister, and he is criticised in this House, he shelters behind the decision of the Wheat Board.

No.

The Minister has often taken up the attitude that he does not decide, and that the Wheat Board makes the recommendation. The Minister cannot deny that. He has frequently adopted the attitude that the Wheat Board made the decision, and that he accepted that decision, and he shelters behind the Wheat Board.

No, I have never done it. I have never said that the Wheat Board decides and that I do not.

That, at any rate, is the impression the Minister made on me, and I have been here for quite a number of years. Now we have this position that the Wheat Board recommended that the price of B.1 wheat should be 40s. per bag. The Minister fixed it at 4s. less; what are the wheat farmers going to say now? The Wheat Board has for once taken a decision which is more or less reasonable towards the wheat farmers. If it were a Board which consisted only of wheat farmers, then one might say that they are prejudiced, and that they fix a price which is in the interests of the wheat farmers only. But the Wheat Board is composed partly of wheat farmers, but it also has on it representatives of the consumers and the millers, and I take it that if they made a recommendation, that recommendation was unanimous, or more or less unanimous. I take it that the large majority made the recommendation, and what right has the Government to ignore that impartial recommendation? The Minister, in his speech, did not advance any sound reasons to the wheat farmers to show why he ignored that recommendation of the Wheat Board. Just imagine what 4s. per bag would mean to the wheat farmers in their anxiety.

And what about the taxpayers?

Presumably the Minister has in mind the consumers. The question of the consumer will only arise in October, and then the Government will be able to decide if and how it is going to assist them, whether it should be done by means of a subsidy or in some other manner in the event of a rise in the price of bread.

It is not necessary for the price of bread to rise.

I agree with the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) that it is not necessary for the price of bread to rise. If the price had been 40s., I do not know what the position would have been. But on 36s. per bag it is certainly not necessary for the price of bread to rise. If a rise does take place, some plan can then be made. The wheat farmers decided to ask for 40s. and the Wheat Board recommended 40s. On what grounds can the Minister now say to the farmers: “No, we regard it as unreasonable, and we are now going to take 4s. per bag out of the pocket of the farmer.” We do not want to give it to him. In making this decision the Government has taken a step with which the wheat farmers cannot be satisfied. The wheat farmers must necessarily produce less than they would have produced normally. Today they have hot got the necessary labour at their disposal. As a result of the recruiting for the war, they have lost a large portion of their labour. Many of them are practically without labourers. Those farmers who have to use tractors for ploughing purposes, are unable to obtain tyres. The Government has been asleep. When it had to see to it that there were tyres, it did not do so. In my constituency there are numbers of farmers who cannot use their tractors. One farmer who has to sow 200 bags of seed and who uses two tractors, approached the Government for tyres. He was simply told that no tyres were available. Just imagine, this farmer has to sow that quantity of grain, and he is unable to obtain tyres for his tractors. The Government has been asleep. It has been waging war, but it has not provided for the circumstances created by the war.

And what would the position have been if we had not participated in the war?

The Government had two years in which to prepare for this type of thing, and it did absolutely nothing.

Where must I get it?

No, the Government simply plunged the country into the war, and then it went to sleep. If the Government had not been sleeping, it could have bought £2,000,000 worth of rubber in the East. The man in the street knows that the Government was asleep and allowed that opportunity to pass. The Minister cannot rid himself of the matter as easily as that. And now he is going to take 4s. out of the pocket of the wheat farmer. Where does the Minister get the right to do that?

Because the Government has to pay it.

The people of South Africa have to pay this money; but the people Will be able to say that they know what happened during the last war. At that time the wheat farmers received a decent price for their wheat, and the people were prepared to pay it. I am not one of those people who say that the wheat farmers should get £3 and £4 per bag. But the wheat farmers still remember those days, and they realise that this Government wants to limit the price. The Government sits on the wheat farmer. Let the Minister throw open the market tomorrow, and let us see what price we will then get in this country.

The circumstances are not the same as they were during the last war.

At that time the farmers received high prices. On behalf of this side I want to protest against this decision on the part of the Minister, and I think that we are speaking on behalf of thousands of wheat farmers when we say that the Government has left the wheat farmers in the lurch. The wheat farmers came forward with reasonable proposals, and now the Minister has come along and taken away 4s. per bag from them. On the other hand, however, it has not taken steps to ensure that the wheat farmers will get sufficient manure, implements, tractor tyres, ploughs and such things. The farmers are at their wits’ end, and they cannot obtain labourers. That is the result of the Government’s policy. Can we picture the position of the wheat farmer?

I suppose he would have been better off if we had not entered the war!

Of course he would have been better off. We all know that the “lie and rot” story is a story of the past. The people are laughing about it. No one believes it today. If the country had remained neutral, we would have been in the same position as the other neutral countries. Look at the prices they are getting. If we had kept our country out of the war, we would have been much better off. I want to protest against this action on the part of the Minister. Since the Government is now robbing the wheat farmers of 4s. per bag on Class B. Grade 1 wheat, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the wheat farmers get what they require. Let the Government say: “Very well, we are now taking 4s. per bag from you, but we will see to it that you are enabled to produce, that you have the necessary artificial manure, the plough shares, the tractor tyres, and everything else you require. [Time limit.]

There is one point, a question of policy on which I shall be grateful if the Minister would make a statement. Last year during the debate on this Vote, I appealed for the establishment of a factory to make edible margarine, and I suggested to the Minister that it could be produced in this country at about half the price of butter. I pointed out to him also that everything requisite for the establishment of this factory was already in the country, and all that was needed was the licence to manufacture. I do not think it is necessary to point out at this late stage the value of this cheap protective food in a country such as this, where so many of the children and adults too are suffering from malnutrition. It would appear that I convinced the Minister last year, because in his reply to me—I can give him the reference in column 4,675—he said that he was convinced by my arguments, and that he did not approve of the decision of the Dairy Control Board, which refused a licence. Therefore, I assumed perhaps wrongly, that a licence would be granted. To my surprise when I asked the other day whether the licence had been granted, I was told by the Minister that he did not understand my question. Well, Sir, the question that I intended to ask, and did in fact ask, was whether a licence had been granted to manufacture edible margarine. It seems to me that the case for it is quite unanswerable. The incidence of tuberculosis is rising, and we are daily told by public health authorities and every eminent medical authority that one of the best means of combating T.B. is by making available to the poorer sections of the community, amongst whom in particular tuberculosis is rife, a cheap and good protective food. Now, Sir, there is none better than properly made margarine, which is almost identical with butter. As I understand the position, the people who are against the grant of a licence are the Dairy Control Board, and the reason they advance for opposing it is that it might be unfair to the dairy farmer. For my own part I cannot understand why that should be so, because after all, the cost of butter is so much higher than margarine that it must appeal to a different section of the community. The cost of first grade butter is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1s. 9d. to 1s. 10d. a lb., whereas margarine would be something like 9d. a lb. Margarine is a valuable food, and I do appeal to the Minister not to allow this idea of the Dairy Control Board that it possibly might compete with the dairy farmer, to sway his opinion in the matter, and I do appeal to him once more to implement the promise which he made to me last year.

I made no promise.

Let the Minister look up Hansard and see if he did not give an undertaking. I would refer him to columns 4,675 and 4,789. I am quite prepared to read it to the Minister if he wants me to. The point I am trying to make, and I do hope it will convince the Minister once again, is that here is a valuable food at our doorstep. We can make it cheaply and it will not interfere with the dairy farmers because it need not come into competition with them in any way—the difference in price is so enormous—and then there is this additional factor, that there is such a great influx of people here with such an enormous demand for butter that the dairy farmers need not be afraid of the price of their commodity being affected. And, Sir, if the fear of the dairy farmer’s price being affected is responsible for the Minister not having taken any action, then I must say that I deprecate not only the action of the Control Board, but also the attitude of the Minister for allowing himself to be swayed by arguments such as those. There is an urgent need today an overwhelming need to supply the poorer sections of the community with more protective foods—they want something in the way of protective food which it is within their means to buy—the opportunity is at our doorstep, yet it is being kept from them by the sectional jealousy of the Board and I must protest against it.

As the representative of the biggest mealie producing district in the Union, I just want to tell the Minister of Agriculture that I am deeply disappointed in the fixed price of 16s. per bag for mealies. The mealie farmer of Bethal will not be satisfied. The price is too low. The Minister came along and fixed the price of wheat at 36s. whereas it was 30s. 6d. last year. Last year the price of mealies was 15s. and now he fixes it at 16s. Surely there is no relation between the respective increases in the price, as far as these two products are concerned. And I, as a mealie farmer, cannot believe that two bags of mealies are not worth one bag of wheat. The Minister must take into account that he will be snowed under with complaints and grievences and deputations; the price is too low. The Minister said that the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) had compromised himself by asking for 16s., and that he should now assist the Minister. Let me immediately say to the Minister that I want to ask him to meet a deputation of dissatisfied members of Parliament tomorrow morning, and to meet a deputation of mealie farmers from Bethal on the 14th April, who will complain because the price is too low. I sall arrange for that deputation. The Minister must realise that mealies have been produced in our district for more than fifty years, and in the course of those years the soil has been exhausted by rains, and today we can only get a mealie crop by adding a lot of manure, and that is not available. There is no manure available, and the Government cannot provide it. The soil is being so exhausted that this generation will leave posterity an inheritance which has been exhausted. The Minister knows the district. Last year the greater portion of the district had no crop. This year everything in Sarel Cilliers, Trichardt and Roodebank has already been reaped, and the rest are again faced with a second drought within a month. The Minister expects 23,000,000 bags. That estimate is too high. I do not want to alarm the Minister, but I venture to predict that next year the crop will be a faiure. Why do I say that? Because the manure is not available. The Minister knows that one cannot cultivate mealies by using only superphosphate. In the course of years it produces acidity in the soil. Other ingredients are required. The biggest factor in building up soil is bonemeal, potash and ammonia. I am not talking of potatoes now, but of mealies. One cannot cultivate potatoes without sulphate of potash. The Government has no shipping space. There was a promise that we might get a little super-phosphate from Casablanca. What has happened to that? The rock phosphate in our own country has not been properly exploited. Our mealie farmers are in distress. Now I want to tell the Minister that the large scale mealie farmers in my district have barns full of manure. They got in twice as much as they required. Is he prepared to attach this manure so that every man will get his fair share of manure? This is a reasonable request.

Give me the particulars and I shall have the matter investigated.

I shall give it to the Minister with pleasure. Everyone should get his fair share so that he can make a living.

They were more sensible, and they prepared for the future. Do you want to rob them now?

It is not a question of being sensible, but they anticipated the difficulties and they safeguarded their position in time. We cannot allow a certain section to be privileged. I want to point out that for some years we have given away our product at a price which has not paid us. Today mealies still constitute the cheapest food, because one can buy 200 pounds for 16s. In all the other industries, as for example in the cement factories, one must return the bags; but the farmer, after paying 1s. 6d. per bag, has to lose the bag. The farmers cannot be satisfied with the price. I shall always be prepared to be grateful for a concession on the part of the Minister, but this price is disappointing. The mealie farmers get no assistance from the State in so far as farm labour is concerned. There is no artificial manure, and then there is still unreasonable competition on the part of the Government. The Government is also cultivating potatoes, and the other day at Loskop I saw dozens of Italian prisoners-of-war who were cultivating potatoes for the Government in competition with the farmers. We cannot farm in competition with the Government. The national roads take away a portion of our labour. Another portion has been taken up in the army, and the balance of the native labourers are on the Railways; where must the farmers obtain labourers? We are dependent on imported labour. I am employing natives from Nyasaland on my farm. There is not a single native to be hired in the whole Transvaal. In my district which is the biggest mealie producing district, we have no food for the natives today; they are undernourished. They are our labourers and we want to treat them well, but today the position is very difficult. I noticed yesterday morning that in East Africa, in Nairobi, a ship-load of mealies had arrived which was delivered by Great Britain to meet the needs in that area. But our Minister of Agriculture sends our mealies to Rhodesia and he does not make provision for a surplus to be carried forward with a view to a possible shortage, and today we are placed in this critical condition that two months before the crop is due, there is starvation amongst the people and the farm labourers.

It is a matter of course that when on any occasion, and that applies to this House also, you have to sit year after year and listen to something that has become a hardy annual, then it causes in the end an unsympathetic spirit. It follows naturally that if a continual complaint is heard about the same matter then it causes an unsympathetic spirit. It must be unpleasant for any Minister who holds a responsible position always to sit and listen year after year to a packet of grievances. We are now discussing farming interests and it is astonishing how divergent these interests are. The question arises if there is an agricultural land in the world with such divergent farming interests as the Union of South Africa. A Minister of Agriculture in our country is practically held responsible for droughts as well as for too much rain and other climatic conditions that exist; and it is natural that people are very willing to have a place where they can air their complaints and grievances. They want to get the complaints off their chests so that they will feel happier. That is human nature. You cannot deny people this. Consequently a Minister of Agriculture is always unpopular. Look at the history of our Ministers of Agriculture. There were Mr. Harry van Heerden, Sir Thomas Smart, Gen. Kemp, Col. Reitz and now our present Minister. There has never been a Minister of Agriculture in South Africa who has gained any popularity. The Minister must truly be a supernatural person; and even if he is a supernatural person and does good things he remains unpopular as a result of the divergent farming interests. To name a few of them: Wheat, oats, barley, rye, fruit, mealies, wool, potatoes, citrus, tobacco, wine, meat, fat lambs, dairying—I name only a few. I have not even begun yet with the wide variety. Let me stop for a moment at one which may seem of the least interest—the onion farmers. A few years ago their position was very bad, economically and financially, and they had to come to the Minister because of the low price and the surplus of their products and the Government had through the Minister of Finance to help these people. If that had not been done they would undoubtedly have been driven off the land and have become a burden on the State instead of the asset they were. Through this help these people are today in a favourable position. They have remained an asset to the country and have become a particularly great asset in the past years of shortages and food shortages. I want to come into the fundamental cause of the situation. We know that climatic conditions play a great rôle which no-one can control. But I cannot help making so bold as to say that the deterioration of our agriculture in general is the core of the greatest evil with which we struggled year after year, and I must honestly say to the Minister that in spite of the boring complaints that are always heard from different sides of the House, they are still well-grounded complaints. We live among the people and knowing their circumstances and difficulties we are compelled on behalf of the people, if it is at all possible, to get something done for them. The fundamental reason is impoverishment of the land. We have developed a situation under which our agriculturists have been living for years on their capital and as the capital becomes exhausted, they go gradually backwards. Our land is being impoverished year after year and with the impoverishment of our land the yield becomes weaker and thus the farmers continue to go back and become impoverished together with the land. I have on a previous occasion in this House drawn the Minister’s earnest attention to the need for taking measures to preserve the value of our agricultural land in these parts and for its reinstatement, the building up of this land. I have pointed out that outstanding results are obtained by sowing lucerne. We know that our experts have experimented with leguminous plants and other rotation crops. It was not as great a success as was expected but in recent years a system has been tried of planting lucerne and underground clover, and this has given outstanding results: So good that I cannot help but urge the Minister strongly that while he gives other help through subsidy he also helps in this respect. His experts are very strongly in favour of encouraging farmers to plant lucerne for agricultural land in these parts. Cannot the Minister fix a properly worked out subsidy which in the opinion of the Department of Agriculture will be sound and acceptable? It must, of course, be granted with discrimination. [Time limit.]

This Government is known in the country, not only for the wrong things it has done but also for many things it has neglected to do, and in this respect the Minister of Agriculture tops the list. I just want to go into a few matters. As you know bonemeal is one of the things we definitely need in this country. A large part of the country is engaged in cattle farming, which simply cannot do without bonemeal. When the Minister went into the war the Minister knew that we in South Africa do not produce half of our requirements in this respect, and that we are dependent upon importation. But he took absolutely no precaution, knowing the position in which we would find ourselves without bonemeal. A few years ago we heard about inoculation remedy which Onderstepoort had discovered against gallamsiekte, and the Minister said that it was a better remedy than they have in Australia, but that is the last we heard of it. It was never placed on the market, so that the cattle farmers cannot get hold of it. When the farmers discovered that there was not enough bonemeal in the country for their requirements they looked forward to other remedies, but the Government remains in arrear. As far back as last November hundreds of cattle in the constituency that I represent perished as a result of the shortage of bonemeal. I telegraphed to the Minister to ask if it is not possible that the gallamsiekte areas should have preference as regards the delivery of bonemeal. We know that there are parts of our country in which bonemeal is used for fertiliser or for an increase in milk production, without the bonemeal being an absolute necessity. But in the gallamsiekte areas it is an imperative necessity. I then got a reply at the beginning of December that preference would be given to Bechuanaland and other lamsiekte areas. Now I would like the Minister to tell us on the floor of this House precisely how the preference scheme will work.

Is what you got not adequate?

No, not at all. We would like to know what areas receive preference and how this is done. After we got the so-called preference we found that great difficulties arose as regards the permits, because one then had to have permits to have bonemeal. On further representations made by us the Department allowed permits to be given to people in urgent cases by the Extension Officer, in consultation with the local magistrate. Now, however, we have a little more bonemeal in the country. But I have in my hands here a letter which one of my constituents received as a reply from the Department. The elector telegraphed to the Minister on 14th December to ask how he could share in the preference granted to the lamsiekte areas. The Department of the Minister, the controller of foodstuffs, had the impudence I would almost say, of telegraphing to the man who had then already lost 40 head of cattle because he could not get bonemeal, and the reply was—

That was 17 days later. The man had then already lost 70 head of cattle. Ultimately he had to trek and never received bonemeal. The Minister then said that they were collecting bones throughout the whole country, and also in neighbouring territories, and that they would then be able to provide about 50 per cent. of requirements under the permit system. I have letters in my hands from my constituency, where people emphatically state that they had received permits, but that was all. A permit cannot help an animal against lamsiekte; bonemeal is necessary. I have here the letter which I received today and the man says that he cannot get bonemeal at all. He writes: “I have enquired from my neighbours and they, just as I, have received nothing on the permits for January, February and March. There must be some catch somewhere. Someone else gets the bonemeal that we should get.” Here is a leading person in my constituency writing in this way, and he would not write like that if it was not correct. After all the representations and promises about preference, the people at the end of March still have not got the bonemeal on the permits for January. What is the position going to be in the lamsiekte areas if the Minister and his Department do not begin doing something now. Is it a matter of impossibility to supply bonemeal to those areas? Cannot bonemeal be withdrawn from those areas which do not require it? I know what I am talking about. I live in a part of the country in which bonemeal is not essential. I know that there are people who get as much bonemeal as they ask. Is that not an everlasting scandal? Where then is that control of which we hear so much? Why is the bonemeal withheld from the areas which require it so imperatively and given to areas that do not require it? I consider that it should be taken from the areas where it is not necessary, and given to those areas which cannot do without it.

They say that that is the object of the control.

Yes, but they have not yet reached their object by a long way. If they go on like this they will never reach their object. If they cannot do it, if they cannot get bonemeal, then they must assist the farmers in another way. The Minister will agree with me that it is one of the most essential requirements of the farmer. It is extremely essential to the cattle farmers. The Minister knows what it will mean to the country if those areas cannot get any bonemeal. If he cannot do these things let him then, even if it has to be an emergency measure, develop the new inoculation remedy on behalf of the farmers and produce the remedy so that it can get on to the market and be made available to the cattle farmers. I hope that the representations I have made to the Minister on behalf of the cattle farmers will be taken into serious consideration. We must help the people in those areas where there is gallamsiekte. The Government must do all in its power to save the position where it is still capable of being saved.

If you give me the address of the case you have mentioned, then I will have the matter investigated.

Yes, I will do it. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, we have heard quite a lot about mealies this afternoon, and I want to change the subject. I want to talk about oranges. I appeal to the Minister to tell us whether there is any truth in the statement that was made before the National Health Commission in Cape Town this week that 3,000,000 bags of oranges were allowed to rot on the trees because the growers could not get the market price. That is rather a drastic statement, and it has been advertised through all the principal papers in the country, and people are very much concerned about it. They want to know whether there is any truth in a statement of that sort. And not only oranges, Mr. Chairman, but a similar statement has been made about pears being allowed to rot and become useless for consumption. Considering the fact that the price of oranges for some time has been rather high, I think the public is entitled to know whether there is any truth in the statement I refer to. If it is true that the quantity of fruit which that witness stated—I very much doubt it myself—was allowed to rot, then it is time something was done to remedy that state of affairs. It is ony fair that we should know what is actually taking place if a state of affairs which almost borders on a scandal is permitted. I think a statement from the Minister will go a long way to put public mind at rest.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture has made his statement here in connection with the price of mealies. It is true that the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) is satisfied with it, but the Minister must not accept that the hon. member’s satisfaction applies to all the other mealie farmer representatives in this House. The statement of the Minister is disappointing. It is disappointing in this respect, that in the first place the Minister admitted this afternoon that the mealie is a standard foodstuff in the country; that it is indispensable as a foodstuff, and that it has a standard value and not only a speculative value, as appears in the subsequent data which the Minister brought forward in his statement. Last year the crop, according to the statement of the Minister, was 16,000,000 bags, and the price was fixed at 15s. Even before the present crop was in the ground the premature announcement came from the Maize Board that the price of maize for the following crop would be 12s. 6d. per bag. The Minister tried to gloss this over by saying that this was a guaranteed minimum price. Even if the crop had been at 100,000,000 bags the price would still have been 12s. 6d. What is now the position? The Minister says that the estimate is that the crop will this year be 22,000,000 bags. Is that estimate of 22,000,000 bags not simply intended to fix the price of mealies in anticipation? That is the question that every mealie farmer puts to him. What guarantee have we that we shall get 22,000,000 bags? Other estimates again are that the Minister will not get more than 20,000,000 bags. My point is that if the mealie has a standard value as a foodstuff then it must at least have a standard value in price, and why then play up and down with the value arbitrarily? The mealie farmers have indeed suffered greatly. They suffered particularly last year. This year the Minister will find out by thrashing time that the farmers have again suffered. What is more, the costs of production are higher this year than they were last year, and the farmers at least expected that the price this year would be higher and better than the price was last year. Now I say, if the Minister reckons that he has given satisfaction then he is wide of the mark. The farmers in the mealie areas, who have to make their living from mealies, ask for 17s. 6d., plus the bag. Now the Minister comes and says 16s. bagged. The Minister himself has said that the price of bags will be 1s. 5d. or 1s. 6d. Take a crop of 20,000,000 bags, and see what this means. What do the bags not cost. I now want to make this serious accusation against the Minister, that he is a controller in this branch of activity and falls far short in comparison with other controllers. If I buy a bag of cement, then I must give back the bag to the shopkeeper and the shopkeeper returns it to the manufacturer of the cement. If I buy a tin of shoe polish, then I must bring an empty tin. That is how other controllers exercise control in order to protect their people. They protect the middleman. If I buy a bottle of brandy, then I must bring an empty bottle or otherwise I must drink it out on the spot. Those controllers look well after their children, but the Minister neglects his. We have to spend millions of pounds year after year on bags. In this terrible time we must say: Please Sir, here are my mealies and my bag! We get 16s. for our mealies, but that means only 14s. 6d. according to the Minister’s own words. The average price will be still less. That is merely the price of the best grades. Is that now fair treatment of the farmers? Why should we deliver our product in a bag, and it must be a good bag at that, or otherwise they do not take it. Why should we not have consideration in respect of the bags? The middlemen are protected when they deliver goods. If you buy a lb. of flour in a shop then they ask you where is the receptacle to put it in. They have also asked me that, and I just held my hat because my wife was anxious to have the flour. But if I bring my mealies there, then I have to deliver it in a bag and I must give the bag away as a present. In this respect I consider that the Minister has neglected his little children. But I want to touch upon another point. It is a very serious matter. We have had the experience that if we want a bag of oats then we must apply for it. You must run a number of gauntlets before you get it. There is a shower of rain; you want to sow but after you have run all those gauntlets the ground is again dry. Why should we compel bona fide farmers to run all those gauntlets, to follow all those lengthy procedures before we can get seed. That is the result of control. But then control in such a way that the man who wants to put the seed into the ground can get it immediately and does not have to run about. Let the man who wants to feed the oats to a racehorse run all those gauntlets. In our country we sometimes have to get the seed into the ground after a little shower. We do not get our rains regularly in accordance with the seasons. We are dependent upon the vagaries of nature. The Minister has started with his control, and perhaps we have already told him enough to make him understand that if he is again controller next year—I do not know if he will still be Minister, and it is very uncertain—but if he remains Minister, then we hope he will think of those few things upon which we certainly look as grievances, I want to say a word in connection with the control boards. The hon. member there on the other side spoke of the millions of oranges that lie and rot and that are destroyed. The trade is out to break down the control boards. They want to present the control boards in as ridiculous a light as possible in order to induce the public to force the Government through the medium of the consumer. Let me just speak about one thing. When the price of potatoes on the market was fixed at a certain maximum price, we found that the consumers got a certain number of lbs. for 1s. The consumers still get 7 lbs. for 1s., and if the middlemen thought that the consumers were not treated fairly, then it was easy for them to rectify the matter. [Time limit.]

When my time expired I was busy urging the Minister to subsidise lucerne seed in the Western areas. I cannot help telling the Minister that I see in the discriminating sowing of lucerne an entirely new development which will transform the Western areas entirely. It is with great anxiety that I observe the deterioration of this granary of the country. I say the deterioration because there is no doubt that any person who travels through the Western areas with his eyes open, these areas which without much mishap year after year yield a first-class wheat crop, and which can be trusted to provide bread for the country for the year, can see that this part has so deteriorated in recent years that unless something is done to restore the land and build it up I should like to know what the position is going to be in the course of time. Our fathers farmed this land with success for generations. That possibility is past today. Landbank loans which have been undertaken in these areas where formerly Landbank loans were unknown, make me uneasy and anxious. Many farms lie vacant in this Western circle because farming does not pay any more on them. In these circumstances it speaks for itself that we must plead for higher prices for our wheat and other crops. If we are going to save the financial position of the agriculturist in these parts then we must year after year come and plead for higher prices for the product which they produce. But although we are forced to plead for higher prices we still find that the people are going back and the raising of prices cannot go on forever. We have already in this connection reached an unfavourable level in comparison with other agricultural lands, and in spite of that the impoverishment of the ground goes on day by day; and the impoverishment of the land is at the root of the evil that makes it continually necessary to come and ask for higher prices. We must restore that ground and build it up. If we wish to be in a position to compete with other agricultural countries for our own preservation, and if we wish to be placed on an economic level where we can continue to exist from the land, then we must restore the fertility of the ground. I have already said that we must get better results from the ground and I have already said that these results have been obtained and have been proved with the sowing of lucerne on our agricultural land. This is not only applicable on wheat land, but also on agricultural land in the Western areas generally. At the same time with the sowing of lucerne and underground clover, and using it for grazing, we separate our eggs which have so far always been in one basket, into different baskets. That is something which for years the experts have been urging us to do as a wise policy, saying that it is a certain hope and salvation for us if we get out of the unnatural situation which we have allowed to develop of having all our eggs in one basket. It improves the livestock; it helps our wool industry because we grow better wool in view of the fact that we have better grazing for the stock; and with the development of our livestock and the development of our wool industry and its standard, we develop a new situation in these parts which did not exist before. We develop a new situation which will place us on a sounder economic basis. We get better results from the land and not only better results from the land, because of the nitrogen the lucerne puts into the ground, but also as a result of grazing animals on these lucerne lands. With these few remarks I would earnstly urge the Minister to give this matter the serious attention it deserves and to encourage the farmers to sow lucerne, to encourage the lucerne farmers to cultivate the necessary seed and then to subsidise the seed in a discriminating way so that the right use can be made of it. And then I wish to deal with another matter.

Tell us what you think of the wheat price.

I am coming to that. Then I cannot help but draw the Minister’s attention in these times in which we have to do not only with a shortage of food but also with a shortage of fodder, to the manufacture of balanced stock feed. This matter is not generally taken seriously enough, and the value of a balanced feed is not generally realised. We are busy throwing away uselessly thousands, I would even say hundreds of thousands, of bags of feed for our cattle, by putting it through the animals in such a way that the animals are not able to get its full value. No-one can live from bread alone, or from meat alone; he must have the necessary supplementary food to get a balanced feed, and unless we do this with our animals we cannot expect the best results. If we feed a pig or any animal purely on mealies, rye, barley or oats without balancing the feed, two-thirds of it go through the animal without his getting any benefit. There is at the moment a shortage of stock feed and the manufacture of balanced feeds has been practically stopped. We cannot get it. If the feeds were placed in one pool under supervision appointed by the Government, and if a balanced feed would then be made from it then I can give the Minister the assurance, and his experts will bear me out, that we will manage with one-third less feed than today and get better results. I wish the Minister would make such an experiment—anyone can do it—put two pigs in a pen. Give one a balanced pig-meal over a period of six months and the other one only one kind of food, also for a period of six months. Give the same quantity, and even if we gave a little more of the one feed, we would never get the same results which we get from a balanced feed. That is a matter which should enjoy the attention of the Minister at this time when we have a shortage of food in the country. If we set about it in the right way, we will by this method of balanced feeding get much better results from our animals than we do at the moment. In this way much feed can be saved. Then there is another matter, and it is the local manufacture of binding twine. We are practically the dumping ground for European countries after our season is past. The binding twine is usually landed in this country at 1s. a bale less than it is manufactured locally. [Time limit.]

I want to express my bitter disappointment to the Minister of Agriculture that the price of wheat has been fixed at 36s. The Minister has his Wheat Board. The Wheat Board has naturally investigated this matter carefully and we expect it of the Board for it has nothing else to do except to go into the position. Both producers and consumers are represented on the Wheat Board and after careful consideration they recommended to the Minister that price of 40s. But then the Minister comes and dismisses their finding and fixes the price of wheat at 36s. per bag. Now I would like to know what the Minister thinks of the Wheat Board. Does he regard them as people upon whom he cannot rely? Does he think that they have not enough sense and that their mentality is such that he cannot accept their recommendations? They are people who have gone into the matter and who should know what the price of wheat should be. The Minister this year has a big shortage of mealies and I foresee the time if he goes on like this when we will aso have a shortage and a big shortage of wheat. I do not wish to cover the same ground as that already covered by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser). Every year we need more fertilisers. This year the fertiliser is not there and therefore less will be produced this year. Production costs are rising daily. We have implements which are dear and all those things are the reason why the farmer this year will produce less per morgen or per bag than in the past. These are all matters about which the Minister should think when he fixes the price. We protest most strongly against the Minister rejecting the advice of the Wheat Board and fixing the price of wheat at 36s. instead of 40s. Then I would like to say something about forestry. In my area large plantations have been planted. All the white people have been taken away and the work is now done by natives. Native labour is used and also to a certain extent Italian prisoners-of-war. What is the reason for the white people being taken away? Why cannot Afrikaners get that work now? Many of them have been compelled to join the army. They are in the army but there is still plenty of work, the trimming of trees and such things, for which native labour is being used. The reason why these people joined up is because they were paid a low wage. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to this, that if he paid a proper wage then he could get good white labour. There are many labourers who want the work and there are big areas where trees could be planted. We have heard from various members about erosion schemes and I want to suggest that the Minister plants trees on our mountains in a still greater measure. It will mean that the sources of our water will be protected and improved. The water will last longer and there will be less scarcity of water as regards the people who need that water for irrigation. I would be glad if the Minister would take these few points into consideration.

I was in my constituency last week, and there I met quite a number of meat farmers. It was shortly after the conference held in Paarl, and after the people learned that the Wheat Control Board had fixed a price of £2 per bag. Now I would like to put this question to the Minister.

They had no power to fix the price, and they decided on their recommendations only this week.

In any case, the farmers had heard that the price should be fixed at £2 per bag.

How could they have heard it? The recommendation was made only this week.

I can tell you that the conference was held in Paarl, and after that conference the farmers had the information that the Wheat Board would recommend the price of £2 per bag. I do not say the whole Control Board was there, but a price was determined there by the farmers; they suggested that it should be a fair price. Two pounds per bag is the price recommended by the Control Board. Now I would like to know from the Minister why he has never yet accepted the price recommended by the Control Board? I would like to know if he has confidence in them, and if he has confidence in them why does he not accept their recommendations? If he does not trust them, I would like to know why he retains them. They have recommended a price from year to year, and year after year the Minister has decreased that price.

Except last year.

Yes, but after how many years of fighting?

Not one year of fighting.

Now I want to know from the Minister if he honestly thinks that the price fixed covers the increased costs of production.

More than that.

Is the increased cost of production more than the amount he added to the price last year? If that is the case then he gives them little.

Why?

The price is now fixed at 36s. Last year the price was 30s. There is an increase of 6s. Now I want to know if that increase covers the increased costs of production.

The Wheat Board itself has fixed the costs at 33s. 11d.

Is that the average price?

That is the price recommended by the Wheat Board itself, 36s., 33s. 11d. is the cost as fixed by the Wheat Board.

If 33s. 11d. is the average cost, then it is clear that there are farmers who produce at a loss. The cost of production is higher and lower according to the quality of the land. If that is the average cost of production, then it must be clear that there are certain farmers who are producing at a loss. There are places where the costs of production is higher and places where the costs of production is lower. I understood that the Control Board recommended that the price must be fixed at £2 per bag. I would like to know if this is so.

There is 6s. encouragement costs.

What I want to know is this: The price was fixed at £2 per bag by the Control Board: is that right or is it not right?

Yes, that is right.

That is what I heard. I also heard that the farmers had proved to the Control Board that that price was justified by the production costs.

You were not here when I explained the whole position. You have understood the whole thing wrong.

I was not here because I could not be here. I had other important business.

You have understood the whole thing wrong.

I am not wrong. I come to the price recommended by the Control Board. The hon. Minister now says that it was £2, but nevertheless he went and fixed the price at 36s. Now I want to put this question to the hon. Minister: Have you confidence in the Control Board, and if you have confidence in the Board why do you not accept their recommendations ?

I may have confidence in you, but you may nevertherless make a mistake.

If you have confidence in the Control Board then you must accept their recommendations, and if you do not have confidence in the Control Board, then you must appoint another Board. That is the position. It has happened from year to year that the price recommended by the Control Board has been reduced by the Minister. I take it that the Control Board consists of people who know what it costs to produce wheat, people who are practical farmers and people who have a knowledge of farming activities, and if that is the position, then surely the Minister should accept their opinion. If he has no confidence in them, then he should appoint another Board. For this reason I cannot understand what we are doing with the Control Board if we do not adopt their recommendations. I want to say to the hon. Minister that the farmers are facing the future with a large measure of anxiety. They cannot get fertiliser today. I stand here with a letter which I got the other day. The people who manufacture fertiliser say they cannot get superphosphates. They recommend the mixture known as Mixture C. It costs £6 18s. 6d. per ton, while superphosphates costs only something more than £3.

How much nitrogen is in it?

I shall give you the particulars. It contains 2 per cent. nitrogen, 2 per cent. potassium and 12 per cent. phosphates. For the Mixture C. they have to pay £6 18s. 6d.

Is that with or without subsidy?

That is with subsidy. Now the people who manufacture the stuff say that they can get superphosphate only for maize. If the farmers can get superphosphate only for maize then it is too late. By the time they get the superphosphate it will be too late for sowing. If it is the position that the people will have to go into the future with this difficulty, then their position will be impossible. I said to them that we considered that the Government will allow £2, because the farmers had proved that the cost of production justified this, and I accepted that the Minister would grant that price, but now the price is fixed at 36s. If the Minister is afraid that the price of bread will rise too high, why does he not let the Government look after that. The people have to pay at the highest peak for everything. They are not in a position to get together a little money. The Minister knows that in the last war the farmers got up to £3 per bag for their wheat, and even more. Today they cannot get fertilisers or material. There is a scarcity of labour; and all their requirements cost more, and they have no opportunity of getting out of their debt. Why then should the Minister have objections to a difference of 4s. It seems to me that the Minister should have accepted the advice of his control board if he had confidence in them, and if he had no confidence in them then he should not have appointed them. Then I still want to say this to the Prime Minister as regards the making of sultanas. He knows that the K.W.V. pays half the losses, and the only interest that the K.W.V. has in the matter is that they prefer to make raisins and sultanas instead of producing the grapes in the form of wine. Now the Minister fixes the price of sultanas after the sultanas have already been made.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 22nd March.