Before I say anything in regard to the wheat prices announced by the Minister in this House I wish to draw attention to the fact that the position of the wheat farmers in the Western Province generally is far from rosy. This is due to the fact that the last crop in particular was a very poor one. Let me give the Minister a few figures to prove this. The two large purchasing agents, Bokomo and Western Grain handled 684,000 bags of the 1940-’41 crop; of the 1941-’42 crop they handled 585,000 bags, and for the very last crop they only handled 470,000 bags. These are the two principal purchasing agents of wheat this side of Sir Lowry’s Pass. In my opinion there are two reasons for that. First of all the season was unfavourable, and secondly, there is the shortage of labour. I have already urged the Minister to do everything in his power to make Italian prisoners of war available for farm labour purposes. We have been given the answer that such labour will be available to farmers whose farms are not less than 15 miles from the coast. That is not going to help us sufficiently, and I hope the Minister will go into the question further and will devise some scheme to come to our aid. I have also given the figures to point out that if in the course of the recess cases should crop up of wheat farmers from the Western Province applying to the Government for assistance, the Minister should realise that they require such assistance as the result of a very poor season. The Minister knows that the costs of production are high, and as their crops are poor the losses are all the greater. In regard to the wheat price announced by the Minister I want to say that it is extremely difficult at this stage to comment upon it. The lack of fertilisers, as the Minister rightly stated, may have a serious influence on the yield per morgen. It is extremely difficult at this stage to say whether that price will be a profitably one, and it depends larely on what weather conditions we have. I do not want to object to the price at this stage, I only want to ask that if it appears that as a result of the lack of fertilisers the yield is affected even less than the Minister anticipates, he will give the matter his serious attention. Beyond that I do not want to say anything about the matter. There is another point, however, to which I wish to direct the Minister’s attention and I trust he will give it his careful consideration, and that is the grading of wheat. If what I am going to say is correct then it constitutes a serious indictment of the Minister and his Department. I am going to mention only one case in regard to grading. If the Minister can controvert it and can show that my information or my figures are wrong then I shall ask him to do so. If he cannot controvert my contentions, then I have a good case. I want to mention the case of broken grains. Let me say beforehand that if one takes a whole bag of broken grains, a bag consisting entirely of broken grains, one can get a usable bag of meal out of it. There are three causes for grain being broken. In the first place it may be due to the threshing machine. Secondly, the wheat may be very fatty, and therefore of a high bushel content and thirdly, the moisture content of the wheat may be very low. In other words, fatty wheat and dry wheat produce a lot of broken grain. In other words, good sample wheat and wheat which is dry produce the most broken grains. For first grade wheat 5 per cent. of broken grains are allowed, but as soon as there are 6 lbs. more broken grains in the bag than 5 per cent. for those 6 lbs. of broken grains 8d. is deducted. At £1 10s. per bag the value of 1 lb. of wheat is one and 4/5ths of a penny. If there are 12 lbs. of broken grains in excess of the 5 per cent. allowed, the wheat becomes third grade and the farmer loses 2s. 2d. The value of 12 lbs. of wheat is 1s. 9¾d. In other words, if in the third grade of wheat there are more than 12 lbs. of broken grains in excess of what is allowed in the first grade the miller is made a present of that, and on top of that the farmer loses another four and 2/5ths of a penny. When one gets to the fourth grade, then there are 20 lbs. more broken grains in the bag than are allowed for in the first grade. Those 20 lbs. at one and 4/5ths of a penny per lb. work out at 3s. but the wheat farmer in the case of grade A gets 5s. 6d. less, and on grade B wheat 5s. less. In other words, the farmer makes the miller a present of 20 lbs. of wheat and on top of that pays him in the case of grade A wheat 2s. 6d. and in the case of grade B wheat 2s. When one comes to fifth grade wheat there are 30 lbs. more broken grains in the bag than allowed under grade 1. Thirty lbs. of wheat are worth 4s 6d. but the farmer gets 8s. 11d. less if it is grade A wheat and 8s. 6d. less if it is grade B wheat. In other words, in that case the miller is made a present of those 30 lbs. of broken grains, and on top of that the farmer pays him for being so kind as to accept a present, 4s. 5d. in the case of A wheat and 3s. 11d. in the case of B wheat. [Time limit].

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has accused the Government of not having any agricultural policy, of having no system and no plan, and he has accused me and my Department of doing nothing, and he has said that we must be kicked, or forced to do something. He knows that that is not so.

Even the English people in Natal say so.

For the last ten years and more my Department has been following a systematic policy in regard to the principal agricultural problems. I need only to refer to such major problems as soil erosion, improvement of grazing lands, eradication of noxious weeds, stock improvement — and I want to ask the hon. member whether the Marketing Act does not constitute a milestone in the country’s history in regard to agricultural affairs. The hon. member forgets those things — I won’t say that he does so deliberately, but what the hon. member has also kept silent about, and he has done so deliberately, is that there is a war on.

That’s what you are hiding behind.

Well, it must necessarily be the case that there are urgent matters which as a result of the war require immediate attention. I need only say that there are very many urgent matters which take as much of my time and of my Department’s time as we can possibly spare. In regard to the post-war conditions I have already announced what my Department is doing. All divisional chiefs have received instructions to put their opinions on paper; a committee is to be appointed, of which the head of my department will be the Chairman, and that Committee has to report to me. After the session the activities will be co-ordinated and the combined reports will be dealt with by the Planning Council. Now, I want to refer to a few of the points mentioned by the hon. member. He said that the deciduous fruit industry and the citrus fruit industry were in difficulties, and that the Government was not doing anything. I wish the hon. member would go and ask the deciduous fruit farmers and I wish he would ask the citrus fruit farmers, what the position is — he would be told a very different story. He would be told that we have done a great deal, especially so far as the deciduous fruit farmers are concerned.

Ask the mealie farmers.

So far as the wool farmers are concerned we have also been told that we have done nothing. Is that true? Let me go back a little into the history of this matter. Let me take the 1939-’40 season. I wonder which country in the world had a better contract or had better conditions for its wool clip. The wool farmers of South Africa were in the enviable position in which one finds oneself very rarely in business—it is a case of “heads I win, tails you lose.” That was the position. And what is the attitude of the Opposition? I am criticised, and the Government is criticised. We are told that we should have created facilities for Italy and Japan to buy our wool. That was the criticism we had to face in those days. The Government was to have endorsed Italy’s and Japan’s bills. That was what the Opposition asked us to do at that time. Where would we have been if we had done so, and what would the wool farmers have said if we had adopted that attitude? But take the subsequent years. We have heard a lot of talk about the wool production, and about matters in connection with it. We are told by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. Bekker) what America was paying for wool. The fact remains, however, that the South African wool farmers are perfectly satisfied with the price they are getting for their wool and with the wool contract. More than one of them has said: “We hope you will succeed in maintaining the same price for five years after the war.” I have already told the hon. member that this is a private business of the British Government. They have bought the wool, it is theirs, and quite naturally they do not want the price which they pay to be blazoned forth. I want to ask the hon. member this—if I buy a horse from him, is he going to tell me how much he paid for it? No, the hon. member is going to keep very quiet about the price. The hon. member now says that the increase we have obtained in the price of wool is attributable to the Australian Government, and secondly to the fact that the British Government itself realised that our price was too low. The hon. member is talking nonsense. Let me assure him, whether he accepts it or not, that it was not done without strong representations being made by the Union Government. He asks me what our plans are for the future. I have noticed in several papers that there is a movement to ask the Government to try and extend the present wool agreement. I now notice that hon. members of the Opposition are keeping very quiet on this point. Let the Government do it, and then they will come here and criticise. This is the time for the wool farmers of South Africa to tell me through their Associations what they want. I think it is about time they should tell me. There is something to be said for the suggestion made by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) that it would perhaps be desirable to get an extension of a year so that in the meantime we may prepare ourselves for what may happen later. But I do think I am entitled to ask the wool farmers to give me some idea more or less of what they have in mind. One should not lose sight of the fact that after the war we shall probably have a new world, and that we shall probably have new conditions. We do not yet know what those conditions are going to be and what difficulties we shall be up against when the war is over, and it seems somewhat foolish for me or for the Government to say that this or that is our plan for after the war. I am only too willing to consult anyone, either in this country or abroad, to see what we can do for this big industry. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) in connection with this point also spoke about the manufacture of materials to take the place of wool, and in this connection he mentioned South West Africa. That is not a very important question at the moment.

The quantity he mentioned was not small.

Anyhow, one thing is certain, and that is that there is no danger yet. The hon. member also took me to task for not having kept my promise in regard to the Commission of Enquiry on the subject of marketing which I had promised to appoint. I have stated before in this House that I had selected some of the members for such a Commission. I was also engaged in drafting the terms of reference of such a Commission, but certain developments occurred subsequently in regard to the Transvaal Commission. I again want to tell the hon. member that there is a war on. Such a Commission will be one of the most important commissions; it will be a Commission which will have to make highly important suggestions affecting the country as a whole. It is a commission which will have to advise what steps will have to be taken in regard to the meat industry; whether it is desirable to take away from the Municipality their marketing powers, or not. Matters of tremendous importance will have to be dealt with by that Commission. The most important thing is to get the best commission possible. Some of the people we shall require are busy in connection with the war. Many of the witnesses whose opinion we want to obtain, and the benefit of whose knowledge we require, are not available at the moment, and for that reason the Government considered it desirable to postpone the matter. Then there is another question in this connection. I have found out that the Provincial Administrations, or some of them at any rate, are somewhat jealous of their marketing powers. I find that they are not so anxious to hand over those powers to the Central Government, and there will have to be a certain amount of negotiation before we can get any further.

Are those the Municipalities or the Provincial Authorities?

I am speaking of the Provincial Authorities who are responsible for marketing, and I want to say this, that I realise that the matter is urgent, and we shall again have to go into the question of the appointment of such a Commission. It is very necessary and very urgent, and I wish to have the benefit of the report of such a Commission. The hon. member also asked for a larger representation for the wheat farmers on the Wheat Board.

There should be wheat farmers on that Board.

That is a question which we have discussed very often. I do not think the hon. member is entitled to take up that attitude. We have entered into an honourable agreement so far as that matter is concerned and I am not the man to break such an agreement. I think the hon. member confined himself more to technical advisers who have to assist the farming members on the Wheat Board. I understood his intention to be that the Government should appoint such technical advisers, one for the North and one for the South. Well, I want to tell him at once that I am not going to advise the Government to appoint such technical advisers. If the Co-operative Societies want to appoint such technical advisers, and if they want to pay them, it may perhaps be a good thing. So far as attending the meetings of the Wheat Board is concerned I can say that I have asked the Wheat Board for its opinion but I have had no reply yet. I want the House to bear this in mind, however, that if he allows the wheat farmer to do so, we have to give the other interests similar rights, and as we already have a fairly large Board it will mean that we shall get such a large and unwieldly Board, if we allow technical advisers on it as well, that it will be difficult to get any good work done. I am, however, awaiting the reply of the Wheat Board. The hon. member also asked me whether any request had been received from the British Government asking us to send 2,000,000 bags of mealies to India I know of no such request. No such request has come to my Department, and if it should come to my Department, I shall this year at any rate not be able to pay much attention to it.

You should not pay any attention to it at all; you cannot give anything away.

I would say we can give less than nothing, if that were possible. The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) and the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) raised the question of bone meal. I have not got the time to repeat what I said on a previous occasion. I merely want to point out that the local manufacture before the war amounted to about 15,000 tons per year. A similar quantity was imported. The importation has now been stopped.

Why?

Because there is no shipping space available. By using special means we manufactured 22,000 tons in this country in 1942. I have every hope that in 1943 that quantity will be considerably increased. I want to say again that the use of bone meal as a fertiliser has been totally prohibited. Nobody is allowed to use bone meal as a fertiliser. It has further been laid down that the gallamsiekte areas will get bone meal before anybody else. Those areas where the disease is serious will get the bone meal before anybody else gets it. Then the areas where the disease is less serious will be considered. The first mentioned areas have already received their permits. The second areas have also received their permits, and then in the third place we get cases such as those at Lydenburg and other districts which are more or less on the Border, and there every case is dealt with on its own merits. Only after permits have been issued for those three types of cases, and after provision has been made for those areas, will other people in the country get bone meal. I have asked the hon. member to give me the names of people who are not living in gallamsiekte areas and who have obtained bone meal because I am very anxious to control it. If the officials are responsible for their having obtained such bone meal I shall take the matter up with them. I should also like to get the names of those people who have been unable to obtain bone meal. I can only say that those are the steps we have taken and that is all we have been able to do in the circumstances. I have a note here, the contents of which I am able to communicate to the House. During the first quarter permits were issued to 19 dealers in Kuruman for 144 tons of bone meal; in Vryburg permits were issued to 72 dealers for 397 tons, and in Postmasburg to seven dealers for 7 tons. I assume that those permits were urgently required and that the bone meal was supplied. I can tell hon. members that those are my instructions to the dealers, and if the officials fail to carry out that scheme I shall call them to account, and if the dealers fail to do it I shall want to know the reason why.

Of course, they keep it for the black market.

Yes, I know that is alleged somethimes. If I were to prosecute everybody doing a bit of business on the black market, for instance with oats and such things, hon. members would turn round and say that I had better leave those people alone. The hon. member for Kuruman also talked about vaccines. We have not got the ingredients at the moment for this particular vaccine against gallamsiekte, but we are doing our best.

Is it impossible to obtain the ingredients?

It is practically impossible. Onderstepoort assures me, however, that they hope later on to be in a position to proceed with the matter.

†Now the hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys) and the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) have asked for information about the Vermeerbossie experimental station at Koopmansfontein. The spread of Vermeerbossie is the direct result of trampling and overgrazing of the veld and the work is necessarily in the first instance directed to reclamation of the veld. Plans have been fully worked out for comprehensive experiments with cattle as well as with sheep. Other experiments include mechanical eradication, tests with or without reseeding by means of grass, also tests with drought resisting plants. The ultimate object at that station is to develop a farming system which will keep the veld in vigorous condition to prevent the spread of Vermeerbossie. Development has been considerably retarded on account of the shortage of staff and the difficulty of getting the necessary material. The fencing and building programme is far from complete and far from what we would like it to be. Good progress has been made with the fencing of experimental plots, which is most necessary at present. We found a good house and out-buildings on the farm, there was a cattle dip already. We had to put down a weigh-bridge and hope very soon to build a sheep dip, and proceed with further buildings. One technical officer supervises the work at the station and he collaborates with various other officers of the Department. It is said that lime water is a useful antidote, but really as far as my department has gone, the only permanent remedy is proper veld management and the experiments have not yet reached nearly the stage for us to be able to come to any definite conclusion. Both members have also asked me about a botanical survey of that area. I can only say that in view of the shortage of staff it cannot be undertaken at present. It is hoped as soon as the staff position improves, to consider the matter further. The hon. member for Kimberley, City, has also asked about the nodular worm remedy. Owing to the lack of material required for making this remedy Onderstepoort has temporarily had to stop making it. It has also not been able to supply all the orders for the remedy. They tell me that the discontinuance is only temporary and that they will continue manufacturing this remedy very soon — if indeed they have not started already. The demand, of course, has increased enormously. In the year ending June, 1941, more than 20,000,000 doses were issued, and in the same period for 1942, over 22,000,000 doses were issued to farmers. We are alive to the very great importance of this matter and I can assure the Committee that everything possible will be done to assist with this remedy. The hon. member for East London, North (Mr. Christopher) has spoken about the protection of our water sources. I shall deal with this matter when I reply on the Forestry Vote. He has also pleaded for an experimental fruit station between the Kowie and the Kei Rivers. Well, I think the hon. member will appreciate that I am not very keen to increase fruit production today, with all the criticism we hear, but at any rate it is quite impossible for me to hold out any hope that this will be done very soon.

†*I have listened to the interesting speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet); I am also interested in his suggestion that we should help the farmers by subsidising lucerne seed if they are prepared to sow lucerne in order to improve their wheat lands in that way. I am very interested in that and I have already given instructions for the lucerne seed position to be enquired into, and if we have sufficient and healthy seed I am prepared to discuss with my colleagues the possibility of paying a subsidy in such areas where the Department agrees that it is possible to grow lucerne successfully and where proper control and supervision can be exercised, so that we can be assured that the seed is used with the object of improving the soil. I am willing to discuss the matter from that point of view with my colleagues and to put forward a fairly strong case in favour of this being done.

Will you also do so in regard to kaffir beans for our mealie lands?

I shall consider it. Hon. members laughed at me when I told them that they should sow soya beans. I still think that if we can sow soya beans on our lands it will greatly improve our soil.

I spoke of kaffir beans.

I don’t care whether it is soya beans or kaffir beans—I mean that type of bean. If the mealie farmers do this it will prevent their getting into the same position as the wheat farmers have got into.

In America they are eating soya beans today in place of meat.

The hon. member for Caledon also put a question in regard to binder twine. Last year we took special pains to try and manufacture it and we were able to assist the farmers with binder twine. We imported it until January, and I have every hope that we shall be able to meet the farmers satisfactorily in the ensuing year. The hon. member also referred to the question of a balanced diet for cattle. I am just as much interested in that as he is. He will notice that with the aid of the Industrial Development Corporation a factory has been established which is going to tackle this matter seriously. I am sure he also knows that a number of firms have given a considerable amount of attention to proper mixtures. So far as the Department is concerned we shall see to it that the price is right, and that the ingredients are what they should be, so that the farmer may know what he is getting in the mixture.

But has not the manufacture now been stopped?

It is perhaps not being manufactured today to the same extent as it used to be manufactured. I think the hon. member is mistaken when he says that it is no longer being manufactured. The trouble is that some of those factories have mealies which they had stored for the mixtures, and I am on the look out to see whether they are not putting in too many mealies. But as soon as the raw materials are available there will be no shortage of properly balanced foodstufs. We shall again be manufacturing the mixtures, and the Department will exercise supervision in the way I have indicated. The Department, with the support of the Industrial Development Corporation, is appointing special officials who have had the necessary training and who will give attention to this matter so that the necessary advice may be given.

†The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) has referred to a statement made by a witness before the National Health Services Commission, which has enjoyed perhaps undue publicity. I don’t want to comment on that statement now. I do not believe in attacking people who cannot defend themselves in this House, but I would merely refer the hon. member to the Committee which has been appointed on my suggestion consisting of officials of the Health Department, the Social Welfare Department, and the Agricultural Department. They have been asked to report as soon as possible and I hope we shall then be in a position to do something to assist in this very important and difficult matter. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has taken me to task for not implementing my alledged promise in regard to the licensing of factories to manufacture edible margarine. There must be some mistake. I cetrainly did not give an unqualified promise that I would agree to a licence being granted to such a factory. What I said, or what I intended to convey, was that if there was a butter shortage, and a very definite butter shortage, I would be prepared to consider granting such a licence, even if I had to override to a large extent the advice of the Dairy Control Board. That is the condition which I made. So far that position has not arisen and I have every hope that it will not arise before the end of the war. I do want to tell the hon. member that she rather under-estimates the cost of manufacturing this product, and also that we have not got the materials available—at any rate they are not plentiful in this country. My information is that if margarine is to be manufactured other products that are very necessary will have to go short. That is my information. However, I am telling the hon. member what I honestly intend to convey and what I believe to be the extent of my promise. I don’t think at present that there is any urgency to open a factory such as she asks for. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) has asked me to make a statement on the position of arsenite of soda and also on the shortage of nicotine extract to combat the blue tick. The scarcity of arsenite of soda is due to the fact that we have inadequate supplies of arsenic in the country. The Department has already made all the supplies it could spare, available to these manufacturers. African Explosives have started a factory to manufacture arsenic in Rhodesia and they tell me that their supplies are increasing and they hope to be in a position to increase fairly substantially the supplies of arsenite of soda. I am now discussing the matter with them and I hope that we shall get fairly large quantities and also pretty efficient distribution. The position of the supply of scrap tobacco to extract nicotine for mixing with arsenite of soda for dipping purposes is unsatisfactory. Owing to the scarcity of dark pipe tobacco, and he knows perhaps also to the taking ways of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, pipe tobacco is very scarce, and expensive, and people are now smoking a good deal more of this scrap tobacco than before. So the scrap tobacco is very scarce. My department has suggested and is experimenting with tobacco siftings. Although the nicotine content is low — and our scrap tobacco only gives a small percentage of nicotine — the content of siftings is still lower. Onderstepoort still thinks it can be usefully employed, and as soon as they get further with their experiments they will issue a statement.

†*The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) spoke about the necessity of the eradication of noxious weeds. I am only too conscious of that necessity and I can say that we have made considerable progress, especially where the Government has done the work with labour gangs, which it has hired. I am sure that the farmers also are taking more and more pains in regard to this matter. Anyhow we realise the danger of noxious weeds in this country. While the war is on it will be difficult to prosecute the farmers if they fail to eradicate the noxious weeds. The farmer is often away from his farm and one has to take all circumstances into account, but after the war we shall take steps in order to induce unwilling farmers to do their duty. If a farmer cannot eradicate the weeds the Government will undertake to assist him. I am looking forward to seeing the bush which the hon. member has promised to bring me. The hon. member also emphasised the importance of combating soil erosion. I feel that the hon. member is somewhat pessimistically inclined; judging by what we have heard from him and also from other hon. members one would imagine that nothing is being done to combat soil erosion in this country.

Well, actually nothing is being done.

No, the hon. member is mistaken. Let me tell him what is being done. I want to tell this Committee that until the 31st December of last year the Government had spent £2,000,000 directly on the combating of soil erosion. I am not speaking now of loans given to farmers, but I am speaking of money directly spent by the Government. The hon. member, of course, knows that last year £40,000 was placed on the Loan Estimates and that this year there is £50,000 on the Loan Estimates for the combating of soil erosion under Scheme “A.”

But that’s absolutely nothing for this country.

It is very definitely enough for the applications that are received. No more applications were received last year.

How did it compare with the money that was spent in previous years for that purpose?

It is small, of course, as compared with other years; in those years we had three schemes. The work that has been started, however, is being completed, and the applications which have come in have been paid out. The amount is less but I do not expect that we are going to receive more applications than will be covered by the £50,000 on the Estimates.

But we cannot make application under “C.”

No, our policy is now to restrict the applications to an amended “A” scheme.

But that is what I am complaining of.

The hon. member and myself will discuss that after the war is over. It seems to me that some hon. members doubt whether the Government is in earnest in regard to this matter. If that is so I would invite them, and I am inviting them in all seriousness, to go and have a look at the work being done at Vlekpoort. I can assure them that it will be worth their while to go and see what we are doing there. Not only has the Government done practical work there, not only has the Government tackled practical work to combat soil erosion, but research work has also been done which has given us a great deal of information.

It should have been done a long time ago.

I quite agree that we should have started twenty years ago, but what interests me more is to see the way the farmers are tackling this matter. As hon. members know, we have 80,000 morgen of land there and in those areas where the soil erosion is worst we have started combating it, and farmers in the same catchment area are only too anxious to do their share. They are given specifications, plans are worked out, and they are given plants, and when the work is completed according to the specifications they get a subsidy of 50 per cent. The farmers there are highly satisfied and I think it is an encouraging sign that they are tackling the matter with so much enthusiasm.

†The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) has again pointed out the critical position in regard to maize. I am only too keenly aware of it, but even with the position as it is today I am still confident that there will be no starvation.

There is starvation now.

If the hon. member will tell me where I shall try and send extra maize there.

Send it to Kuruman — send it everywhere.

Yes, I know, I can get a hundred cases where it is scarce and I can get even more cases where they would like to have more.

There are places where they have nothing.

Well, we have little more than nothing but I have every expectation that during the next three weeks we shall get in enough to supply urgent demands, but I must tell hon. members that the supply is extremely short.

And the price is still shorter.

And one cannot do more than give a man five bags or something like that, even though he wants a lot more — but that is better than giving him nothing at all. I am taking extreme cases. The hon. member also mentioned the matter of subsidising natives. To be honest I think there is a good case for that. There is a great principle involved — and it would be very difficult to organise, but I certainly think it merits some enquiry. I think the hon. member knows that we are now taking steps to form a separate organisation for the Transkei, and I think also for the Ciskei.

No, not the Ciskei.

Well, I suggest that they should also ask us to take the Ciskei in hand to help in the matter—this would certainly help and make this question of subsidisation easier if such a scheme were agreed to. Now, the hon. member has asked me about the reserve that has been built up by the Maize Board. I can only tell him that it is not a large sum. It is not anything like what the Wheat Board has. But I shall give him the figure before the debate is finished. He has also asked about the relaxation of East Coast Fever regulations. The hon. member knows what a shock we got last year when this disease broke out in Peddie, and when it threatened to be pretty serious in the Eastern Province. I have every sympathy with the Transkei and I have asked my officers to go into the matter again. It is a dangerous disease, and to relax the regulations may lead to very serious consequences. Anyhow, I have asked my officers to go into the whole position and see what can be done. Hon. members will be glad that I have almost finished. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) has mentioned the outbreak of East Coast Fever at Middelrest, and in connection therewith asked that the appointment of inspectors and assistant inspectors in Natal should be left in the hands of the Senior Veterinary Officer for Natal. I think the hon. member will realise that it is rather difficult to leave such a matter entirely in the hands of the Senior Veterinary Officer of a Province. You have to co-ordinate your service. There are questions of transferring people from one Province and from one district to another, but I can assure him that we are giving all our chief veterinary officers more discretion and every possible step is being taken to expedite the appointment of officers.

I want to avail myself of the opportunity to tell the Minister that if he thinks the mealie farmers are satisfied with 16s. he is making a big mistake. The Minister says that the price will be 16s. in the bag, that is to say for grades 2, 4 and 6—the three best grades. If we think of the prices which meat farmers and poultry farmers get for their products, we realise that the price of 16s. is quite inadequate so far as the mealie farmers are concerned. The poultry farmers have been struggling hard of recent months to get hold of mealie products. They pay £2 per bag for kaffircorn. That proves how badly they need it. The same thing applies to the poultry farmers and the meat farmers. If they can get mealies at £1 per bag, they will be prepared to pay it. That is a lesson we have learned in the last six months. The last war also taught us that everyone was entitled to fair and just treatment. During the last war exorbitant prices were paid for bags and implements, exactly as we have to do today, but the mealie farmers got £1 10s. per bag for their mealies, and that is how things went almost throughout the Union except when the Prime Minister restricted export permits, with the result that the mealie farmers lost about £6,000,000. If we think of the prices which the meat and poultry farmers are prepared to pay for mealies, then I say that the mealie farmers in the past two years have probably again lost £6,000,000. The estimate now is that 22,000,000 bags of mealies will be produced. Let me tell the Minister, however, that I was in the Transvaal recently. We have had magnificent rains there. The young mealies are holding their own but unless they have good rains, there is going to be a failure. They are having a drought again in the Transvaal now, and the only mealies on the lands today are those which were planted early, in October. If they don’t get rain the crop will be very much below 22,000,000 bags, and what will the Minister do then?

Wait and see.

It is no use the Minister telling us to wait and see. Then it will be too late. We noticed that the poultry farmers were prepared to pay £2 for a bag of kaffir corn and they will be quite willing to pay £1 per bag for mealies, but the Minister stops them from doing so, with the result that the egg production has dropped tremendously. There is only one thing for the mealie farmer to do and that is to start poultry farming themselves so that they can put their product into their own fowls. Eggs today are 3s. and 3s. 6d. per dozen, and if one notices the high prices which the poultry farmers are getting, then the price of 16s. for mealies is not at all satisfactory. The Minister, of course, realises that there is an election pending, and the mealie farmers also realise that eggs will be required for the election, but I can assure the Minister that the poultry farmers will not only see to it that there are eggs, but they will also start hatching.

Is that a threat or a promise?

It is a promise, and I hope that the Minister will come and address meetings on the platteland because the mealie farmers will see to it that they have eggs and they will also start hatching trouble, so that in any case they will have highly flavoured eggs. I hope the Minister will come and address some meetings in the mealie districts.

I want to deal today with one or two matters which fall under the Minister as Food Controller. I listened with interest to the remarks which the hon. Minister made in reply to the hon. member for Transkei Mr. Hemming) on the possibility of some form of subsidisation in regard to mealie meal. Now, I want to deal with the question of food from the national aspect and the effect which the cost of foodstuffs is having on the people of this country. Let me say first of all that one must realise that an abnormal position has arisen not only in South Africa but all over the world. The need for increased food supplies owing to the increased demand for the army and the increased spending power of the people has gone up out of all proportion, and it has been necessary in many countries to increase production by every known method. Let me say that if you require the farmers of your country to produce extra foodstuffs then naturally they must be protected from the point of view of the prices which they get and they must be able to find markets for their production. I do not think there is any question about that—no one desires to see the farmers produce food which they cannot sell. And therefore I am not going to deal this morning with the position particularly from the point of view of the price which the Minister has fixed for wheat, maize and for other products. I am not going into the question of whether the price is too high or too low—I am accepting the proposition put forward by the Minister that it is necessary to pay these prices to get extra production, and that we have to face up to the position.

Are you satisfied with the price of brewers’ barley?

I am not very much concerned with that particular item. But what I want to say first is this, when the farmers have got protection for their prices, then equally we have to see to it that the consumer is also protected. That is one of the most difficult problems we have to face. Now I want to tell the House that in South Africa the food index has risen higher over the pre-war period than it has done in any other Dominion or country in the world, with one exception, namely Canada; in Australia, taking the rise in 1942 as compared with 1937 the increase has been 22.10 per cent. In Canada 28.3 per cent. In New Zealand only 6.7 per cent. and in South Africa, according to the latest figures 28.2 per cent.— just below Canada.

Is that the figure now—compared with when?

Yes, that is the figure now, but the corresponding figure was 24.3 per cent. Southern Rhodesia is 14.7 per cent. and Great Britain 19 per cent. Now, everyone of these countries has managed to keep down the increase in the food prices. What is to my mind the most serious aspect in South Africa is this, that the food index figure has risen very much higher than the general index figure for food, fuel, light and sundries, and it shows that with regard to sundries, which includes clothing, there has been such control as has definitely kept down the increase in the cost of these commodities. Take clothing—if you consider the increased cost of production overseas, increased insurance rates, which have gone up from 3s. 6d. or 5s. per 100 pounds, to anything in the neighbourhood from £12 10s. to £20, and if you consider that freights have doubled and trebled themselves, you have the position that the increase in price of these other commodities is nothing to the same extent as it is in regard to food. That I submit is very serious.

What is the figure and what is the ratio?

All these are weighted averages taken on the pre-war basis. Now, if we take those figures, they do show to my mind a very serious state of affairs and the difficulty which we are faced here with is how to cope with this constant rise in the cost of living, particularly in the cost of foodstuffs, with the necessity of having to pay increased prices for the primary food products of the country. I gave figures a short while ago in regard to the increased cost of living. Now, while the increase in the cost of food is in the ratio of 28 per cent. the increase in the meat figure is about 57 per cent. over 1937. The figures are not altogether comparable but still there is a very large increase. And you have the same position arising in regard to certain other basic foodstuffs. Now the problem is what steps should have been taken definitely to reduce these costs of food. You have the position that your producer has to get a certain figure whether it is 36s. a bag for his wheat or 16s. a bag for his maize. The Government has now stabilised the price of bread, and I want to put it to the Government that the position has now got to the point where particularly in the case of the poorer section of the community drastic steps will have to be taken to bring down their costs. To my mind there is only one way of doing it. Your poor consumer can no longer afford to pay, and those prices will have to be brought down. What has happened in Great Britain? In Great Britain, in order to keep down the cost of food, the British Government has subsidised the basic foods and bridged the gap between the prices the consumer has to pay and the price which the producer should be paid. We have got to consider some means of subsidising for the poorer Europeans and the native people. I want to go further and say that with regard to mealie meal, considering its use by the poorer section of the people, there should be subsidisation, and any form of subsidisation should include every section of the people, and the subsidy will have to be fixed at such a rate that it will bring down the price to the consumer, considerably.

Before I proceed to deal with other matters I wish to deal with the Minister’s remarks about the price of wool. We have been asking for the last eighteen months for information from the Minister as to the average price which under the agreement with Great Britain has been paid for our wool. For 18 months the Minister has kept perfectly quiet and has not given us any figures. Why does he not want to give us figures? This morning he comes along with a brand new argument, and that is that it is a private transaction and that the people on the one side do not want the price to be disclosed. The Minister will pardon me if I say that I have never heard a more ridiculous argument. Here we have an agreement between two countries in regard to the fixing of a price. Our price was to be similar to that paid in Australia and Australia at the time was getting an average price of 10.75d. per lb. Now the Minister comes here and tells us that it is a private transaction, and that England does not want the average price to be made known.

It is a matter for the buyers. Without their consent I cannot state what the price is.

How can the Minister come here and tell us that the buyers do not want the price to be known? What is the average price? Is it a secret?

It is their secret.

How can it be a secret if an agreement has been entered into on the basis of 10.75d. per lb.? Read your own contract. The Minister will notice, if he does so, that the agreement provides that we are to be on the same basis as Australia, and Australia is on the basis of 10.75d. per lb. I can quite understand, however, that the Minister does not want to let it be known, because we have not got the average price of 10.75d. Now let me ask the Minister this: He says that Britain does not want it to be known what the average price is at which they have been buying. Does the Minister know what the price is?

Yes.

That being so, does not the Minister represent the wool farmers?

Listen to that. The Minister is the man who is supposed to guide the wool farmers yet he refuses to announce how much has been paid for the wool.

It is not my secret—it is their secret.

Why should it be a secret? The Minister knows the secret, but the wool farmers are not allowed to know it. I only want to tell the Minister that that is not going to be the end of the business. The wool farmers will now want to know what the price is which the Minister knows. I want to know whether the farmers are losing £1,000,000 because we have not been paid the average price of 10.75d. per lb. Assuming the average price was 10d. and not 10.75d. what is the position then in regard to the increase of 20 per cent. in the price? Is it 20 per cent. on the 10d. or on the 10.75d.? I should like the Minister to give us that information. I hope we shall not have to wait for it any longer. Now I want to say a few words about the meat position and I hope the Minister will take us into his confidence and make a statement on the whole situation. Last year the Minister proceeded to fix the prices of meat for the retail butcher. Many farmers on the platteland are under the impression that the price has been fixed for the product of the farmer. That is not the position; the price has only been fixed in respect of the retailer.

And the wholesaler.

The farmer’s price, however, has not been fixed. Now I want to ask the Minister first of all why he took that step? I assume he will say that he did so to stabilise the market. If he says that then I want to ask him at once whether it has stabilised the market. It has not. I can tell the Minister that with the so-called fixed prices the Johannesburg market two weeks ago dropped below the fixed price, but last December when the fixed price for prime was 60/-, the price went up to 78/-. There is no stabilisation whatsoever. Now, I want to ask the Minister whether he intervened in the interest of the consumer, and I also want to ask him whether the consumer is paying any less for his meat than he did before, and I therefore repeat my accusation, which I made on a previous occasion, that the Minister’s scheme was a half baked one. Now I come to the grading system. The Minister’s scheme may have been well intentioned but it failed. I should like the Minister to come with me to the Johannesburg market or to the Cape Town market to see how meat is graded there. According to the Minister’s officials the meat is graded according to condition and build. The Minister lets the grading take place on the export system. Why in heaven’s name? Conditions in South Africa are not such that one can grade meat on the export basis. The Minister is stirring up the farmers against the grading system. Let him come with me to the Maitland Market, and let the Minister tell me whether he thinks an animal is first, second or third grade. He cannot do it. I myself have asked why a Persian lamb was graded as second grade. They say it is too fat. Then one goes a little further along and one notices a nice fat lamb or sheep and one asks why it is second grade and not first grade, and the reply is that the build is wrong. How can anyone in South Africa, where one has to cope with difficulties on account of seasons and droughts, and where, as a result, there is a shortage of slaughter sheep, look at such things if one wants to supply the people with meat? The Minister has fixed the price for the retail trader and also for the wholesaler. It has been worked out what the price of mutton shall be per lb. and what the price of beef is to be per 100 lbs. Let me take the Johannesburg market again. The price of beef is fixed at 60/- per 100 lbs. Last November and December it was 78/-. The butchers should all have gone bankrupt under those conditions, yet how is it that they came out on the right side. There is a mistake somewhere. If the price in the retail trade is calculated on the basis of 60/- per 100 lbs. and the wholesale price goes up to 78/- and it remains there for three months, then every butcher should have gone bankrupt. That is the secret. Somebody says it is the black market. There must be something wrong. Or there must be a discrepancy somewhere enabling people to evade the regulations wherever they please. If the Minister looks at the grading system he will notice that the grade is marked along the sheep’s back. I don’t want to make any insinuations, I only want to say that the housewife who buys what is alleged to be lamb or mutton in Cape Town—where we have the three grades, first, second and third—and who has ordered first grade meat does not know what grade she is getting. She may be under the impression that she is always getting first grade while in actual fact she is getting second or third grade. I am particularly thinking now of the North West where they breed many Afrikaner sheep. It is a practical impossibility to get an Afrikaner sheep into the first grade. They say its build is wrong. Its shoulders press upwards because it has to do a lot of walking. It is impossible to get ewes into class one, and it is even difficult to get them into grade two. They have instituted a kind of special grade for Afrikaner sheep. Today it is almost impossible to get ewes into grade two. Generally they are put into grade three. [Time limit.]

The Minister has, and I think very rightly, seen fit to increase the price of wheat, to increase the price of maize, but I do want to suggest to him that this is going to have very serious repercussions on other products. The fertiliser question, although we have never had a statement from the Controller of Fertilisers, is very serious indeed. From the amounts which are being allocated to farmers who are growing fodder crops, it is quite evident that there is a shortage of supplies, and it is also evident that the majority of supplies or the bigger percentage of allocations are going to wheat growers. One cannot criticise that, but I do want to impress upon the Minister the repercussions that this is having on other branches of production. Take dairy products particularly. The dairy prices were fixed last October. The prices of dairy products were fixed 12 months in advance. The farmer was informed what he was going to get in the summer months, and although it was never made public, it was common knowledge that the coming winter prices were also fixed. A great deal of water has run under the bridge since October last. The costs of production are going sky high. You cannot produce the dairy products which this country requires at the prices at which they are being sold today, and starve the land of fertilisers. If the farmer has to produce what is required, and if he cannot get fertiliser in the normal quantities, then he must have a higher price for the article, in some shape or form, if the production is going to be kept up. You get the same reaction in the price of mealies. You cannot produce dairy products unless you have fodder or a good supply of grain at reason- at 15s. in the hope of the price coming able points. We have carried on this summer down and our being able to get cheaper grain for the forthcoming season. We do not suggest that the maize producer should get less because his costs have gone up just the same as our costs, but I do want the Minister to consider the way this has affected the cost of production on dairy products. I do want the Minister to make a statement in this connection. I cannot expect him to make the statement today that he is going to raise the prices, but I would suggest that he refer this matter to the Dairy Control Board and tell them that these costs have gone up very considerably, and suggest that sympathetic consideration might be given to increasing the price of the raw product. It is deserved; it is well deserved, and I think it would not be overdue if prices were put up, and I suggest this to the hon. Minister. Take one article; take condensed milk. The price of condensed milk has increased by only 2s. a case over the pre-war price, and that applies in certain areas only. I think it was on the coastal belt that the price has been put up by 2s. a case. In Johannesburg they are still getting that article at pre-war prices. Is that quite fair in view of the increase in the cost of production?

It is not fair.

Of course it is not fair, and I know that the Minister will sympathise with it, and for that reason I do press strongly the suggestion that some sympathetic consideration be given to dairy farmers, as he has given to wheat and maize farmers. The dairy farmers have been rather the step-children of the Government up to the present. I want to add this to what the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) has said: There has got to be a scientific approach to this whole problem. The basic principle must be that the cost of production is covered, that you cannot ask the farmer to produce at a loss, but at the same time you cannot saddle the consumer with a price that is too high. In Great Britain, in order to keep the price of food down to the consumer and to make it possible to produce two-thirds of their food, the Imperial Government is paying out by way of subsidy £130,000,000 annually. I shall be told, no doubt, that conditions are quite different in Great Britain, but after all the position of a hungry man is the same all the world over. If that man has not got the money to buy his food, then the producer of that article must be rewarded for his costs even by methods, if necessary, which one does not approve of, but in some way or other without imposing a burden on the consumer. I would again ask the Minister sympathetically to consider the question of raising the price of dairy products for the next twelve months, because that is going to be necessary if the production is to be kept up, which I think is necessary.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture complained this morning that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) had made an unfair attack on him. I just want to say this, that there is no greater justification for that attack on the Minister than the reply which he himself gave here this morning. Questions were put to him in connection with the mealie position in the country, and his reply was that at the present time the mealie position was very bad. He states that there is no starvation, but he was fully aware of the fact that at certain places there is practically starvation, that these people are faced with starvation. When we asked how many mealies there were for consumption by these people, the Minister’s reply was “slightly more than nothing”. For many years we on this side have said that in the interests of South Africa which is subject to periodic droughts and times of plenty, the Minister should make provision during the years of plenty for the lean years which follow. The Minister knows that year after year we on this side advocated—and I specifically asked him to follow a Joseph’s policy by making provision during the years of plenty for the lean years which may lie ahead. If we had carried out that plan, we would not have had the position which we have in the country today. What is the position which we find in the country today? We find that in various parts of the country where mealies are indispensable for human consumption, the people are unable to obtain mealies. I accept the Minister’s statement that, if he gets that application for 2,000,000 bags, he will not think of exporting our mealies. But that is not sufficient. It is imperative that the Minister should give his attention to the position as it has been revealed in the country. I want to mention a few cases. In a certain town in the Free State a certain trader, according to my information, obtained an average of 150 bags of mealies per month for his clients, at a time when mealies were plentiful. These 150 bags were brought down to 30 bags last year, and now it has been brought down to 12 bags. Another trader next to him who was relatively in the same position, is now getting six bags. This dealer has dozens of clients. A single farmer in that neighbourhood requires six bags per month. He cannot get them. According to the fixed scale he can now get four bags, and if he now gets four bags from the dealer, what then becomes of the dozens of clients of this trader for whom there is practically nothing left? The Minister is aware of those conditions, and what are the consequences going to be? I say that the Minister must be aware of those conditions, because representations are repeatedly made to him by the Magistrates to the effect that there are numbers and numbers of people who must be fed and who are dependent on mealies, and that there are no mealies available to meet the needs of those people. In spite of that the Minister says that there is not really starvation. If a farmer requires four bags per month or if he requires more than four bags and he cannot obtain them, what is going to happen to his coloured labourers? If a farmer requires more than four bags he must obtain a permit. What is the position today in regard to the issue of permits? I want to mention one case in order to show what is going on. On the 1st January, 1943, a farmer applied for a permit. The farmers in those parts have to get their mealies from month to month, and on the 1st January he therefore applied for a permit. He did not get any reply to his application. On the 14th January he again raised the matter. A form was then sent to him which he had to complete and sign before a Commissioner of Oaths. He immediately did so and returned the form forthwith. He then waited for another two weeks. I may say in passing that he specially drove to town in order to despatch the application form immediately after he had received it. On the 26th January he sent a telegram, asking what had become of his application. On the 28th January he received a reply stating that permit number so and so had been issued in his favour for so many pounds of mealies. On the day the permit reached him, it was too late for him to obtain mealie meal for January and the result was that he had no mealie meal for his people. Has the Minister taken steps to ascertain what this means to a farmer? It simply means that the farmers lose their coloured labourers. In certain parts of the Free State the farmers have to buy their mealie meal from month to month. If the farmer has to tell his coloured labourers that he has no mealie meal for them, they will simply ask for their passes and leave. I have another case here from Koffiefontein which is equally urgent. This person tells me in his letter that the people can only place their orders by means of permits. But the staff of the control board struggles for a month before they can issue the permit, with the result that a month goes past and with it the opportunity to get the mealies. I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister in all seriousness. I want to ask him to make provision for more mealie meal to be made available because if he does not do so, I can only say that there will not only be starvation, but there will be chaos brought about by starvation. The Minister adopts the policy of “wait and see”. Whenever a problem presents itself, he first wants to wait and see what is going to happen, and it is this “wait and see” policy which we on this side find fault with and which the country finds fault with. We cannot carry out a policy of “wait and see” in connection with such matters. I now want to deal with another matter, and before I conclude I want to lodge a very serious complaint against the Minister of Agriculture. He definitely refused to tell us how much profit the British Government was making on the wool of our farmers which is sold to the British Government under the wool agreement, and he also refused to tell us what the price is which was paid. We cannot get any information from the Minister. He says it is a secret. It is a secret which the Minister knows, but a secret which the wool producers do not know. Now I should like to ask the Minister who he represents in this House. Does he represent the interests of the wool farmers; or is he representing the British Government, keeping the secrets of the British Government so that the wool farmers in his own fatherland will hear nothing about it? If he represents the wool farmers, he should divulge this so-called secret to them. It is no secret to the wool farmer what it cost him to produce the wool. Nor is it any secret to him what he wants for that wool, and it is no secret what he would have got for it if the Minister had treated him differently. He saw during the last war what he could get for his wool. It was no secret as far as he was concerned. But now that a foreign country is making a profit on the wool, that profit remains a secret between our Minister of Agriculture and the British Government. Wo know that the same thing took place in the previous war; then too, there was a wool scandal secret. Eventually that secret leaked out, and I want to tell the Minister today that that secret between him and the British Government will also see the light of day at some future date, and when that happens, the wool farmers of South Africa will settle with him, because he did not represent the interests of the South African wool farmers in those days, but secretly played alone with the British government. Then I want to discuss a further question. The Minister must tell us what his policy is in connection with the fresh milk production in our country. The hon. member who spoke just now told the Minister what the position of dairy farmers was. The price of the fodder which they require is so high that they cannot continue at the prices which they get for their products. The position of the fresh milk producer is that there are continual fluctuations in the price. Today the price is low and tomorrow it is high. There are continual fluctuations, and it is those fluctuations which bring about the difficulty. Representations have already been made to the Minister by the Association of Fresh Milk Producers. The position at the moment is that at times the production of milk is high, and then again there are shortages, and this causes fluctuations in the price. The position is uncertain as far as the producer is concerned and also as far as the consumer is concerned, and I think that both sections plead for stable prices. We do not want the consumer to pay more than he can afford to pay. But the dairy farmer must be able to make some sort of estimate and be able to say that he has invested so much capital in his milk production and that he can expect to get so much. My plea is that the Minister should endeavour to bring about stability in the industry, so that this branch of farming can be placed on a stable basis. Strong representations have been made to the Minister. I have a letter before me which came from the Association of Fresh Milk Producers. This letter states that on the 31st December, 1943, direct representations were made to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in connection with a fresh milk scheme. The Minister replied to that that he had noted the contents and that the matter was receiving consideration. I should like to know from the Minister what he has decided in that connection. [Time limit.]

If it had also been the practice to increase a Minister’s salary on the strength of the manifold activities he has to cope with, I would have said this morning that the present Minister of Agriculture is certainly one of the deserving cases, that he merits such an increase, because we know that the present Minister assumed this very important portfolio under more difficult circumstances than any previous Minister of Agriculture. The criticism which was levelled against the Minister by a section of the Press, as well as in this Committee, proves that the Minister did not simply let matters take care of themselves. No, instead of letting matters take care of themselves, he and his Department have never shirked the most difficult of problems. We know that in the Department of Agriculture many of the staff enlisted. We know that the increased activities of the Department of Agriculture had to be coped with by a reduced personnel, and frequently by new hands, a fact which is so overlooked by the critics. But we know that in these unusual circumstances there were set-backs and disappointments for the Minister as well. We can fully understand that. But if we weigh the advantages which his policy has given us in the past, especially during the last three years, against the slight disappointment as well as the disadvantages which it entailed for the country, we will find, if we weigh that against the advantages, that the disadvantages are insignificant in comparison with the advantages which the country as a whole and in general derived from the Minister’s policy. Let me mention but one example. Was it not the direct outcome of the activities of the Minister and his Department in connection with food production that our country, in these difficult years, suffering from a great shortage of labour and a shortage of many other agriculture requirements, produced sufficient food, not only for our own people, but also for a suddenly increased population. The fact remains that as far as the most important foodstuffs are concerned, practically in every sphere—there was a shortage of mealies owing to circumstances over which man had no control—but in connection with all the important foodstuffs, the production in our country was often sufficient amply to meet the needs. And what we must not lose sight of is the fact that even in those circumstances the consumer has never paid more than a reasonable price for the staple products. In fact, they could obtain it at a reasonable price. We know that there were great fluctuations in vegetable prices. At times the prices were fairly low, and at times they were fairly high. It is a question of demand and supply, because vegetables represent a highly perishable product. I want to say this today on behalf of the consumer, that in these difficult circumstances, even the producer received reasonable compensation for his labour, and that if we take the average prices, the producer has received reasonable compensation up to the present. We can say that the Minister of Agriculture has discharged his difficult task exceedingly well, and when I say that, I call to witness all the criticism which has been directed against the agricultural policy of the Government by a section of the Press as well as by hon. members on the other side. When we analyse that criticism we find that the greatest portion of it is based on the disappointment of a few. In connection with mealie prices, I, as a consumer of mealies, and as someone who represents a constituency which uses thousands of bags of mealies per year, want to assure our friends, the mealie farmers, that we as consumers are particularly pleased that the Minister of Agriculture was in a position to fix a price which will pay them, namely 16s. per bag. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will bear in mind, in fixing the increased mealie prices, that our dairy products and our dairy farmers are dependent to a great extent on mealie fodder; we can say that they depend principally on that, and I hope that in fixing the price of those products, the increased mealie prices will be taken into account. I expect that, and I think this is something to which the dairy farmers as well as the poultry farmers have every right. This increased mealie price will undoubtedly be felt very heavily by the lower paid labourer, the type of labourer who does not fall under the increased cost of living allowances, and I should like to have the assurance from the Minister—I am glad that he has already remarked on it—that he will give very serious consideration, as food controller, to the question of subsidising this type of lower-paid labourer, whose staple food is mealie meal. We are already applying that in connection with bread, and rightly so; and we are paying a fair amount in subsidies to enable people to obtain bread cheaply, but I hope that the Minister will apply the same principle in connection with consumers whose exclusive staple food is mealie meal. Then, in fixing the price of mealies, the Minister accepted and applied a principle which I hope will also be applied to the wheat industry. We know that last year, before the ploughing season, the Minister announced a minimum price of 12s. 6d. for mealies, in the event of there being a normal crop. The weather and climatic circumstances resulted in a crop which was below normal, with the result that the Minister took into review the minimum price which he had previously announced and granted an increased price, an increased price which was justified, in respect of the mealie industry. I shall be glad if the Minister will give us the assurance that, in the event of the wheat crop not reaching the average yield, the average yield on which the present price is based, he will also make concessions. [Time limit.]

In view of the statement which the Minister of Agriculture made this morning in connection with the bone-meal position, when he said that preference would be given to all splenic fever (gallamsiekte) districts, I want to ask the Minister to change that somewhat so that other sections too, will be able to obtain bone-meal retail if they require it. A farmer who has eighteen milk cows, writes to me to say that ten cows are suffering from splenic fever (styfsiekte). If one farms with milk cows in these parts, one must give bone-meal, not much, otherwise the cattle develop splenic fever (styfsiekte). But because it is not a splenic fever area, the farmer cannot obtain bone-meal. I think the Minister should make provision for that. Then there is another small matter. I have letters here from my co-operative society in which they ask me immediately to approach the Minister to make available trucks for the transport of artificial manure which was promised. I raised this matter the other day and then the Minister said that he had not received the letter which was sent to him. I wrote in the meantime and ascertained what the position was. The reason for the delay is that the matter was not brought to the personal notice of the Minister, because when the matter was brought to his notice he immediately complied with the request of the farmers. In the 24th of November, 1942, this letter was sent to the head of the division of chemistry in Pretoria. No reply was received until the 16th March, 1943. The matter was set out in detail in the letter, and it should have been brought to the notice of the Minister. In this letter the shortage of manure in certain parts of the Transvaal is explained. The Minister personally cannot be blamed if an organisation writes to him or rather to a certain department, and they do not bring the matter to his notice. The Minister realises that such important matters must be brought to his notice, and I want to ask the Minister to issue instructions that in future such matters of great importance will be brought to his personal notice. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that we obtain trucks for the conveyance of Karroo manure. Here I have a letter which was sent to the Food Controller, Union Buildings, Pretoria, on the 4th August, 1942, and we did not receive a reply to that letter. At that time already this matter was brought to his notice. According to the information which I have here, the provision of artificial manure was delayed to such an extent that it arrived too late for the mealie season; it only arrived in the middle of December. As a result of that the farmers suffered incalculable damage, and it definitely influenced the present crop. Of course the Minister cannot take steps when such matters are not brought to his notice. For that reason I want to ask him to issue instructions so that these matters will receive his personal attention. Then I want to touch briefly on another point, and that is that the Minister should take delivery of the mealies through the co-operative societies, so that he can exercise full control over the crop. The difficulty which arose last year was due to the fact that the mealies did not pass through the hands of the Minister. He first asked the co-operative societies whether they could take delivery of the mealies, and they prepared themselves to do so, but at a later date he unfortunately allowed speculators and millers to buy the mealies. The Minister said that he caused the mealies to be controlled by the Mealie Control Board. That is true, but that was only after the speculators had got hold of the mealies. Then the damage had already been done, and this has caused all the trouble as far as the Minister is concerned. For that reason I say that the Minister must not allow the mealies to be controlled by anyone else. One of the directors of the Bethal Co-operative Society said that lorries came round for the purpose of buying the mealies. That must be avoided. We also received letters to the effect that millers had offered 6d. more than the fixed price for mealies. There are powerful organisations who are intent on exploiting the position. I suggest that the Minister should ensure that he retains full control over the mealies, so that he can do with it as he pleases. Do not allow the millers and speculators to get hold of the mealies again, and the speculators to carry on to the detriment of the people. We hear that mealies are not available, but there are definitely mealies which were bought up, and the speculators are sitting with these mealies, waiting for an opportune moment to sell them. With regard to the extermination of harmful weeds, and the improvement with regard to soil erosion, the Minister knows that I have drawn attention every year to the combating of the “donkieklits”, which is causing tremendous damage in South Africa. What progress has the department made in connection with the extermination of that weed? Has anything been done yet? Last year I went so far as to exhibit a plant of this particular weed in the House. Is there any remedy which will kill this weed? I understand that this weed has now spread to the Western Transvaal. The Minister has a bigger task than any Minister in this House. The riches of our country are entrusted to his care, and the Minister must therefore ensure that those riches are guarded and retained. [Time limit.]

I want to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister a disability under which our farmers in Northern Natal are suffering at the moment. East Coast Fever has broken out there; dozens of farmers today have lost animals. Thousands of animals have died, and there are a tremendous number of animals on farms in the contact areas. The farmers are feeling that their livelihood may be taken away from them altogether. Many of them, who are today in good positions, fear that they may become poor whites. Unfortunately there is a feeling abroad that the farmers have lost confidence in the ability of the Veterinary Department to be able to stamp out East Coast Fever under present conditions. The farmers, especially in the northern districts of Natal, feel that they would like to have a public enquiry. They feel that they will be able to help the Veterinary Department in combating this disease. We are told that something like 200 head of cattle died at Babanango before we actually discovered that they had died of East Coast Fever. I understand that we were short of dipping inspectors at the time. A dipping inspector is paid a salary of something like £15 to £20 per month. That is not a clear salary to him either, because he has to pay his own travelling expenses out of that amount. The nett result is that we cannot expect to get the number of men that we need to do this job. The salary that is paid to them does not warrant the men looking for that sort of job. But the consequence of not having the necessary number of dip inspectors is very serious; farmers who themselves have regularly dipped their cattle… .

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

When business was suspended, I was saying that many farmers who religiously and regularly dip their cattle, now find that they are in quarantine owing to the fact that their neighbours have not carried out the dipping programme. Recently I spoke to a veterinary officer and he told me that if he were given the power he coud wipe out East Coast Fever altogether, but he said that in doing so he would ruin too many farmers. The maximum compensation that we pay the farmer now, if we slaughter his cattle, is £7 10s. per bull, £5 per cow, £4 per ox, £2 for two-year old cattle, £1 10s. for one-year old calves and £1 for smaller salves. Obviously a method of compulsory slaugthering would be far too expensive for our farmers. We cannot afford to ruin them. At the same time we dare not waste any food. The Minister is arranging for a voluntary scheme by providing a portable slaughtering house. I trust that the Minister will get on with that scheme as quickly as possible, because in thist way those farmers that agree to the voluntary slaughter of their cattle will at all events get a more reasonable compensation for the cattle they lose. The farmers have had meetings all over the Northern districts of Natal. There were almost unanimous in their request for a public enquiry. They want to help the Veterinary Department in order to solve this very difficult question. The farmers feel that during all these years more could have been done to stamp out the disease. They feel now that they are in a position to make recommendations to the Veterinary Department. They wish to work hand in hand with the Veterinary Department. Another irksome regulation is the permit system. The Veterinary Department has introduced this permit system in order to try and control the movement of stock. Unfortunately stock has been moved without permits. Some of these farmers have felt that they are in a desperate position, and therefore they have moved their stock. There are people who have moved their stock and endangered the stock of other farmers. I just want to plead with the Minister for sympathetic consideration, for giving help to our farmers, so that they, together with the Veterinary Department can work out a scheme to stamp out this pest of East Coast Fever. My last request to the hon. Minister is this: Will he please institute this public enquiry at the very earliest moment and thus satisfy the justifiable demands made by the farmers in the Northern Districts of Natal.

When the hon. Minister of Agriculture announced the wheat price here last Friday, he said very clearly that this wheat price was based on a production of six bags per morgen. I should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture what advice he can give in those cases where farmers sow wheat and they are unable to get a production of six bags per morgen. In my own constituency I took the trouble during the past season to go into the matter and I found that there were only three farmers who got six bags and a little more per morgen during the past year, and now we should very much like to have the hon. Minister’s advice. What advice can we now give to the farmers? What advice can we give to the farmers in that area where they do not get six bags per morgen? I took the trouble to work out that if one gets an average of five bags per morgen, one’s costs of production are not 34s. or 33s. 11d. at which the Minister fixed it, but then one’s costs of production amount to 40s. 9d.; that is to say, if you get only one bag less per morgen. I should like the Minister to work this out for himself. In any event, however, if it does not cost 40s. 9d., it certainly costs more than 34s. if the production is five bags instead of six. If six bags are not produced, then it is a fact that those farmers are farming at a loss, and we should like the Minister’s advice in this connection. Must we now tell those people that they must no longer sow wheat, or what advice can the Minister give us? Then I just want to say a word or two in regard to fruit farming, and in the first place I want to ask the Minister this: It is not quite clear to me yet whether the Deciduous Fruit Board exists in respect of fruit export farmers only, or whether it exists for the whole fruit industry. I hope that the Minister’s reply to this will be that it exists for the whole fruit industry; and when I refer to fruit farming, I regard myself as speaking for the whole industry, because it will be of no avail to talk only of export fruit; the one is linked up with the other, and if you deal with one you must also deal with the other; if you neglect the one you will also neglect the other. There is a growing feeling of dissatisfaction between the two sections. The remark which the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) made here the other day, and the question which he put, was a very pertinent question, namely that the farmers who did not export in the past, now feel that to some extent an injustice is being done to them. The Minister said this morning to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux): “Ask the fruit export farmers whether they are not satisfied”; and we want to testify to the fact here that as far as the fruit export farmers are concerned, we are certainly not getting as much as we got before the war, but in the circumstances the Government is meeting us in respect of that portion of the fruit which we exported in the past. But I am very sorry that I cannot agree with what the Minister said to the hon. member for Losberg, namely that the Government is not competing with the farmers who do not export. If I understood the Minister correctly, then I cannot agree with that statement. The fact is that the greatest portion of the fruit which was exported in the past is now also placed on the internal markets—nor can the position be otherwise—but then we must admit that there is competition on the part of export fruit with fruit which is otherwise marketed direct in the country. There is no doubt that generally speaking the prices which the fruit farmers are getting are too low. I just want to quote these figures which I got from the Deciduous Fruit Board. The average price in respect of these trays of grapes which are delivered to the Fruit Board and which contain 101 lbs., of grapes was 1s 1d. during the week ending 20th February. Plums, for example, were sold at an average of 1s. 3d. during that week, that is, for a single layer tray. The double layer tray was sold at 1s. 6d. Do you realise the remarkable state of affairs which exists on the market? The farmer only gets 3d. more for a tray containing twice as many plums as the single layer trays. That was also our experience in connection with pears. We received 2s. for a single layer tray of pears, and only 2s. 3d. for the double layer.

What is the cause of that?

I can only give one reply to the hon. member, and that is that the marketing system is at fault. It is clear that there must be a fault on the market, because the quantity in the tray is ignored, and it cannot possibly be a paying proposition as far as the producer is concerned. I say again that this fruit was delivered to the Fruit Board by the exporters; the producer himself does not suffer any loss, but it is surely an indication of the position on the market. May I just say this, that a tray of grapes fetched an average price of 1s. 1d. on the market, and the tray itself costs 1s. this year. That means that the farmer gets absolutely nothing for his grapes. But I now want to come to this advice which was given by the Marketing Commission which was appointed by the Government during the past year, and which brought out its report in which it recommended that there should be 100 per cent. auction. Although I am a strong supporter of the Fruit Board, I differ from the Board on this point, and also from the recommendation of the Commission. In Johannesburg we have a place in Diagonal Street where fruit is sold direct to the consumers, and I may say as someone who has experience in this connection—and hundreds of farmers will agree with me—that those people who sell out of hand, are getting better prices than those obtained on the same days on the market. But Diagonal Street is not the best proof. Where we exported fruit in the past I want to say that not more than 1 per cent. of that fruit was sold in London by auction. At least 99 per cent. was sold out of hand in Covent Garden. Those people with their extensive experience of this trade, must surely know what the best system is, and I do not believe that 1 per cent. of my fruit was sold in Smithfield. Everything was sold out of hand. I want to mention a few examples to show the results of this system of 100 per cent. auction. One of the directors of the Wellington Fruit Growers met me and said this to me: “Look here, Mr. Hugo, I have tried to get hold of peaches which I was always in the habit of getting from a certain producer. I applied to the Fruit Board and said that if I could get the peaches of that particular farmer, the transaction could go through the books of the Fruit Board; but my request was refused.” [Time limit.]

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the calamity which has befallen the districts of Vryheid and Babanago during the past few months. I refer to the outbreak of East Coast fever. I think the hon. Minister will agree with me that it is a catastrophe which befell Northern Natal. I should like to make a few suggestions to the Minister in connection with the combating of East Coast fever, if he will accept these suggestions, suggestions which, in my opinion, will be the best method of combating and preventing this calamity, so that it will not become a calamity for the whole of Natal. This outbreak is alarming and dangerous, and in order to remove any misunderstanding which may arise at a later date, I should like to know from hon. members opposite whether they are in agreement with the suggestions which I am about to make, and, if so, I shall be glad if they will tell me, because I am convinced that the Minister and his Department will have to take more drastic steps than they have taken up to the present. It is well known that where there is an outbreak of any pest, the immediate farm which is in contact with the infected area, is placed under quarantine. I want to ask the Minister not only to place under quarantine the farm which is immediately in contact with the infected area, but to take at least two or three farms around the infected area and to draw a cordon round the infected area in that way, a cordon which will include at least two or three farms and which will not permit of the conveyance of cattle outside that cordon for two or three months, until we know how far the pest has spread. This may be a drastic proposal, but allow me to say to hon. members on both sides of the House what the position is in that area. Since the outbreak in September last, approximately 53 farms in the district of Vryheid and Babanango became infected. On those farms there are 19,750 cattle. There are no less than 104 contact farms, on which there are 41,280 cattle. Nearly 60,000 cattle are therefore affected. The number of farms is daily increasing, and 1,100 cattle have already died. I think the Minister will agree with me that the time has arrived to take drastic steps, otherwise this outbreak may become a threat to the whole of Natal and a big portion of Southern Transvaal. I therefore propose, or I suggest, that such a cordon be drawn and that the conveyance of cattle from within that cordon be prohibited for three months, except by means of a coach.

Does that also apply in the case of the Transvaal?

It applies to every part where the disease has broken out. I ask that steps be taken to brand all cattle in the infected areas and which are in immediate contact with infected areas, and that the brand should clearly indicate that the cattle come from an infected area. This will prevent the conveyance of those cattle by natives and other people, thereby spreading the infection. Then I also suggest that emulsion dip be used in all infected areas. The regulations lay down that only arsenic dip shall be used. The Department of the Minister may have a different view, but the farmers who have practical experience of these matters, know that emulsion dip is the best dip to combat East Coast Fever. I want to suggest too, that emulsion dip be used on the infected farms and that the Department of Agriculture should furnish this to the farmers free of charge. I further want to suggest that where a dipping tank is regarded by the Department as ineffective, it should be examined by two practical farmers together with the veterinary surgeon, and a permit must not be granted under any circumstances to such a farm for the conveyance of cattle, until such time as the dipping tank has been put in order in accordance with the regulations. If we do this, we shall progress a great deal in combating East Coast Fever, and in combating it in such a way that it will not be a threat to our country in the future. I further want to suggest that the inspectors should personally take the blood smears on infected and contact farms. The Minister may ask why I suggest this. Experience has taught me that that is the best way of getting the right blood smear. I will admit that this will entail a daily visit. But as against that I say, that we should pay the inspectors adequately so that they are enabled to do their work. If we do not do that, then I foresee that we shall be saddled with East Coast Fever in Natal forever. I make these few suggestions with all due deference. The Minister and his Department may perhaps have a different view, but I submit this matter to him in the light that we, as practical farmers, see it—people who in the past combated East Coast Fever properly, in a way which freed us from this disease for lengthy periods; and I again want to emphasise that they are agreed that the only way to free a place from this disease, is to use this emulsion dip and to give the correct blood smears. I want to go further and say to the Minister that if we do not do this, if we do not take drastic steps of this nature, we may as well recall all the inspectors and repeal all the regulations, and we might as well regard East Coast Fever then as a disease like bilharziosis. It is of no avail spending thousands of pounds for years in order to carry out the East Coast Fever regulations and then to discover that we have an outbreak such as this outbreak in Vryheid as a result of which nearly 60,000 cattle are affected. It is almost unbelievable that since September nearly 60,000 cattle were affected, and I am not at all sure that it will not be 100,000 by the end of this year. If the Minister will accept these few suggestions, I think that we shall go a long way in successfully combating East Coast Fever.

I was pleasantly surprised and particularly glad to learn that the Minister of Agriculture loves a bean and takes an interest in it. Naturally he thought of it particularly as a means of enhancing land value and as a means of conserving the production capacity of the soil, namely that the bean can be used as a means for green-manuring. I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister another side of the matter in connection with beans and peas. A control system has been called into being, and I do not think there is one farmer who did not welcome that control system, because he thought and accepted that the idea behind sale through one channel and control of prices of primary products was this: That in the first place it would bring about control over the prices of products, and that it would inevitably bring about more stability in farming and in the marketing of products. He went out from the standpoint that control would eliminate the uncertainty and fluctuation which threatened the continued existence of the farmer in such an enormous measure. While I am speaking here of control in general, I can say that we have much reason to be dissatisfied with the manner in which control is maintained and exercised. In the first place control should be accompanied by greater stability in prices. It should protect the farmer and make him feel: I am now secure, and I can produce this or that at a remunerative price. In the second place nobody more than the farmer would like to see that the consumer in the country is also protected, and that that great gulf between the price which the producer receives and the price which the consumer has to pay, shall be narrowed down. I make bold to say that in both these cases control over agricultural products and in connection with primary products has left much to be desired. We do not want to talk here about potatoes. But the fact remains that when potatoes were sold on the market, at 3s., 4s. and 5s. per bag, the consumer still had to pay 1s. for 7 lbs. There are many other similar cases. But what we would like to know from the Minister is that where primary agricultural products have nearly all been placed under control, and while the Minister is sympathetic towards beans—I am not now speaking only on behalf of the bean farmers, but also on behalf of those who produce peas—why he did not ensure that these people were protected against the exploitation prevailing in the country. I would like to ask the Minister whether he knows what happened in our country last year and also the year before, for instance in connection with the producers of peas and beans? There is no protection. The marketing of those products is not in the hands of the farmers. The farmer has no authority. It is virtually controlled, if I may put it that way, by a monopoly that is in the hands of the produce merchants, mostly Jews. The fact of the matter is that there are in our country today thousands and thousands of bags of peas from the previous year, not from the year 1942-’43, but from the year 1941-’42. There are thousands of bags in the country. I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture as to what quantity of peas have been imported, and with what purpose and from what parts. In his reply he referred me to his reply to a question by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), viz. that it is not in the interests of our country to divulge the imports from other countries. I have an idea that while there is a shortage of many important foodstuffs in the country, there is actually an accumulated surplus of peas. I do not know so much about beans. But there is an accumulated surplus of peas, a commodity which has a particularly nutritive value, viz. a high vitamin content. While our peas cannot be sold, I have an idea that peas have been imported from other parts of the world, and that at the expense of the farmers in South Africa. Do you know that in my area—and I also sometimes sow peas—the farmers received from £1 10s. to £3 5s. per bag. It depends on the buyer. If he comes to poor people who do not know much, then he pays £1 10s. per bag. If he reckons that the people know a little more, then they get £2 10s. and £3 per bag. I want to know if the Minister cannot put that product under control. Cannot he exercise control of beans and peas, and control the prices under the food control organisation? There are many farmers, and I am one of them, who have not yet sold their peas this year. If one takes into consideration that £1 10s. and £1 15s. is being paid for a bag of peas, and we compare that with the price of other products, then it is a disgrace. We can produce one bag of peas where we can produce two bags of wheat. I hope the Minister will devote his attention to the matter, and that after careful consideration he will come to the conclusion that he should control the price in such a way that it shall be remunerative to the farmer to produce this product, and that he will protect the farmer against the exploitation which now prevails, so that the speculator cannot fix the price arbitrarily and at his own free will. They determine the price, not in the interest of the farmer, nor in the interest of the consumer, but in their own interest. There is another matter I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister, viz. the position of uncertainty as regards the raisin farmers in our country. About fourteen days ago—it cannot yet be three weeks—we learned what the price would be for this crop. Do you know that fourteen days ago most farmers had concluded the making of raisins? If we have no control over the price of a product, and if that price is controlled by a Control Board, then let it be the Dried Fruit Board, and then we must be informed betimes of what the price is going to be. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I want straight away to express my gratification at the Minister’s statement this morning to the effect that he is sympathetically disposed towards the direct subsidisation of maize for the consumer. For years past we, on these benches, have been entering protests against the policy of dealing with the difficulties of maize production and distribution in this country by the crude method of simply raising the price to the consumer. We have never objected to a reasonable price to the producer, but there has been a steady tendency to raise the price to the consumer, and there must be a halt called to that process. Therefore I am very glad that the Minister has stated now for the first time that he is considering the possibility of directly subsidising the consumption of maize. Naturally, from the consumer’s point of view, the natives are the people most likely to be affected, because they are the most numerous section of the population, and they depend on maize as their staple article of diet in the same way as the Europeans and other racial sections of the community depend upon bread. Well, now, sir, although as I say I am most gratified to hear the statement of the Minister, I do want to take this opportunity of pressing upon him the urgency of this matter. Before the war, indeed in the early part of the war, the producer’s price was 8s. 6d. a bag for the larger producer, and 10s. for the smaller producer, but there was no maximum price to the consumer at all, and in those days we were continually urging that there should be a maximum price for the consumer as well as a minimum price for the producer. Now ultimately the maximum price for the consumer was fixed in times of scarcity when the producer’s price had risen very appreciably over the pre-war price, so that it really made very little practical difference to the poor consumer of maize in this country. If the Minister is considering, as he says he is, this question of direct subsidisation (out of general revenue I take it), of the consumer’s price of maize, I want to impress on him the inevitable necessity of facing up to the fact that the price to be fixed must be within the means of the native people, and that must be at a level lower than the producer’s price. In my view, having regard to what I know of the income level of the native population, it is unfair to ask them to pay more than approximately 10s. a bag for maize, and if the producer does need 15s. or 16s. a bag which he is getting now, the balance would have to be made up out of general revenue. The Minister told us this morning that there were certain practical difficulties in working a scheme of direct subsidisation of maize, and I wish he had told us more about what these difficulties are. It would appear to me that if the producer’s minimum price is fixed and the consumer’s maximum price is fixed, then the prime necessity would be to provide the distributing agency, in this case the Maize Control Board, with the funds to enable it to maintain the balance. That would be more a question of finance than anything else. As a matter of fact, that is what is in operation in the case of bread at the present time. For some time now the price of bread has been directly subsidised, and it has been a matter of considerable concern to some of us, while fully supporting the step the Government took in that mutter, that this discrimination should be made between the bread eater and the maize eater, more particularly as the latter are the majority of the people of this country, and are the poorer section.

[Inaudible.]

As a matter of fact we have had experience before of differentiation in the price of maize except in that case it was to the advantage of the chicken feeder or the stock feeder generally, rather than the human being. If it is possible to discriminate in favour of the stock feeder, it should also be possible to discriminate in favour of human consumers. There is one other matter that I want to refer to besides that of maize. The Minister made a statement this morning on the subject of soil erosion. He gave us figures as to the amount of public money that is being spent in subsidising soil erosion work. Now the fact of the matter is that the anti-soil erosion schemes which have been in operation for some time have been quite inadequate. However large the figures may appear, the efforts made have been quite inadequate to stop the devastation in process in this country and nowhere is it more the case than in the native territories, as the Minister as a former member of the Native Affairs Commission will know. The system of piecemeal subsidisation of anti-soil erosion works is not saving the country from disaster. The Economic and Social Planning Council has recommended that an anti-soil erosion scheme should be something which should be proceeded with on a national scale. The State itself should take over the responsibility for it, and not merely subsidise the Europeans in the European areas, or local councils in the native areas. It is necessary for the Government to plan a nation wide anti-soil erosion scheme to include not only European areas but native areas too. The Native Trust has not got the funds to undertake anti-soil erosion works. It is something which will have to be planned on a national scale. I understand there is an officer of the Minister’s Department, a Mr. Van Rensburg, who has made a film—a large scale film—showing the process of soil erosion, illustrating how the greatest asset of this country, the land, is being wasted through neglect. I have not had the opportunity of seeing the film myself. I would like to see it. But what I want to suggest is that every hon. member of this House should have the opportunity of seeing that film because I am told it illustrates in the most graphic way what is happening to the soil, and I hope the Minister will make it possible for every member of the House to see it.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture made a statement here on Friday afternoon, on the price of mealies for the following year, and notwithstanding the speeches which have come here from various sides to the effect that we have signified our agreement with this price fixation, that is not the case at all. The Minister cannot say that we have expressed our satisfaction with it, but we tried, when we met the Chairman of the Maize Control Board, to obtain 17s. 6d. We had to prove, of course, that the expenses have gone up since last year, but we never said that we would be satisfied with 16s. We insisted on a minimum price of 17s. 6d. bagged, and 16s. for Grade 2 in the elevators. That was at the beginning of the year. We want to keep politics out of this, but the Minister cannot now hide behind our Committee on the assumption that we have accepted the price. We wanted 16s. in the elevator for Grade 2, and 15s. for the other grades. The Minister, however, has now made his statement as to what we are going to get. Last year his Department announced the price of 15s. bagged and then 14s. 3d. was paid in the elevator. Now I hope that where the price has been fixed at 16s. we shall get 15s. 3d. in the elevator, which will be 3d. more to make up for the difference of 1s. We placed three alternatives before the Maize Control Board, viz. 15s. in the elevator and 16s. Grade 2, or the importation value or otherwise an open market. The Minister took the easiest course. But it is not fair to represent this as though we have expressed our satisfaction with it. When I asked for an open market, the Maize Control Board had the fright of its life. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy), said that in the open market the price would be more than £1, but we knew, of course, that the Government would have to keep count of the consumers of mealies. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) insisted on a subsidy. Well, a subsidy can be granted to the poor people who use mealies, and not only to natives. I do not think that there is anything against it, and I believe that the Maize Control Board has the funds.

No.

I think that the Maize Control Board has certain funds. I have a telegram here from maize producers in the Free State, and they say that sixteen shillings is far too little and they ask for 17s. 6d. We never said that we were satisfied with 16s., but we tried to get the best, and accepted it. We had to prove that the production costs had risen since last year, and I am sorry that we could not make out a case for so much difference. Last year the crop was 16,000,000 bags, and the Maize Control Board calculates that the crop this year will be 23,000,000 or 24,000,000 bags. I have not yet seen that any protest meetings have been held against 15s. per bag, and I reckon that the crop will actually be 24,000,000 bags, then the farmers Will be satisfied with 15s. per bag, except as regards Grade 2, in the grain elevators. But it is now said here that we sell through one channel. I have said all these years that this will not be cheaper; I believe in the ordinary trade channel. We had a single channel last year and we had one again this year. What was the result? The brokers asked 1d. per bag and the trade is allowedi 3d., and the Maize Control Board also 3d. per bag. That alone amounts to 7d. Then the miller gets 1s. 6d., while formerly it was 9d. or 10d. There already 2s. disappears between the maize farmer and the consumer. I think the Minister can cut away a big portion of that expenditure. Why should the Maize Board get 3d. per bag? Why cannot the maize farmers draw direct from the Maize Board against the grain elevator certificate? The 3d. is too much, and 1d. for the broker is unnecessary. Much of the 2d. can be cut away. The Maize Control Board gets too much, the broker makes too much, and the miler’s price is also too high. I may say that the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) does not speak only for himself. We all reckon that we got the best price which could be obtained from the Minister. Then I also want to say something about meat. A little while ago the Meat Control Board reduced the price by 5s. per 100 lbs. Early in the year the consumers were promised that the price of meat would be reduced. I suggested 2s. 6d. per 100 lbs. It would have made no difference, neither the buyer nor the seller would have felt it. But now the price is reduced by 5s., and I understand that the Minister said that he was going to take off another 5s. in April, when there is more slaughter stock. Assuming this is done, then what after that? If the stock is again reduced, what will the Minister do then? Will he then again add the amount which he subtracted? It is true that there are more slaughter stock in summer, but many big farmers who feed their stock want to know beforehand, before August or September, what they are going to get if they are to feed their stock, otherwise they will not begin feeding. There must be a large measure of certainty as regards the price. A plea has been made here for sale by weight. I think many farmers would like to have this, but I personally do not think that this would be advantageous. In Durban there is sale by weight, and it is the worst meat market in the country. Assuming one wants to sell by weight in Johannesburg, then what will the probable results be? If the slaughter stock has to be driven to the market in Pretoria and Johannesburg, how is the farmer going to sell his meat by weight? The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), also pleaded for refrigerator trucks, for the transport of slaugtered sheep, and he spoke of from 50 to 100 sheep in one truck. But one has not the freezing facilities on every station. It sounds very fine in theory, but it is impracticable. I do not think the market position is as bad as some would try to make it out to be. Johannesburg still remains the best market despite all its faults. But in Johannesburg trek oxen are also sold. How are you going to sell by weight? I do not think the plan is quite sound. You may be able to do it per live weight, but not otherwise.

I want to have a few words with the Minister of Agriculture on the subject of fruit, and I am very pleased to hear that he has announced that his Department is going to investigate the statements made by Mr. G. H. Taylor before the National Health Services Commission last Monday. But I may mention that that investigation should have been made immediately, and I wonder if the Minister with all his worries and troubles realises the effect on the public mind of statements about enormous quantities of fruit of various descriptions—and this does not apply only to the Deciduous Fruit Board—but to other bodies as well—I wonder if he realises the damning effect on the public mind by statements of this kind. I do feel that statements of that character should be very carefully watched by his Department, investigated immediately, and the same publicity given to the explanation, if there is one as is given to the statements which are published in the Press, with big heavy headlines. I saw one in an issue of the “Eastern Province Herald”, my own town paper, “Sinful waste of fruit”. And then it gives details of the statement made by this Mr. Taylor. It is an undoubted fact that the D.F.B. is not giving satisfaction in its control of fruit, and the general public has the impression that unless they are prepared to pay what they regard as extortionate prices for fruit, the powers that be would sooner see it wasted than let the general public get it. One knows full well that dealing with fruit is a difficult matter, and is not peculiar to this country alone, because almost every fruit growing country has the same difficulty in its control of fruit, its distribution and the obtaining of remunerative prices to the grower, but I think that some of these countries, particularly Canada, have managed to evolve a system which obviates a good deal of waste and is allowing of a fair return to the farmers themselves. In this country, however, we are continually running up against this story of colossal wastage, and it is something which has to be dealt with. Fruit is a peculiar commodity—it is the kind of thing of which there is one year very little of a particular type, whereas the next year there is a glut. In my opinion it is impossible for any Board to obtain top prices for fruit when there is a glut but I do think this, that where the Government is subsidising the grower through the Deciduous Fruit Board, the public, particularly the poorer section of the community, should have the benefit of that glut, and fruit should, as far as humanly possible, be made available to that section of the public, and I do commend that point of view to the Minister because no Board will give satisfaction to the general public so long as they hold fruit back and keep it in cold storage until it goes bad. I remember the Minister making a statement here some time ago that fruit improves with cold storage.

Did I say that?

Yes, I heard it. It may be that the Minister got this information from the Secretary of the D.F.B. the Secretary issued a statement not long after the Minister had said that in which he declared that fruit put into cold storage ripened uniformly. Now my experience of fruit even in the humble refrigerator is that the favour is destroyed once it is put there. And I make bold to say that cold storage fruit can never compare in flavour with the fruit picked from the tree. I also want to point this out, that if fruit is kept too long it is apt to go wrong. If fruit can be picked just before it is ripe and put into cold storage, and it woud ripen uniformly there, it would all be very well, but the process does not stop there. If it can rise to the point of ripening, once it has attained that point it must commence to deteriorate. It cannot stand still. And I think that that is where the D.F.B. is inclined to go wrong. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider the appointment of two or three business men with experience of the distribution side who might be added to the personnel of the Board. I think there are too many fruit growers on the Board—I think it is something like 8 out of 11. A Board of that description should be representative of all interests. Then I want to refer to another point already mentioned by some other hon. members, raisins. The position of raisins and other dried fruit has always puzzled me. I understand that the price to the grower is round about 3d. per lb. for first grade raisins. Yet one finds that when these raisins get into the hands of the retailer the public are called upon to pay from 11d. to 1s. 1d. for first grade raisins. I remember in September, 1941, I was in Montagu and bought raisins. I was in the company of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward) and I think we paid 5¼d. per lb. When I got back to Port Elizabeth I looked into the shop windows to see what they charged there and I found that for exactly the same grade they were charging 11d., 1s. and 1s. 1d. I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be such a great discrepancy between the price the grower gets, and the price the consumer has to pay, and that is a problem which the public want to be investigated. One might possibly allow for a 150 per cent. difference as between the grower and the consumer, but when it comes to a matter of 300 and 350 per cent. I consider the position is an outrageous one and unfair to the general public. We have the same position in regard to citrus. I have carefully studied that position. One finds that the Board is making determined efforts to put the position right. [Time limit.]

I would also like to bring a few matters to the attention of the Minister. The Minister said the other day that there would probably be more control over mealies this year. I also think so. I think there is every indication that there will not be sufficient mealies for our own consumption in the Union. Now I would like to know from the Minister whether it is the custom that mealies are sent out of the Union to the British Protectorates which border on the Union, such as Basutoland, of which I have personal knowledge, and how control will be exercised there. While we ourselves did not have mealies this year, thousands of bags nevertheless went to Basutoland. In Dewetsdorp, for instance, there is a location with 1,100 natives. The farmers in that area reaped no mealies, they had to buy all their mealies last year. The quota for March for the whole of Dewetsdorp, including the traders, was 25 bags. So far as the natives in the Dewetsdorp location are concerned, this meant that there was hardly enough mealies to give four pounds of mealie meal per native, not to speak of the natives on the neighbouring farms. While we did not have enough mealies for our own use, mealies were exported to Basutoland. Now I would like to know how the Minister is going to exercise proper control in Basutoland. An enormous wastage of mealies is taking place there. In Basutoland the natives can get as much white corn meal as they can buy. While there was enough green mealies in Basutoland, thousands of bags of mealies were exported there none the less. I am told that control is now at last being exercised there, but not the strict control we have in the Union, because one could still buy as much mealie meal as one wanted in Basutoland in January. We want to be humane. We know that products are being sent backwards and forwards, but when we have a shortage of mealies, then provision must be made for proper control when our mealies are sent to Basutoland. Has the Minister taken any precautionary measures? Have any negotiations been started with the Government of Basutoland for proper control in the future? Will the Minister ensure that the same conditions as last year will not arise again? What was the practical effect of the position? While our farmers did not have food for their natives, and there was already a shortage of labour, it paid the natives to leave their service and to go across the border because there was plentiful food there. We therefore did not only have a shortage of food in our own country, but the shortage of labour in our area was aggravated. I would like the Minister to make a statement on the matter. As regards wool prices, our wool farmers can never be satisfied with the reply that the Minister gave this morning, that the price of wool must remain a secret because the British Government does not want to reveal it. The Minister has concluded a contract on behalf of the wool farmers of the Union. The Government is responsible for the contract and owes an explanation to the wool farmers of the Union. Is it fair to come to this House and to say that he knows what we are going to get for our wool, but that he is going to keep it a secret even towards the wool farmers whose livelihood depends upon the price? A great part of South Africa is dependent on Merino sheep; a contract is concluded for the sale of wool, and the Minister does not want to reveal what we got for our wool. It is a secret. The wool farmers are assuredly going to object to this. Now I want to ask the Minister further what the general position in connection with wool is. While all the wool of the world is virtually falling into the hands of one nation, there has been an enormous expansion in the use of artificial fibres. Does the Minister realise what this is going to mean to the wool farmers in the future? If there is one section of the farming community for whom there is a dark period at the door then it is the wool farmers, and the difficulties are becoming greater because the rest of the world cannot get hold of wool and has to take refuge in something else. While this is so, this side of the House believes that it is only right that we should get every penny that is due to the wool farmers, and the wool farmers will decidedly not be satisfied with the secrecy as regards the price. Something must be lurking behind it. The same British Government has also concluded a wool contract with the Australian government, but there has been no secrecy in Australia on the subject of what will be paid for the wool. The shortage there has been paid out to the farmers. The Australian Government and the Australian farmers know what they got for their wool. Why should there be secrecy only in the Union of South Africa? Why is the Government so afraid? Have the farmers suffered a great loss in the past under the agreement? The Minister cannot blame us if we begin thinking in that direction. If Australia can tell its farmers what they obtain for their wool, if it is not a secret there, why must the matter be kept a secret in the Union? We object to that. Mention was made this morning of a shortage of the “knoppieswurm” remedy. This is a very serious matter to the wool farmers in the grassveld area. After 1930 many farmers in the Free State practically went out of business as regards Merino sheep, as a result of “knoppieswurm” among the sheep. And not only in the Free State, but also in other grassveld areas of the Union. The Minister knows that assistance had to be granted to the wool farmers because they had lost almost their entire stock. It is almost a matter of impossibility for the farmers in the grassveld areas to do without the remedy. Yet not the least precaution was taken and the sheep-farmers will just have to do without the remedy. I was in the Free State a few weeks ago, and I can say that our sheep are in a weak condition, and I and others have been trying since the middle of December to obtain the remedy, but we cannot get it. Why was the necessary precaution not taken at the right time? Now I would like to exchange a few words with the Minister on a branch of farming about which we in this House hear very little. I want to exchange a few words with the Minister in connection with our horse farming in South Africa. We know what horses meant to the farmers in South Africa in the past. We know what an economic factor the horse in South Africa was, but unfortunately with the rise of motor power and motor transport the horse in South Africa was almost eliminated. Why did motor power and motor transport succeed in pushing out the horse? It is because the farmer in South Africa did not have the opportunity of applying himself to the changed circumstances. We in the Union of South Africa farmed with light horses, and as circumstances changed the farmer found that he could not fit himself into the changed circumstances. It is very clear to all of us that motor power in South Africa is not always used in an economical manner. We have big municipalities such as the Municipality of Bloemfontein who breed their own horses, and they use horses because they realise that this is more economical. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the hon. Minister a few questions. First, as to the proposed establishment of a textile industry in this country. We are at sixes and sevens in this respect, that in the early stages of the establishment of this industry, it was given out from every public platform throughout the areas that were canvassed by the members of the National Woolgrowers’ Association, that a compulsory levy would be imposed for the purpose of creating an amount of approximately £250,000, to be the farmers’ contribution towards the establishment of that textile industry. Later on, it transpired that that had to be done after the wool industry came under the Marketing Act. Later still we were told that the Industrial Development Corporation had refused to accept us, or rather our £250,000, as a contribution towards the establishment of the textile industry, while we demanded shares. Then we were told that if we refused to accept the compulsory levy, the Industrial Development Corporation would go on with the establishment of that industry and throw the share holding open to the public of South Africa. Now, Mr. Chairman, the question I want to ask the Minister is what right the Industrial Development Corporation had to make a statement of that kind; whether it came from the Minister himself or whether he was consulted on the point whether the share holding would be given to the farmers or not? I think it is the right of every farmer in this country who produces wool, to have the first opportunity of subscribing the necessary capital, and to that end I am asking the Minister to intervene and see that the farmers of this country are given the first opportunity of subscribing that necessary capital. I want to give him the assurance that the wool farmers of this country will give him all the capital he requires to establish that industry. Now I want to come to an extremely unfortunate state of affairs that exists in this country. I refer to the behaviour of the Citrus Fruit Control Board. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the fact that thousands and thousands of cases of oranges are deliberately destroyed each year. I know that one farmer who sent between 20 and 30 railway trucks of oranges to the pack-house, each containing between 300 and 400 cases of 50 lbs. each, had the oranges sent back to his farm, and he was told to dispose of them as best he could on his farm; that is to say, he would not be allowed to sell them or give them away, but he must dispose of them on his farm. Now, Sir, that is only one instance among many that are talking place. I want to go further and tell you that he paid the railage both ways, and these oranges were of export quality which were denied to the public of South Africa, irrespective of what they wanted to pay for them. I maintain that is a definite effort to sabotage the social services that this Government is trying to give the public during a difficult war period, such as we are going through. I say I have the right to call upon the Minister to investigate such circumstances. And, Sir, this is not confined to the Citrus Control Board. Your Deciduous Fruit Control Board is doing the same thing. Only a day or two ago we had the Chairman of the Board making a plea, through the Press, to the farmers, asking where they could find markets for their fruit. Let me tell you the Eastern Province is prepared to buy as much fruit as you can possibly send them, and there is money to pay for it. The people there are prepared to pay the price that the Board is asking. I ask you to look at this in the light of a definite sabotaging of the Government’s effort at social security, and the better distribution of the fruit of this country. Has it ever struck hon. members that this Health Services Commission will probably make its first recommendation that the Government must see to it that a better distribution of food to the people at a reasonable figure, is effected. That will be among the first recommendations of this Health Commission. I have only two more points to mention. The first is that I view with some little concern the way in which members of the Department of Agriculture asked for meetings which were organised and addressed by members of the Minister’s Department for the purpose of inducing the farmers to produce still more. Well, sir, the farmers of this country have gone out and produced all that was possible to produce, and they would not have done that without any inducement, but there were hundreds of farmers who were landed with the produce they were persuaded to grow, without any return, and much of which had to be destroyed because they could not find a market for it. I ask the Minister if such a state of affairs exists again, to protect the farmers against anything of that sort. Then another point. We have had experience of one of the greatest shortages South Africa or the whole Continent has had for many years, shortages in foodstuffs, and I ask the Minister to investigate a proposition that has been put up here from time to time, the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Van Coller) has put it forward, and I put it forward again, and that is the establishment of food and fodder banks which will protect the farmer and the public against the ravages of drought. These banks should be established in those areas which suffer most from periodic droughts and in places easily accessible for distribution. At this stage we can only deal with the fodder bank, and I maintain that storage of fodder could be made at these points, and be more beneficial than if sold in competition overseas against our surplus products. My last point is that the hon. Minister is paying his stock inspectors a wage on which the poorest of the poor whites could not exist, that is from 10s. to 12s. 6d. a day, and the man has to provide his own transport in the areas in which we have East Coast Fever. These men cannot possibly come out on that wage; they are quite a decent class of man doing work for the elimination of this scourge. Then there is one more point. I ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be wiser to reduce the smoking in this country and make available to the farmers some of the scrap tobacco that is now going to pipe smokers; whether that would not be better than losing something like 800 cattle per month merely because the farmers cannot control the tick. If we could get this scrap tobacco the farmers could eliminate one of the biggest dangers in the Eastern Province today brought about by the immune tick, which was causing the loss of 800 cattle per month in the Komgha area.

After the hon. Minister made the announcement last Friday about the prices of mealies and wheat, I cannot but express my disappointment in the maize prices which he announced here. I had thought that the Government and the consumers of this country would this year have a realisation of the value of a bag of mealies. We know that the farmers who produce mealies have always known the value of a bag of mealies, but it was always clear to us that the consumers who buy the mealies did not know the value of a bag of mealies. But if you ask a farmer who in the past had to buy mealies what a bag of mealies is worth to him, then he will say that it is worth £1 per bag to him. Some will say that a bag of mealies is worth 25s., and others will say that it is worth 30s. If only they can get it. While in the past we had to sell the mealies at an insignificant price because we did not have a market for all our mealies, we ask if it is right that now that we have a market for our mealies at last, now that the country really needs the mealies, we should not be able to get the value for a bag of mealies. The hon. Minister said here that the Maize Committee would defend him.

I never said that.

Well then, I am glad that the Minister did not say it, because I believe that the Maize Committee will not defend the Minister. I think they stood for a price of 17s. 6d. per bag plus the bag, and for that I also plead. The Agricultural Union decided and asked for a price of 17s. 6d. plus the bag, and the Agricultural Union consists not only of producers but also of consumers. The Agricultural Union therefore does not consist of members who are all mealie producers, and one must accept that the Agricultural Union can thus express an impartial judgment. If it was not for the fact that the Agricultural Union decided to ask for 17s. 6d., then the farmers themselves would probably have asked for not less than £1. It was only because the Agricultural Union asked for 17s. 6d. that the farmers agreed also to ask for that price, and I think that the Minister does not treat the mealie farmers justly by fixing the price so low. Last year the maize farmers got 15s. per bag. This year they are going to get 16s„ thus an increase of 1s. Surely the Minister cannot say to us now that we have to prove that the production costs have risen by more than 1s. per bag before we can ask for an increase in the price. This has nothing to do with the matter. If there had been an open market for the mealies, then the price would have been not 17s. 6d. but 25s. or more per bag. To me the question simply is what the mealies are worth. What are the mealies worth to me to feed my natives or my poultry or my pigs. To me it is worth 25s. and even more. The hon. Minister van thus not expect the farmers to be satisfied with this price of 16s. We only hope that the Minister, when he finds that his estimate is lower than the one he has now determined, will take the position into reconsideration. He told the hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster) that we would wait and see. Well, then, we shall wait and see. I have already seen, and what I have seen is this: That we are not getting the value of that product. Then there is another question I would like to put to the Minister, and it is this: What is the position in respect of Kaffir corn; is it not possible also to control Kaffir corn? At the moment Kaffir corn is being sold at about £2 per bag. If mealies had also been exempted then we would also have received £2 per bag for mealies. I do not want mealies to be controlled by the fixation of an inferior price; I do want mealies and Kaffir corn to be controlled, but the price must be an honest and a just price; it must be a price in conformity with the value of the product. I do not think that Kaffir corn is worth £2, but at the same time I believe that mealies are worth more than 16s. per bag. Then there is another matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister and that is in connection with the buyers, the people to whom permits were given to buy mealies. There are co-operative organisations today who have all the facilities to control mealies. I want to ask the Minister if he will consider the advisability of having all the mealies handled by the co-operatives, instead of by every little shop and even by permission to coolies to buy mealies.

It is peculiar to me how difficult it is for the Minister of Agriculture to bring to the understanding of the Opposition that our wool was not sold on a fixed basis per lb., but according to a type-basis.

Speak a little louder.

The Opposition is forever trying to spin a web over the eyes of the voters, and it is for that reason that they persist in this matter of the wool price.

Now tell us what the contract actually is.

According to my view of the basis of the contract the price has been brought up to 10¾d. per lb. on the type-basis, that is if our wool had been equal to the previous clip we would have got that price.

Ask your Minister if you came near to that 10¾d.

Of course you are a capitalist.

A big wool farmer of Graaff-Reinet, when the first year’s agreement had almost expired, sold five months’ wool to catch that market. It is a fact I am mentioning here. As I have said, this is only another attempt to spin a web over the eyes of the electors, and that also applies to these wheat and mealies prices which have been fixed. I think that the farmers in general are satisfied, and that they ought to be thankful for those prices. After all the consumer must also be taken into account.

You are confused.

I have risen to say a few words with reference to citrus. Unfortunately blame has been cast on the citrus farmer as the result of this allegation that so many millions of bags of citrus have been buried, citrus that is supposed to have rotted on the trees. The Citrus Control Board may be blamed, or the Department of Agriculture may be blamed, but certainly not the citrus farmer.

It is precisely the citrus farmers who are complaining. We want to know what the plan is of the Board and of the Government.

Some weeks ago the Citrus Board made a very clear statement on the position, and I would like to refer to it, but I just want to say this, that the citrus farmers in my area have built up a prestige there in such a high measure that it would be a great pity if they were to be driven out of business.

You must get another Government.

I want to give the hon. member the assurance that this Government is by far the best we have ever had. When that hon. member sat on these benches together with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) the farmer was glad if he could get 4s. 6d. per bag for his mealies.

But that was before the split.

Then Madagascar was still part of the Union.

I do not intend taking notice of that sort of interjection. I say that no blame can attach to the citrus farmer. On the contrary he has gone through a very difficult period. Many of those farmers came to this country from England after the last war, and many of them were misled. They came here and bought land and then they had to start from stratch to clear the ground and level it and to plant the trees with the result that many of them returned to England and others fled to the cities. I would like to ask the Minister that he, just as in the case of the mealie farmers, should not withdraw his helping hand from the citrus farmers. I would like to refer to a statement that the Citrus Board has issued. It appears to me that there are people in the country who apparently expect the citrus farmer who has a surplus, simply to distribute that surplus to the community.

That is better than to dump it into the sea.

It is not dumped into the sea by the farmer.

They send it to Madagascar.

I just want to tell the House what happened in Port Elizabeth. In Port Elizabeth several hundreds of boxes of oranges awaited shipment. The oranges were then distributed to the public. Certain persons bought those oranges at a very low price and then dumped it on the market and sold it in competition with the oranges of the farmers. I hope that the Commission which is now investigating this question will submit to the Government an acceptable proposal. Now I would like to quote a few points from the statement of the Citrus Board. They state inter alia—

And then further—

Now it goes on to emphasise that up to 1941 no difficulty arose because only 2,500,000 pockets of oranges remained to be marketed here, but from 1941 provision had to be made for about 12,500,000 pockets. Here they say—

Then they say what they do with that surplus.

From what are you reading?

From the Madagascar Times.

Then they go on—

[Time limit.]

The best description that has yet been given in this House of the policy of the Minister of Agriculture is the one given here just now by the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren) when he said that this is nothing less than sabotage of farmers’ interests. A Government supporter describes this Government, this Minister’s policy, as nothing but sabotage, and I think that after the debate that has been conducted here for the past few days everyone will admit that the Minister is busy sabotaging the farmers. I want to discuss here today the interests of a particular class of farmer. It is namely the poultry farmer. That the poultry farmers are dissatisfied with the Minister, and particularly with his food control, the Minister himself will admit. They are not enamoured of it; they are very angry at it. The Food Controller decided on some good day that after 1 February no more mealies would be available for poultry, and that oats, barley and corn would also not be available. I am not pleading here for the ordinary person who has a few fowls on his premises, but for the scientific poultry farmer. In many parts of the country, and also in my constituency, there are certain farmers who concentrate, under the guidance of the Agricultural Department, on arranging their poultry farming scientifically and intensively. They farmed intensively but on a big scale with fowls, and by scientific feeding they knew how to get the best results from the poultry. These are the farmers who are now in danger of being totally ruined. It is now said that the poultry farmers must try to get other feedstuffs for their fowls, but the poultry farmers say that if they cannot get cereals then it is very disadvantageous to the fowls, because it means that the food rations have to be altered. If fowls suddenly get another kind of food then they immediately start moulting, and it is not before July or August before they are right again. In the winter months there will thus be a great scarcity of eggs with the result that eggs will be very expensive. In the period in which they can make money they will be in the position that their fowls do not lay. The South African Poultry Association has now sent this telegram to the Minister of Agriculture—

I also have here a copy of a telegram sent by the Winburg Poultry Club to the Minister of Agriculture—

These people have no other farming activities, such as sheep, cattle and agriculture to fall back upon. They exist exclusively from their poultry farming. They have developed fine poultry and have built up fine poultry activities and now those fine farming institutions have to go to the wall as a result of the action of the Food Controller. They now ask what they must do. Must they cut the throats of all their hens? Must all those fowls be simply eliminated because the proper foods for them cannot be obtained? These people have concentrated upon improving and developing their poultry, and they have no other income, and is this now the reward they get for launching their scientific poultry farming activities? It really seems as if the Minister’s Department is saying to these people that they may go to the dogs. No, but I want to say in all seriousness that the Minister must think this matter over. Oats are being given to racehorses which have absolutely no use except to take money out of the pockets of gamblers. Why should racehorses get oats when the poultry farmers cannot get it?

And the owners of racehorses quarrel with me every day because I cannot let them have oats.

They do it because they cannot get enough oats.

They get nothing.

Do the brewers still get barley?

Yes, they do.

Why is that done? Surely beer is not so important. Why must the breweries get it and not the poultry farmers? It simply means that poultry farming will have to go out of existence. I want the Minister to give the poultry farmers preference. I cannot say if it is so that if those people now cannot get any cereals the hens will stop laying. But that is what the experts tell me, persons who have been poultry farmers for years. The Minister should make it possible for these poultry farmers to carry on.

I wish I could give it to them.

The Minister admits then that these people have reason to complain, and I think he should go out of his way to help these people. It is said that eggs in Durban are already 5s. per dozen, and it is expected that during the winter months the price of eggs will rise to 6s. Eggs are one of the basic foods in our country, but now it seems as if this farming activity is going under. I really do not know if the Minister will ever be able again to look a fowl in the face. He will blush whenever he sees a hen. But I want to ask the Minister this in all seriousness. I know the Minister’s difficulty, but will he not address a word of encouragement and hope to these people; cannot he tell the poultry farmers that he will help them so that they may know where they stand. He will realise how hard it is for those people to think that they have this fine poultry, and that everything will have to retrogress. I really hope he will inform the House that he is going to consider the matter and will take steps to meet the poultry farmers in this serious period, or is he also going to commit sabotage against this branch of farming? We shall be glad to hear from the Minister what he is going to do for the poultry farmers, so that they may know where they are. I shall be glad if the Minister will give his attention to this plea. [Time limit.]

In connection with wheat I would like to make just this point this morning. I have not the least doubt that the price announced will induce the farmers to do all in their power to produce wheat. But to encourage them still further, I would be glad if the Minister would give this assurance, that in the event of the yield being less than the estimate on which the price announced was based, he would then reconsider the price. Then in connection with marketing, I would like to make a serious appeal to the Minister to do all in his power to have that enquiry, to which we as farmers are looking forward so longingly, instituted. I quite realise the difficulty that existed at the time in connection with the appointment of the Commission. We know that important persons who had to give evidence were not available. But on the other hand we must admit that effective internal marketing is one of the most important factors for stabilising the agricultural industry in the future, and the sooner that enquiry can take place the better it will be. The Minister will agree that a radical change is necessary today in our internal marketing, and I have long since been convinced that our internal marketing system is hopelessly obsolete, and that our internal marketing has totally outgrown the local authorities. I can understand as the Minister of Agriculture said this morning, that the Provincial Administrations are very sensitive about this matter, and so are the municipalities. They are sensitive on the point because it yields them good revenue. Nobody will deny that internal marketing has developed into a national matter, and I therefore ask the Minister to cause an investigation to be held into this matter, for the time has arrived when we must admit openly and frankly that internal marketing is a matter for the Central Government and not for the local authorities, because the local authorities cannot lay down a fixed marketing policy, in the first place because they must have an election every year. If we accept that internal marketing is a national matter, then I say: Why is it necessary for the producers to contribute to the revenue of the urban treasuries, and why is it necessary on the other hand for the local taxpayers in the urban areas to pay for a national service? It is for that reason that I plead for the early institution of such a vitally necessary enquiry. I do not want to start a campaign against the local authorities who have handled marketing hitherto. On the contrary, I am one of those who are thankful, and the whole farming community is grateful for the services they have rendered us hitherto. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that they cannot today provide effective marketing services because they have not the necessary experts, and because if there is one authority who disposes of experts then it is the Central Government. I know there is strong feeling, and I know also that the matter is very contentious with the local authorities, but it does not mean that if the Central Government takes over marketing the local authorities should forfeit all the funds they have put in it. They can be paid out according to the value received, and in view of this I want to urge the Minister of Agriculture again that we must have this enquiry. I want to give him the assurance that the agricultural community as a whole are looking forward to such an enquiry. We believe that we cannot put our marketing on the right footing by emergency regulations. Let us have that searching enquiry which is necessary, and let us look facts in the face. I do not only say that marketing must be placed under the Central Government, but if it is necessary there must even be a Minister of Marketing and Distribution. I say again, that our future marketing institution is one of the most important factors for placing agriculture on a sound footing.

The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) spoke here about marketing and distribution. It followed on the criticism that has come from all sides, not only from the Opposition but also from the other side, that the whole question of distribution and production is in such chaos that we can really expect nothing from it. I do not attach much importance to the idea of a Ministry of Marketing and Distribution, for the reason that it will mean that we shall have two Ministers, and the one will simply foist off his troubles on to the other. Nevertheless, I am in favour of it that the entire production of foodstuffs in the country shall be controlled in such a way that the population of the country shall without doubt get the benefit of the entire production. That is axiomatic, but it is not so simple. We have seen here that we have landed in a position where export and import have ceased, that we really cannot even feed our own people with what we produce in the country. We have food in the country. Let us take a protective food which has the necessary vitamin content such as citrus fruits. We se that it has become quite impossible to make those fruits available to the population who need it. The result is that those vitamin values are lost to many people. It is there, but it was not possible to provide it to the population. If the population needs it, then it is simply a senseless state of affairs that the commodities should be there but that the population should not be able to get it. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward) said that the Citrus Board is not to blame. He also said that it is not the fault of the Minister or the Government, and then he came to the actual point, and he also said that it is not the fault of the farmer. It is naturally not the fault of the farmer. He is quite innocent in the matter, but the hon. member does not want to bring home the blame to the Minister and the Government. He also does not want to throw it on the Citrus Board, and I agree with him that the farmer is not to blame. I say it is the system under which we operate which is so hopelessly ineffective, and unless the Government comes forward with a totally changed system we cannot expect an improvement. Here I think the Minister of Agriculture should be helpful. He admitted his impotence here today. He must go and admit it to the Government, and then he must compel the Government to make a radical change. There he has much more power than we have. He must alter the whole system. We foresaw what the difficulties were going to be. It is the difficulty between the producer and the consumer, the difficulty of the broker, the distributor and the speculator. This does not only apply to citrus fruits. Citrus fruits are important, but nevertheless only of subsidiary importance. There are other important foodstuffs such as wheat and mealies. I do not want to say anything now about mealies, because there is at the moment a shortage, and I realise that the Minister cannot make mealies. But where we have a foodstuff that is necessary for the health of the body, such as wheat, there ought to be no question about the price that will be paid by the consumer. The producer is entitled to a price that can be worked out by the experts in consultation with the producer. They will probably differ to an amount of 5s. That is the percentage about which there can be an argument before the price is fixed. Then we come to the sale price of meal. Then it is also clear that this is a matter that can be worked out quite simply: What the profit on a bag of wheat should be after it is milled. The miller should be a miller, and should not have the right to speculate with the farmers’ wheat. Today prices are fixed, but they are fixed in favour of the speculator, and there the Government should act with a firm hand. I will prophesy that the Government which can prove to the country that it has enough power and enough conscientiousness, that it has the courage to grapple with this matter, that that Government will never again be ousted from the Government benches. Once it has proved that it is going to intervene between consumer and producer, and that it is not going to allow that the acquisitiveness of the speculator should play its rôle, that Government will never again be pushed out of power. These are all matters that can be determined by the experts. We have enough experts in South Africa who can do this, but those experts never get the opportunity of doing it. They always find themselves in this difficulty, that when they give certain advice to the Government, that advice perhaps conflicts against the interests of one of those three sections, the consumers, the producers or the speculators—against the ten speculators who sit between the two. For that reason I say that the Minister now has a golden opportunity to say to the Government that the time has come for a radical change to be brought about.

Are you not being unfair towards the experts?

No, I do them no injustice. I have said clearly that we have the experts, that they are equipped for this work, and that they can and want to give the advice, but that it is the Government and the policy of the Government which does not allow those experts to put into effect what they actually know should be the basis of the community. I want to identify myself with the plea of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) on behalf of the poultry farmers. Poultry farming is a branch of general farming. Experts will say to you that the people need a certain percentage of eggs in their foodstuffs. [Time limit.]

I wish strongly to support the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) in his plea for a higher price for the dairy farmers. These farmers have been through a very difficult time during the recent shortage of concentrates and fertilisers. The hon. member made a point that if a case had been made out for higher prices for wheat and mealie farmers, a very much stronger case has be made out for higher prices for dairy farmers. I wish to say to the Minister that the outlook for our winter milk is very black. Due to the shortage of concentrates our dairy cows have gone down in their milk flow, and every farmer knows that once your cow has gone down in her supply of milk it is almost impossible to bring her back to her normal flow of milk again. That is the position in the country today, and now due to the shortage of fertilisers, we are likely to have a decreased supply of winter feeding which means that the dairy farmers are going to have a shortage of milk with the result that their returns are going to be very much lower than in the past. As the Minister knows, your ordinary grass can never keep your cow in profit. The most we can expect from the veld food is to maintain her body. One requires concentrates and green or succulent feed. If these are not available, you must expect a milk shortage and as things are at present we can expect that the winter food will be short. As I say that means that your dairy farmers are going to get very small returns during the winter period, and I hope the Minister will take that into account when he again considers this matter. I hope he is going to investigate this position because our milk is one of the most important protective foods we have in the country, and everyone requires it, not only for their own health, but particularly for the growing children. I feel that unless the Minister takes some action and improves the price of our milk producers we shall find ourselves without milk and milk products. I feel also that the position is going to be so bad that many of our farmers will go out of dairying. A number of them have already switched over from dairying to beef production, simply because they realise that while dairying is the most exacting of any farming operations the profit is exceedingly small, and they have now decided to go in for something which has more money in it. I hope the Minister will take heed of the requests and demands of the dairy farmers for better prices, especially during the coming winter months. I have heard a great deal during this debate about the wastage of fruit. Hon. members must realise that one of the reasons for that waste is not that they cannot get that fruit to the markets, but if they overload the markets with a surplus of fruit, prices will sag and will go down. There is very good reason why some of our fruit is not marketed in this country. It is that the farmer must get reasonable prices for his fruit, otherwise he must go out of business. The position is that you have to regulate the supply of fruit to what the market can absorb—it is suicidal to send more fruit to the market unless there are buyers for it. That is why some of our fruit has not been marketed. That is the reason that some of our fruit has not been marketed. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward) has now at last realised that the price that the producer gets is very much less than half what the consumer pays. He represents the commercial community, and he seems now only to have found out that the high price the consumer has to pay is not due to the farmer and the price he gets, but the price that the commercial man has and does charge to make his profit. We farmers are satisfied with a small profit to cover the cost of production and a little over for a living, but as soon as it goes out of our hands you will find that the average man in the trade is not satisfied with less than 100 per cent. He has even said that he requires up to 200 per cent. and more for handling our products. That is where all the trouble arises, and unless we can, through our control boards, fix the price to the producer and allow a fair commission to the middleman who has to handle our stuff, we will never get over this high price to the consumer. I feel that control boards have come to stay, and it is the duty of every farmer, in spite of the many troubles that our control boards have had in recent times, to support them wholeheartedly for good and all. Because a proper system of control is the only future for the producer, and the only hope that the consumer has of getting his food at a reasonable price. Up to the present, in spite of difficulties, our control boards have functioned far more in the interests of the consumers than of the producers, the consumer is the man who has benefited most. As has been pointed out here, had it not been for these control boards, the consumer would have had to pay double and more than double for all the products that the farmers market. So, in spite of the propaganda that has been made in the Press against the control boards, consumers should do everything in their power to see that these Boards function in the future. That is their only hope. They have had their foods far cheaper than they would have had under any other system.

I have waited a long time before participating in a debate in this House during this Session, but I think it is time for me to express a little word of sympathy with the Minister of Agriculture. I feel very sorry for him for many reasons, and the most important is the manner in which the agricultural industry is, according to the viewpoint of the Minister, being incited. The attitude of the Minister of Agriculture reminds me of an out-of-date Ford motorcar that jerks and jumps and throbs to get through the gate. The whole matter comes down to this, that we have not got a Minister of Distribution and that the Minister of Agriculture has to devote too much attention to distribution, and that he has to divide his attention too much. If we have a Minister of Distribution marketing will be brought into better order. As matters are now, every member of Parliament has to get up and plead for his specific interests. From the Government side there has just been a plea for the dairy industry. If the dairy farmers or the representatives of the dairy farmers do not rise to push the Minister to make milk a little dearer and to raise the price of butter a little, then nothing happens. If the mealie farmers do not agitate, then the price remains where it is. It is surely puerile that we should have a Government that does not have these specific interests at heart and that does not act justly towards the farmers, without having to be pushed. I now want to bring another industry to the attention of the Minister, viz. pig farming. The Minister has intervened, and as Food Controller he has fixed the price of bacon and at the same time the price of pigs. With the increased price of mealies it is necessary that there should be an increased price for pigs. But there is no co-ordination in the Government’s policy, nothing of a planned nature. The pig industry, in view of the increase in the price of mealies, should be taken into consideration. I also identify myself with the plea on behalf of the dairy farmers of the Eastern Province. It is impossible, in view of the price of mealies and mealie products, to produce milk at the prevailing price. Here in Cape Town the producer gets 3s. per gallon for delivery in the city. I acknowledge that the costs here are higher than on the platteland, but the platteland farmer gets no more than 9d. per gallon for cheese-milk, and here in the city the farmer gets 3s. But the platteland farmer also has to give his cows expensive food, expensive mealies. The prices are out of all proportion. If the urban farmer gets 3s. for his milk, the platteland farmer should get at least 1s. or 1s. 3d. for milk which he produces for the manufacture of cheese. It is unfortunate that the Minister should be pushed and kicked before he does anything for a specific industry. It creates a ridiculous situation, and makes the Minister’s position untenable. Therefore the policy of the New Order is in favour of a Minister of Distribution to arrange marketing according to plan and to get it out of the mud into which it has landed.

We all realise that, where there is a shortage of agricultural requirements, a system of control is essential, but I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to simplify the system of control. I have been specially instructed by the Eastern Transvaal Agricultural Union to raise this matter, because they are of the opinion that the existing procedure is involved and difficult. They also feel that in respect of bonemeal it is a roundabout way in which applications are dealt with. The applicant must have a recommendation from the veterinary surgeon or the Extension Officer. Often they are not in their offices, because they have been called out to other parts of the district. The farmer goes to town once or twice and calls in vain at the offices. The Agricultural Union feels that their organisation is acquainted with local conditions and wants to place its organisation at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture in an advisory capacity. I think that the Minister can make use of that offer. Then the distribution of bonemeal and fertiliser can be arranged more easily. The Agricultural Union is acquainted with local conditions and the position of its members, and they know what is going on in a certain district. Perhaps the Minister can accept that suggestion. Further it has been made known that food supplies will be made available for the poor, among whom presumably the natives will also be included. But I have been asked to specially ask the Minister that food should be supplied only to poor natives who are physically unfit to make a living. There is a tremendous shortage of farm labour, and where labourers are physically fit and able to work, perhaps a little pressure can be exerted by saying that they can get food only if they present themselves for service. In this way perhaps an improvement can be brought about in the farm labour situation. The question of bonemeal has already been discussed here and we are grateful for the Minister’s explanation to the House, but I repeat that we feel that bonemeal is just as essential to us as it is to other parts of the Union, perhaps not so urgently necessary as in the “Lamsiekte” areas, but nevertheless essential. We would be grateful if the Minister and his Department would regard our application for the supplying of bonemeal in this light. We do not want any unreasonable priority, but we merely ask that when supplies of bonemeal are available, the Eastern Transvaal will also be taken into consideration. The Minister himself is acquainted with the conditions there. If you want to breed decent cattle and feed them properly, then bonemeal is essential. As regards the transport of Karoo manure, I want to say that our farmers in my constituency are busy making humus themselves, but it will take time. We are thankful to the Minister for his concession, but we would also like the opportunity next year to convey Karoo manure at a reduced tariff. There are no alternative supplies, no place where one can buy kraal manure. The farmers must now make their own humus, but it takes time. We hope that it will be possible in any case to transport Karoo manure this year at the reduced tariff, and at the end of the year the matter can again be considered. Then I want to ask whether it is not possible to expedite the handling of applications for fertiliser. There are many farmers who must have fertiliser now for the winter crops, and they get no reply to their applications. I would be very glad if the handling of the applications were expedited. According to the Estimates we see further that the granting of subsidies for the improvement of bulls has been reduced. If there ever was a time when it was necessary to improve the cattle strain and to make the most of the opportunities we have, then it is today. We hope and trust that the Minister will not only retain the bull subsidy, but if possible, also increase it. In a few months the subsidy will disappear in our area and in other areas it has already ceased. We feel that this is not the time to abolish it. As regards the question of the marketing of cattle, even if the Railway Administration handles the cattle we send to the markets as good as possible, there is always a certain amount of ill-treatment which is unavoidable. As a result of this unavoidable ill-treatment, the animals not only lose weight, but also quality. I feel that the Minister’s Department should consider whether it is not possible to establish abattoirs throughout the country. Take for example the areas where a considerable amount of meat is produced, the Low Veld and the High Veld. Is it not possible to establish abattoirs here and then to convey the meat in refrigerated trucks to the big markets? It will cost a lot less and eliminate a great deal of the ill-treatment and injuring of cattle and also improve the quality of the meat Considerably. I know that the Department has many difficulties, but let us glance to the future and make a careful investigation.

We have made the charge against the Government that the Government has not got a plan and an ordered agricultural policy. How did the Minister reply to that. He replied that we should remember that the Government was today busy making war. He said that there necessarily were other more important things which require the attention of the Government. This is an admission by the Minister of Agriculture that there is a lack of a proper policy, but his excuse is that it is due to the fact that he is busy conducting a war. That is exactly our charge against the Government, that it directs all its attention to the war, that it does not notice the other problems.

What has the Minister of Agriculture to do with the war?

The Minister omits to announce a policy with which the country can be satisfied. And therefore one gets the impression, and the whole country gets the impression, that where the Minister acts, he acts so carefully and clumsily that instead of doing good, he does harm. If there is one thing I would not like to be today, then it is an official under this Minister of Agriculture, because the Minister does not make it possible for these people to give the country that service which the country needs and expects of them. There is hardly any section of the Department of Agriculture in respect of which the Minister, when he is urged to take action, does not say that he must first ask the farmers what they want. The Minister has a large administration and officials who are willing to render service, but who are not used, because the Minister does not know how to use them. In reply to the charge I made he said: You complain that I have no policy in regard to the fruit and wool farmers, but ask the fruit and wool farmers whether they are not satisfied? But my charge is not that they cannot manage fairly well temporarily, that something is not being done for them temporarily, but my charge is that there is no definite policy for the future. I want plans to be made for the future. If there will not be an export market in the future, when the war is over, and the market for the farmers is weakened as a result of competition, if there is strong competition by artificial fibres against wool, what are you going to do? The Minister’s reply was that there was no policy yet, that the policy must come from the farmers. Therefore I say that we are deeply disappointed in the reply of the Minister. Even where there was a temporary demand for our wool, he made a mess of the matter. The charge has been made that the Minister is not carrying out the agreement which he made on behalf of the wool farmers with the British Government, i.e. that they would buy the wool at an average price of 10¾d. a pound to begin with. We have repeatedly asked the Minister whether the agreement has been fulfilled. He tells us that he may not say. It is a secret. Why? If someone in the British Parliament stood up and asked what the agreement was, and how it was carried out, then that information would certainly be given, or does the British Government object to the Minister telling us what the average price is that was paid to us during the last two seasons. They will not object. There are two parties to the contract, i.e. the British Government and the wool farmers of South Africa. The Minister of Agriculture acts on behalf of the wool farmers, but when we ask the Minister whether the farmers have received what was agreed upon, then he tells us that it cannot be made public. Have you ever heard anything more farcical? I will tell you: He does not want to. He does not want to say because the wool farmers have been done short, because they have suffered a loss, because they did not receive the 10¾d. they should have received, and especially in view of the election it cannot be made known, because then the wool farmers will deal with the Minister. But seeing that we know now that the Minister knows what the average price is, I hope that the wool farmers, wherever the Minister goes will continue to ask what it is. For this reason we on this side of the House, when the Session began, urged the Government to compensate the wool farmers for the loss. We claim that the wool farmers in the past few years have suffered a big loss on their clip, because they did not get the average of 10¾d. which was promised them by the Minister under the agreement. I was glad to see that the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) from the Government side is also now urging that an inquiry be instituted into inland marketing. The Minister said this morning that he could not institute an inquiry because he did not have sufficient people to carry out the investigation, his officials must perform other duties. I cannot accept the excuse of the Minister. I cannot believe that the Minister cannot get suitable people to investigate the inland marketing. I cannot understand how a responsible Minister can try to shield behind such a poor excuse. There is a great need for such an inquiry owing to the great gap between the price which the producer gets for his produce and what the consumer must pay. It is to the great detriment of the farmers that that position exists, and as a result of these conditions a systematic agitation is worked up among consumers against the farmers, that the farmers are the cause of produce and food supplies being so high. It is attributed to the farmer that the prices are so high, while it is the people in between who cause that big gap. Now we ask the Minister to eliminate that gap by instituting a proper inquiry by a commission of inquiry into the marketing conditions of our country. The Minister is unwilling. I want to ask him not to withhold that essential service from the country any longer. Then there is another request I want to make to the Minister, and that is that immediately the maize harvest comes in the maize should be divided in three groups according to the requirements of the country, i.e. supplies for food, supplies to meet the requirements of the dairy farmers and supplies for poultry farmers, so that they know exactly where they are. The Minister has not yet replied to that. I would like him to give us a reply so that they can know exactly what they can depend on, so that they can make their plans for the year. If there is going to be a shortage again, then they can try to make provision in another way. We do not again want a repetition of last year when the farmers were forced to sell good dairy cows because they could not get food, while poultry farmers had to sell their fowls owing to lack of food—although there was sufficient barley for the breweries, and the racing people had sufficient oats for their race horses. The dairy farmers and the poultry farmers do not want a repetition of those conditions, and therefore we ask that the Minister should ensure a proper division so that they can know where they are. [Time limit.]

This morning I was dealing with the question of the food position, and I made certain suggestions to the Minister how to overcome some of the difficulties. I would like to say that I realise fully the immense difficulties which the Department of Agriculture and the Food Controller have had during this last twelve months in dealing with the food position. I am very glad to pay my tribute to the work of the Department in the face of immense difficulties; where those difficulties have not been overcome, that circumstance is due to things beyond their control. There is one thing I think the Minister should give a definite assurance to the people upon, and that is no matter what price is paid for wheat, the price of bread will not be raised, even though that may mean an increased subsidy. Then I think with regard to the question of maize, I think the Minister did make a statement there that steps had been taken to bring the price down to the consumer by way of a subsidy. With regard to the meat situation, the Minister has not yet given a statement on that, and I hope that he will make a very full statement on the position today and what it is likely to be during the next year or so. I know that the position is viewed with some alarm by those who are most competent to judge, and I venture to suggest that some form of rationing should be introduced. I personally believe that you will have to go right in for rationing from the beginning to the end. During the last twelve months we have gone in for a limited form of rationing to the retail butchers in the hope that that would improve the position. Well, sir, I do not think it did, and in view of the difficulty in getting supplies from other parts—I believe supplies have been cut off entirely from the other territories—and the increased demand due to the increased spending power today, a very serious position is being created which the Minister will have to tackle. I would ask him to give the House a very full statement on the position. One or two members opposite, and even on this side, rather pooh-poohed the statement which I made previously, and the facts I then gave the House, and I should like the Minister to make a statement, because the country ought to know what the position is. I do not think there is any necessity for undue alarm, but I am perfectly certain that the position will have to be tackled, and if it is left you will find the price of meat rising very considerably, and what is more, you are going to have a very definite shortage of supplies in this country. Various members have made suggestions for dealing with the marketing problem, and there have been various criticisms of control boards. That is far too big a subject to go into now, but I may say this, that control boards were appointed under the Marketing Act at the express request of the farmers of this country, and some of the most drastic criticisms have come from the farmers themselves during this last year. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) stated that the control boards have been a great benefit to the consumer, and have kept down prices. One of the most efficient boards is the Dairy Control Board, but as the hon. member for Griqualand, East (Mr. Gilson) said today, they are faced with an increased price of butterfat required to make butter, and it is more than likely with these increasing costs of requirements that the cost of butter will also have to be increased. And there again, I submit that it is a matter for the Government to step in and see in what way the position can be further controlled. I realise quite well that all these things will cost money. There is no country in the world which is not facing the position that it is vital not only to the health of the people but to the economic security of the people to cut down the costs, particularly of foodstuffs, and nearly every country in the world is doing so by subsidising on food in every possible way. The hon. member for Griqualand has given figures for Great Britain. We ourselves have started in one or two ways. We have to go very much further and it is the only way in which this thing can be tackled efficiently. I just want to ask the Minister another question. I noticed in the paper on Friday night that regulations have been issued controlling the canning industry—regulations controlling the production of canned foodstuffs. I want to ask the Minister what has happened to the Canning Board which was appointed in 1940 to deal with the whole of the canned products of the country? I happened to be Chairman of the Board, I know the work which has been done, I know the very efficient control which was exercised. They took full control of the canned foods. They regulated it, they put the industry into full production and so far as I know it worked very efficiently. I heard afterwards that the Board had ceased to function. Why, I don’t know, but I do know that you have this position today in this country. I know that owing to the difficulty of getting tin plate—a difficulty in no way due to the Minister of Agriculture or his Department but to another department altogether—we have certain plant which is not working, but could be worked if we had the requisite supplies. We have to work up in every possible way the food supplies of this country. It is all very well to feel that we are well fed and have ample supplies of dairy products. We may have ample supplies for immediate requirements but we are not building up any reserves, and where other countries are building up reserves for shortages which may come, we alone are not doing so, and that is a matter which can only be met by introducing some form of rationing. We have cut down supplies to the producers in various respects but we do not do so in regard to the consumers. [Time limit.]

The last time I stood up in this House, I made a plea as earnstly as it was in my power to do, in an effort to persuade the Minister to fix a price for the maize farmers which would give them breathing space. Now the Minister has stood up and has announced that he is prepared to give the maize farmers a price of 16s. a bag. Now the opinion has been expressed by several members on all sides of the House, in connection with what the Minister has said, that our committee which consisted of various parties and which negotiated with the Minister to get away from the basis of 12s. 6d., which the Minister first regarded as the price for this year, that the Minister in consultation with us fixed a price of 16s. That has been thrown up in our face from certain quarters. I want to say immediately, in the presence of the hon. the Minister so that he can say whether I am right or wrong, that until the Minister stood up there and announced what the price would be this year, I as one of the members who served on that committee did not know what the price for this year would be. I therefore made a most earnest appeal and plea just before the Minister spoke. I do not want to make myself guilty of that kind of Oliver Twist attitude of constantly starting an agitation and saying that nothing in the world will be good enough, and therefore I want to thank the hon. Minister heartily for the statement which he has made here—not because I agree with him, because I do not agree with him. We wanted more, but as a representative of the maize farmers I cannot omit to express my thanks when the Minister meets the farmers by raising the price from 12s. 6d. to 16s. a bag. It is an increase of 3s. 6d. a bag. I feel that the Minister has shown that he is prepared to be reasonable this year, and that we are now in an atmosphere of reasonableness, and I make bold to say that if there is any further loss in the maize harvest then I am convinced that if further arguments are submitted to the Minister, which are convincing to him, he will be prepared to allow himself to be persuaded, i.e. if you present a reasonable case. I do not want to take the matter any further. I merely felt that it is necessary to remove all possible misunderstanding in this House and outside this House, to make it clear now once and for all that I did not do the Minister’s work, that I did not assist in doing the Minister’s work, that he did not ask us to do his work. But I want to say this, that he created the possibility for him to be persuaded; today we find ourselves in a reasonable atmosphere, and I feel convinced that if we can submit a good case to the Minister, he will be prepared to consider it. I want to thank him for the willingness which he has shown. The greatest disappointment I had in his speech was this: I want to make this request, that if he can give further consideration to the maize farmers, then he must in the first instance meet the poor farmer. I want to ask him to assist where the wall is lowest; assist now in raising that wall. I want to ask the Minister to take the poor man into consideration first. I am convinced that any reasonable member who represents the maize farmers will support this thought. Now I want to come to a few other little matters briefly. Not one of the members who have stood up has yet pointed out that the farmers as a result of the statement of the Minister are going to derive an extra benefit, and I want to do so now. The Minister has stated that he is prepared to recommend that practically any maize that is not likely to become musty can be put through with a moisture content of 15 per cent. and even more. Where the Minister says that he is prepared to recommend that any maize be passed where water does not drip from the bag, I just want to make an appeal to the maize farmers to go to their lands immediately and deliver their dry maize. Let us assist the Minister now in getting hold of the necessary maize. If then it becomes clear later, or if we are able to prove to the Minister that the price he has given us is too little, then we can ask him to raise it. But let us not keep the maize back. Let us harvest the maize, and according to the statement of the Minister get 1s. 2d. extra a bag. According to the statement of the Minister, if he accepts 20 per cent. moisture content, then the farmers are going to receive payment for 7½ per cent. extra, which is really water, with the result that you are paid for 15 lbs. of maize in a bag which is really water or moisture, and according to my calculation it works out at 1s. 2d. a bag. It will come in very handy to the farmers if they take advantage of the benefit.

You must not now plead so strongly that they will go and put the maize in water.

No, I can give the Minister the assurance that the farmers will not do that. I want to appeal to the maize farmers of the country today to meet the country in this time of shortage, and to jump out and harvest, and dry, and place the maize on the market at this level, because I have told the Minister that I am prepared, if he treats us well, to do everything in my power to assist him to get hold of maize. I may just say that I have spoken to several farmers and that telegrams have been sent to farmers who have dry maize asking them to make immediate use of this offer of the Minister. Now I want to return to the question of soil erosion and the maintenance of our soil. This morning by way of interjection when the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) was pleading for alternate sowing on the soil of the Boland, I asked the Minister, when he announced that he was prepared to meet those farmers with lucerne seed which is very expensive, whether he would not be prepared to assist us, who are practically in a greater need, with Kaffir beans so that we in the maize areas will be able to apply a proper system of alternate sowing and thereby build up our soil. The Minister declared himself to be willing. It will be one of the best days in this House if the Minister says: I am prepared aso to give a bonus for better methods of agriculture in South Africa: let us keep the soil fertile instead of exhausting it. I hope the Minister will assure me that I did not mishear him. Last year I paid £2 5s. for Saunders Upright Kaffir Beans. They are the best beans in our area, and the ordinary small farmer cannot pay that price for seed to apply alternative sowing. The man has not got the money to buy that seed and thereby build up his soil.

I regret that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) should have misunderstood me and made a statement arising out of what I said which is quite different and is a misconstruction of what I said. What I did say was that this wilful destruction of food by the Control Board was a sabotage of the Government’s efforts to render some social service during this war period. That is what I said and I stand by it. And let me add this, who is responsible but the control boards for the control and distribution of our foodstuffs today. The Minister of Agriculture has entrusted them with these duties and I think it is their duty to distribute these foodstuffs throughout the country so that the masses of the people can receive and have at their disposal food at a figure in keeping with the salaries and wages which they earn.

After we have listened this morning to the reply the Minister has given about the bonemeal position in the country. I do not want to take the matter any further, except to say this: We have now had two statements from the Minister, but it has in no way assisted or saved the situation of the cattle farmer. The Minister has this morning again quoted figures to show how many permits have been sent to Kuruman and Vryburg. But the position is this: The permits will not save the cattle of the country from “gallamsiekte”. What the people want is bonemeal. Of what use is it to us if we have permits and we cannot get bonemeal? The Minister says that there is a reasonable quantity, almost sufficient bonemeal in the country, but we are continually getting letters from our constituencies in which the people tell us that they cannot get bonemeal on those permits. Seeing that the position in respect of bonemeal is in this critical and confused condition, the Minister has said something about which I would like a clear statement from him. The Minister said that Onderstepoort had informed him that they were busy testing a vaccine which had been discovered as a prevention against “gallamsiekte”, and that they were busy making plans to import the necessary material to make it. That was exactly three years ago … . .

I did not say anything about importing; I said there was a shortage of the material.

Then I misunderstood the Minister, but the Minister gave me the impression, and I think that he also gave other members the impression, that there was a possibility of manufacturing that vaccine; not so?

No, I said that if they could get the stuff they could do it here.

It is no use saying “if”. The Minister raised the hope that the remedy would eventually be manufactured. Three years ago already this question was raised, and we then discovered that there was a remedy. That is our complaint against the Government. They perhaps know about certain remedies, but they do not do their best to get hold of those remedies in the interest of the population. As the hon. member for Oudtshoorn has said, the Minister shields behind the fact that there is a war.

Is that also the complaint against Onderstepoort?

If Onderstepoort had been instructed by the Minister to do everything possible to get this remedy, I am convinced that we would have had this remedy long ago. But Onderstepoort is in the position that it cannot do so without the necessary funds and the necessary facilities. The Minister cannot shield behind Onderstepoort.

If you are blaming me, I am satisfied, but if you are blaming Onderstepoort, then you are wrong.

I am dealing with the Minister of Agriculture and he said three years ago that there was a vaccine. The position is simply such that we are losing hundreds of cattle in the country as a result of a shortage of bonemeal. There is a remedy; why can that remedy not be manufactured? It surely is not a secret for which the British Government is also responsible. It is our own secret. Let the Minister take the cattle farmers in the country into his confidence and tell them: That is the remedy, but we cannot get this or that ingredient of the remedy, but when it is obtained, then we expect that the Minister will create the facilities, so that we can guarantee the cattle farmers of South Africa the continued existence of the industry, and that the sword which continually hangs over their heads, i.e. the loss of cattle as a result of “gallamsiekte,” will be removed. I now want to say a few words about the wool position. Together with other hon. members I want to express my surprise that the Minister on two occasions has come here and told us: Yes, he himself knows now what that average price is, but it is a secret and he may not divulge that secret to this House or to the wool farmers of South Africa. We may not know what it is. The farmers of South Africa who produce that product may not know, but why can the wool farmer of Australia know it. Let the Minister tell us what the difference is between the contract he made with Britain and the contract which the Australian Government made with Britain. Then we will see what the trouble is. Then we will see why we as wool farmers in South Africa may not know what we are getting for our product. That contract tells us further that the wool farmers will get half of the profit after the war. But how can we know what profit we are going to get if we do not know what profit the British Wool Commission is making on our wool? This is perhaps one of the reasons why the Minister is not prepared to divulge the secret, because last season our worst wool was exported to America and the British Wool Commission made a profit on it of 33⅓ per cent. I have this information from an absolutely reliable source, that some of our worst wool was exported to America and that the British Wool Commission made a profit on it of 33⅓ per cent. We see further how things are done; we see what luxurious storehouses are being built there. Who must pay for it? The wool farmers of South Africa. Then take the simple work of cutting open bales. This is work which any coloured man has done in the past for a few shillings a month, because it is really not a job at all. Today it is being done by a specialised person and that man gets £50 a month. I am afraid that after all the expenses have been deducted at the end of the war, there will be no profit in which the wool farmers of South Africa can share. We hear now that there are secrets here, but let the Minister come out with his secret and tell us what his policy is in respect of the wool industry after the war. We know what the position is. We know how the whole of Europe is today cut off from wool. We know that Europe today is supplying her needs from artificial fibres. We will have to prepare ourselves as wool farmers of South Africa so as to know what we are going to do after the war. There sits the responsible Minister who must lay down the policy—if he will still be in that position after the war. He at least hopes still to be in that position. If he has any confidence in that hope we want him to come forward with his post-war policy. It is no use telling us that we must be satisfied today with the prices we are getting; it is no use saying that the price we are getting is a secret. We want to know what the Minister’s policy is for after the war, not only to maintain the wool industry in South Africa, but to guarantee the wool farmers of South Africa an existence when the dark days come. [Time limit.]

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the ways of some of these boards, with particular reference to the Citrus Board, and I want to emphasise the unbusiness like and uneconomic way these boards have of attending to their affairs. I have in mind a case where a citrus farmer had a farm near a certain military camp. He offered to supply this camp with fruit free of any profit. His offer was refused. He did not want to destroy the fruit so he offered to supply the camp with the juice; again his offer was refused. A few days later, however, when the Quartermaster wanted oranges he had to get them from a farm 250 miles away.

Where do you get your information?

From the camp itself. Why is it that oranges which contain ascorbic acid, which is a substance badly needed by everybody, should be allowed to be destroyed? These boards get matters into their own hands, they are not responsible to anybody, and they seem to do just as they like. What we want are boards composed of businessmen not directly interested in the particular commodity it is handling.

The maize farmers have rightly agitated for an increased price for their maize. I endorse it, but I want to ask the Minister to consider the fact that there are people who must eat mealie meal, especially the poor classes who live almost entirely on mealie meal. In the past we have followed the stupid policy of exporting our maize at very low prices and then the Government subsidised the farmer in respect of the loss he suffered. I as well as other hon. members at that time advocated that the Government should subsidise the internal consumer. Now I again want to suggest, in view of the increase in the maize price, that the Minister will give further consideration to the question of supporting the poorer section of our people who live under the breadline by making mealie meal available more cheaply. Let him pay a subsidy for internal consumption. The Minister can easily obtain the figures from the magistrates, or from the local welfare committees of the people who must be subsidised in this way. Then I would like to talk about groundnuts. My district produces about 85 per cent. of the groundnuts produced in our country. It supplements the maize industry beautifully. When the Government was faced with an overproduction of maize, and when because of its stupidity, it did not know what to do with the maize, then it encouraged the farmers to produce groundnuts and soya beans. My district is now being threatened with a terrible disaster. Many of the groundnut farmers have decided never to plant groundnuts again because of the root-rot which is spreading over the country. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to it and find out what must be done to prevent it. At that time I pleaded for an experimental station especially in my district, to do research work in connection with groundnuts. Groundnuts will yet play a tremendous part in the country, but at present the industry is being treated like a step-child. I know that there is a committee which fixes the price from time to time. I do not know whether the Minister is again going to take action and buy up the harvest at a reasonable price. But we have that danger of root-rot which threatens us, and I think that the Minister must consider building an experimental station where the greatest production is, and then carry out research work in connection with root-rot. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) has spoken here about oranges. The Potgietersrust district is one of the greatest orange producing districts, not only in our country, but in the whole world, because the big citrus companies have laid out their plantations there. Those plantations give employment to a number of our daughters, but they have killed orange farming. I do not want to enlarge on the rôle which that company is playing in the industry. The disgrace of it is this: that oranges are buried on a large scale, because they want to keep the price high for the public. In order to get the price that they want, thousands of people in the country, who have not got oranges to eat, cannot get them. Here we have an industry that destroys oranges to keep the price level high, and I hope that the Minister will go into these few matters which I have brought to his attention.

I dare not allow this opportunity to pass without thanking the Minister of Agriculture most sincerely on behalf of the wheat farmers in my area for this concession which he announced when he stated that he was prepared to go into the matter thoroughly and to subsidise the sowing of lucerne seed. I do not know whether the Minister himself when making this announcement in the House was fully aware of the important statement he was making—I do not know whether he was conscious of the far-reaching and drastic nature of the announcement he made. I have discussed this matter on many previous occasions and I pointed out that a start had been made with it on expert advice, and I referred to the excellent results that had been obtained. So I shall content myself by saying that in this announcement of the Minister’s to encourage the sowing of lucerne I conceive the beginning of new developments, of a new phase in the Western impoverished soil areas, which will create a totally new era for these parts of the country. I cannot refrain from again urging the Minister in passing to continue with the manufacture of binder twine in this country. We haven’t got factories producing adequate binder twine in this country today. If my information is correct binder twine can be dumped here just below the price of manufacture in our own country, with the result that the local factories are pushed out. I mentioned binder twine as an example, and what applies to binder twine also applies to several other farming requisites. We are developing our industries and we are busy making ourselves independent in industrial matters and also in respect of agricultural requisites. We have come to realise the necessity of being independent in that respect as far as possible, and as the industry already exists today we can do no better as a farming population than express ourselves in favour of that protection which is essential if that industry is to undergo the necessary development, and so far as I am personally concerned, and I feel that I am speaking also on behalf of a large proportion of the practical wheat farmers, we shall be prepared to pay the extra price in order to get the local article manufactured, so that in that way we make ourselves independent in that particular sphere. There is yet another matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is this, that because of the scarcity of fertiliser kraal manure is being sold in tremendous quantities, thousands of tons—and has already been sold at prices out of all proportion to its value. We know—I am speaking subject to correction—that the plant feeding value of kraal manure is about 13s. to 15s. per ton, and Karoo manure is being sold at anything over 2s. per ton. The farmers are short of fertiliser which they badly need, with the result that they have to restort to any article which offers a possibility of making up the shortage. And, Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the extra amount that is being paid for Karoo manure is so much waste. The poor farmer who has to struggle to keep his head above water is forced to pay that price because there is a shortage of artificial fertiliser. Agents go about and use the Government’s name; they say that the Government has bought 2,000 tons and then they ask can there be better proof of the value of this fertiliser, and its efficacy than the Government’s own use of the commodity The Government has its experts and can use this fertiliser for the purpose for which it is required and for which it has its uses. The Government can add the necessary ingredients—it can add other fertilisers, which the ordinary farmer is unable to do, and I should like this matter to have the Minister’s serious attention, seeing that people are being exploited by what is going on today. Then I want to say a few words about the allocation of fertilisers. When I think of the allocation of artificial fertiliser, it fills me with suspicion, and I fail to understand how the allocation can have taken place in such a way that it is out of all proportion to the requirements of the farmer. I am very pleased that the matter is to be investigated and I should like the Minister to make a statement and tell us that where the farmer has really been short and has not obtained the quantity of fertiliser he is entitled to—I should like the Minister to tell us whether there is a possibility of his supply being supplemented, so that the shortage may be made up in that way. Now let my say a few words about the price of wheat. The Minister made a statement in this House that he has fixed the price of wheat for this season at 36s. 6d. for A.1 wheat. Let me say at once that this is not a luxuriously high price, but let me add that at least I am glad that the Minister has made a statement which will tend to bring about stability, so that the farmer will now be able to know accurately where he stands, and at what price he is producing his wheat. In order to be able to produce wheat successfully at 36s. 6d. two factors are necessary—there are two factors on which one has to depend. The one is that the farmer must have adequate fertiliser and the second is that he must have a good season. If he has the necessary fertiliser properly to cultivate his wheat lands in sowing the seed, and in addition to that he has a good season, then the price is a reasonable one. It is a price at which wheat, if those two factors are complied with, can be produced. If our wheat crop turns out a failure, then no price in the world will be high enough. It is easier to produce wheat at 20s. per bag if one gets 30 bags per bag of seed than at 40s. if one only gets 12 bags per bag of seed. It is because of that that I plead for the restoration of the fertility of our soil. I plead for it so that the production level may be raised from what it has dropped to lately. In some parts where year after year poor crops are being obtained, wheat can hardly be produced at any price at all, the ground has been so impoverished. That is the root of the evil and we have to restore that soil to its former fertility; only then will all those difficulties disappear. As a wheat farmer I naturally like to get the highest possible price for my wheat, and if the Minister would put up the price to £2 5s. or £2 10s. a bag I would welcome it, because if that were done even the farmers with the poorest type of soil would be able successfully to produce wheat. But at the price which the Minister has now fixed, those parts where the yield is low, cannot produce successfully. When I say that wheat can be produced at 36s. 6d. I want to add that the yield per bag must not be less than 13 bags per bag of seed, and in addition to that the yield has to be of good quality. If the farmer does not get that return he will find it hardly possible to produce successfully at that price. The other matter which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice is the difference in the grades of the wheat. If the fixing of the price of wheat is an important matter, then the revision of the difference in the grades of the wheat is still more important. While the fixing of the price is something palpable—if the laying down of the price makes it possible for people to know whether or not they can produce at that price, that argument does not apply to the different grades. On a previous occasion I went into details in regard to the different grades, and there is no need for me to repeat what I said on that occasion. I hope that those differences which to my mind are anomalous, will be removed, and if that is done and the whole position placed on a sound basis the 36s. 6d. will be worth more than it is today. Let me finally put this question to the Minister. Let me ask him that when provision has to be made in order to raise the price of wheat to 36s. 6d. without the price of bread going up proportionately, this should not be placed on the Estimates under the heading of “Assistance to farmers”. It should be put on the estimates in the form of “assistance to the consumer”, so that my hon. friend for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) when he comes to deal with the next Estimates in this House will not take up the attitude he has taken up before of asking the Minister to explain what this “assistance to farmers” is; I hope this wrong impression which prevails in the country today will not be created again—because people should not be made to believe that the wheat farmers are being assisted while in actual fact the assistance which is being given is assistance to the consumer.

I should like for a moment to take the House away from the price of items and draw attention to matters in general. Anyone in this House who has been listening to the speeches will admit that when members opposite get up they start off by saying “thank you” to the Minister, but it does not take long before they start criticising him. I am casting no reflection on hon. members over there, but what I want to draw attention to is that notwithstanding the fact that the position of the farmer in South Africa is not what it should be, or is not as satisfactory as it should be, we find that the consumers are suffering great hardships. I want to commence by saying that I want to admit frankly that if the farmer is not doing well, then the country is not doing well. If the farmer does not flourish, people employed in the various professions, or in other spheres of life, cannot make a decent living. It is for that reason that I want to urge the Minister to do all in his power so to improve the position of the farming community that there will be no need for members to get up here continually and say that we should improve the position of the farming community. The farmer is the backbone of the country, and if the farmer flourishes, the rest of the community will also be in a better position than it would be in if the farmer was not in difficulty. There is another side to the picture as well. If we are going to fix prices in order to enable the farmer to make a decent living, we must also bear in mind the position of the poor man who has to buy those products, and many of us here who have their own homes, know that it is impossible today to live as we used to live in the past on the same amount of money. If it is difficult for us of the middle classes, how much more difficult must it not be then for the poor? That is why I want to plead with the Minister and ask him to pay a subsidy to the consumer. Give the farmer a price which will enable him to make a decent living. Give the farmer an opportunity of maintaining his position as the backbone of the country, but give the poor people who have to buy the bread and other products a chance of obtaining these commodities which they urgently require in times like the present, when the cost of living is so high. The Minister will agree with me that my plea on behalf of the consumer is a very reasonable one—let us subsidise the consumer so that he is able to buy adequate food, and if we do so we shall enable him to keep his health. We must make it possible for our poor to feed their children and keep them above the breadline. Now let me deal with another point. The Minister will recollect that fertilisers and seed wheat were given to the farmer by the Government. He will also agree with me that it is often the smaller farmers who apply for seed wheat and for fertiliser. Now, those people are continually getting letters from the Minister’s office in which they are being urged to pay those accounts.

No, they don’t get those letters from my office, they come from another office.

That is so; they come from a different office, but the Minister should use his influence to prevent those people being dunned now to pay those accounts. I want the Minister to ask the other Ministers not to do this, because he is conversant with the circumstances of those farmers and it is his duty to act on their behalf. There is another point I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is the increase of this small black or Argentine Ant. Originally we only found that ant in the Dock areas of Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. Today these ants are found not only throughout Cape Town. A few years ago those ants had got as far as Paarl, and I understand that they have now nearly reached De Aar. This ant not only does a lot of damage to houses, but it damages our gardens and our orchards. The Minister during this debate said that he sometimes followed a policy of “wait and see”. I want to ask the Minister in this particular instance not to wait until this pest has spread still further. He need not wait to see what is going to happen. Here in the Western Province we can see for ourselves what is happening. Sometimes we pick a peach which looks very fine, but when we open it we find that the ant has bored a small hole and inside the peach is full of ants. I should like to know whether the Department has taken any steps to cope with this ant. The Minister will agree with me that the evil is increasing on a large scale. Now there is a matter in regard to East Coast Fever which I wish to bring to his notice. I have received a letter from a farmer in Natal in which he complains seriously about the increase of East Coast Fever. He says that notwithstanding the fact that they dip every fourteen days, and it is necessary sometimes to dip every week, notwithstanding the fact that the farmers put up with the trouble of dipping under very strict regulations, outbreaks of East Coast Fever occur year after year. I should like to know whether the Department is satisfied that dipping alone—which gives the farmer a lot of trouble and a lot of work—is satisfactory and sufficient to cope with this disease, and I should like to know also whether experiments are still being carried out to find what other means in addition to dipping can be used against the East Coast Fever. I am putting this question on behalf of that farmer and he is anxious to know whether the supervision is sufficiently strict. He wants to know whether it is only certain farms which are being inspected while others are passed over, and he also wants to know what steps the Government is taking to prevent cattle being secretly removed from one place to another. Those are the few points which I wanted to bring to the Minister’s notice. While we welcome the fact that the farmers can get a better price for their product I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to the poor people who have to buy those products, and I want him to see to it that those people are subsidised for the purpose of those products.

I want to say a few words on behalf of the consumer. A great deal has been said on behalf of the producer. All foodstuffs are being controlled, but in spite of that the consumer today has to buy everything at most exorbitant prices, and although a cost of living allowance is paid it is by no means sufficient to meet these increased costs. Let us take a commodity such as potatoes. We who buy in small quantities some time ago had to pay 1s. for 2½ lbs. Later on the price was fixed and we then had to pay 1s. for 5 lbs. of potatoes, and afterwards 1s. for 7 lbs. We then found that the price of potatoes on the market was between 8s to 14s. per 150 lbs. It is the middleman who got away with most of the profit. We know, of course, that those parasites also have to live. They are like the lilies in the veld. They toil not, neither do they spin, but Solomon with all his Glory never lived in the glory which they enjoy. Let us also look at the price of meat. A new method is being pursued in Johannesburg today. We have to pay top prices for meat. A small leg of lamb costs 7s. 6d., and chops cost 1s. 9d. per lb. Yet when we get our accounts at the end of the month we have to pay 1s. in the £ for delivery. That money we have to pay in order to pay the natives whom the butcher employs for delivering the meat. We have to pay the native, although we pay top prices for the meat. That has become the custom since the natives went on strike for higher wages. Now, I want to thank the Minister for having reduced the price of bread by ½d. It is not much, but it does help the people who are already living below the breadline. I do trust that the Minister or the Government are not going to raise the price of bread again. We already have to pay quite enough for all kinds of foodstuffs. Let me tell the Minister that although people are prosecuted from time to time for profiteering he can never be sufficiently strict in that regard. At Christmas I bought a 10 lb. bag of flour for which I paid 6d. per lb. When I got home I found that it was sifted meal for which I had paid 6d. per lb. And what is worse is that the bran which is sifted is thrown back into a bag and then it is sold together with the flour. I do feel that in that respect the Minister cannot be too strict. That kind of thing should be stopped because it means exploiting the consumer. A few minutes ago the Minister told the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) that the farmers must not put their mealies in water in order to get a higher price. Let me tell the Minister what is happening in nearly all the bazaars in Johannesburg.

Listen to this.

I went to buy 2 lbs. of dried apples in a bazaar. In the first place the girl behind the counter gave me four ounces short. I pointed this out to her and I insisted on the stuff being re-weighed, and she added the four ounces. When I was in the tram I felt that my leg was getting wet and I found that those dried apples had been soaked in water. I pressed out the water in the tram and I told the people where I had bought them. I think it is a scandal that we should be treated in this way. Dried fruit is soaked in water and then sold to the public.

I am very pleased to notice that the spirit in the House today is better than it was on Friday. But before saying anything about that I want to remark that the Minister was very sensible last September when he gave a guarantee and said that the fixed price would be 12s. 6d. In September, when the guarantee was given, I wired and asked for a clear statement as to whether the price was a guaranteed or a minimum price. The Minister thereupon referred me to the statement which he had made. When we got back here for the Session of Parliament I thanked him—that was on the 27th January—for the minimum price he had fixed. He thereupon said: “No, that is the fixed price”. That was on the 27th January. The farmers got a shock. We saw that the Minister was going to be stubborn and we thereupon, as mealie farmers, decided to set up a Committee composed of all sides of the House, with one member representing every group or party. I have already told the House who the people were, and that movement started from the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard). We thereupon discussed the matter and arrived at the scale which I have explained. If the mealie crop totals 23,000,000 bags, then the price should be 15s. in the elevator. That is the basis which we arrived at. After that we met the Chairman and the manager of the Mealie Control Board and we discussed matters with them. To my mind—and I am now expressing my own opinion—our crop, unless we have further setbacks, will be between 22,000,000 and 23,000,000 bags; I suggested a price of 15s. in the elevator or 16s. in the bag. I said so on Friday and I don’t withdraw from anything I said then. If the mealie farmers consider that I have done them an injustice then I want to say that I feel that they are unfair towards me. Ever since I have been in this House I have always pleaded the interests of the mealie farmers, so much so that the hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys) has applied the sobriquet to me of “mealiestronk”, because I always talk about mealies, but I also think of the consumers—I must not look only at the mealie farmers. If I were only to think of the mealie farmers I would ask for £1 10s., because that is a price at which mealies can be imported. I am thinking, however, of the days when we had to export at 4s. 6d. per bag and for eight years the consumers have assisted us and paid as above the market value for our mealies. The amount which they paid us they got back last year, but I feel that we should now build up a reserve fund, and if difficulties should arrive and prices drop again then we know that the consumers will help us and that we can expect a reasonable and fair price. I believe that the mealie crop is going to be between 22,000,000 and 23,000,000 bags and our mealie farmers can be satisfied with a price of 16s. per bag. In January when the Minister came along with a fixed price of 12s. 6d. only a few mealie farmers protested and many of those who are criticising me today should remember that they waited a long time before they woke up. Now let me say a few words about fertiliser. According to the Minister’s announcement everybody is going to get about 50 per cent. of his requirements. But as the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) has said, I think that we should do more for the small farmers, and I think the scale should be differently arranged. I am now going against myself. I shall perhaps need 300 tons or 400 or 500 tons for my lands. Is it right that I should get 250 tons while the small farmer who usually requires ten tons will only get 5 tons. Surely that is unfair? Rather give me a little less and give the small farmer the quantity he asks for. Let there be a scale that up to ten or 20 tons people will get all they need, while from that point onwards for every additional 5 tons, 10 per cent. will be deducted, up to 25 per cent. or 30 per cent., according to the quantity of fertiliser available. I am also concerned about the meat position. People are agitating for the rationing of meat. On the other hand again people are pleading that only certain animals should be allowed to be slaughtered and for instance that young heifers between three and six years should not be slaughtered. I want to warn this Committee that we should be very careful in regard to rationing. We must teach our people to be honest and straightforward; but as soon as rationing takes place there will be a lot of black markets and that we don’t want. That sort of thing teaches the people to become dishonest and we must be very careful about that. We are not allowed to do that. Take cattle for instance. One makes a regulation that an animal must be six years of age before it is allowed to go on to the market. Whom are we going to punish? The big cattle farmer or the big sheep farmer? No, it is the small farmer who will be punished. Many of those small farmers have to rely on their kraals if they have a bad season. They have to sell these animals for which they can get the best prices on the market. Say a man has forty head of cattle and he has only six young heifers; he can get a good price for those heifers and he needs the money; his other cattle are milk cows or trek oxen. Surely he should have the right to sell his heifers to enable him to pay his debts? Or do hon. members want him to sell his milk cows so that his children will have no milk, or must he sell his oxen so that his ploughs will be brought to a standstill? I want to warn the Minister. This sort of thing is impracticable. The Minister is not a practical farmer, but he knows a fair amount about farming, and I want to tell him that one often gets young cattle, two or three years old, which crawl through the fences. What am I to do with those cattle? Does the Minister want to prevent me from selling them? I want to warn the Minister before such regulations are passed. It would be quite wrong. I want to stop things developing in that way, in the same way as we formed our Maize Committee in good time because we felt that we should approach the Minister in good time and come to an understanding.

At 6.10 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 11th March, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 23rd March.