I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I should like a little information from the Minister on this Vote. We find a new amount of £660,000 which has to be voted here in regard to the stabilisation of the price of bread for the wheat season 1943-’44. I should like to discuss the Minister’s attitude towards our wheat crop and the handicaps imposed by his department in regard to getting the wheat in and getting it threshed and then, of course, to get it milled. During November, 1943, there was a publication in the Government Gazette announcing the prices fixed for the threshing of wheat by machine, and it was laid down there that no threshing machine owner in the Free State was allowed to charge more than he charged last year. No threshing machine owner was allowed to charge any farmer more for threshing his wheat than that farmer paid last year. Last year the position regarding the wheat season was such that the farmers afterwards found themselves in difficulties because they could not get their wheat threshed, and the owners of threshing machines at some places, and in a number of instances, took advantage of the difficulties in which the farmers found themselves in order to raise the price for the threshing of wheat. While it used to be 1s. 6d. and 1s. 3d. per bag, the farmers at that time had to pay 2s. 6d. The farmers were in difficulties and they had to pay these prices. All they could do was to pay. Other machine owners were reasonable and only charged 1s. 6d. or 1s. 7d.

On a point of order, I do not want to create any false impression, and I don’t know whether I shall be allowed to reply to this speech. We are dealing here with a subsidy on wheat which was produced last year and from which bread is to be made. The hon. member is now discussing wheat which is being produced this year, in respect of which there is no amount on these estimates. I should like to bring that to your notice, Mr. Chairman.

May I point out to the Minister that it is very definitely stated here that the subsidy is in respect of the wheat season 1943-’44.

It is the next season, the one which is ahead of us now—that is what the hon. member is referring to. There is no subsidy for that on these estimates; the subsidy here is only in respect of last year’s crop, which is now being consumed.

It is clearly stated that the amount is intended for the stabilisation of the price of bread for the wheat season 1943-’44. That is what I am discussing. The whole question of the threshing of the wheat crop is at issue here.

The hon. member may proceed.

I think the Minister is somewhat ashamed of the attitude adopted by his department in regard to this matter, that is why he is trying to stop me. Now, we have this position, that the machine owners who last year were reasonable and charged 1s. 6d. or 1s. 7d. cannot this year charge more than 1s. 4d. or 1s. 6d. They cannot charge more than they charged last year, whereas other machine owners who last year took advantage of the difficulties with which the farmers were faced, are allowed to charge 2s. 6d. The farmer who last year paid 1s. 6d. is unable to get a threshing machine to thresh his wheat because he is not allowed to pay any more. Those, however, who last year had to pay 2s. 6d. can obtain threshing machines and they can again pay 2s. 6d. Certain farmers are now faced with this trouble, that the machine owners who last year did their threshing for them are not able to do so for them this year, and the others are also not allowed to do it, so their wheat cannot be handled. One has the example of two farmers living next to each other. The one farmer is not allowed to pay more than 1s. 6d. and his neighbour this year pays 2s. 6d. Now I ask whether that is a reasonable or sensible policy to pursue? This matter was brought to the notice of the department by myself and other representatives of farmers as far back as December last. Now, during this season, last week, the Minister suddely saw the light of day and introduced a change. The fixed price throughout is now 2s. but right throughout, since December to the end of January, nothing was done to remedy the position. I know of instances where farmers had to thresh and could not get a machine. They were prepared to pay 2s. but they were not allowed to do so— they were not allowed to pay more than 1s. 6d. No machine could be obtained to do their threshing for them. All this business has created a terrible mix up in the wheat industry and it has caused a lot of dissatisfaction. I fail to understand how this could have happened. How can the Minister and the Wheat Board and his officials make such a stupid determination without first investigating the whole position? They suddenly come along and say that nobody is to be allowed to charge more than they charged last year and that nobody is to be allowed to pay more than they paid last year—and they do so apparently without having made any enquiry as to what last year’s price was. It seems unbelievable, and I can tell the Minister that it has led to a great deal of confusion. I should like to know from the Minister how he is going to justify that attitude. I have sent telegrams and letters to the Department, and the Department was fully aware of the position. I even wired the Minister early in January and I also wrote him a long letter early in January to explain the position, but nothing was done. It was only last week, towards the end of January, when the farmers in many instances should have finished their threshing, that the Minister found out that a mistake had been made, and he rectified it and fixed the price at 2s. throughout. Why have the farmers to put up with that sort of thing? That sort of thing can only be done deliberately or through ignorance. I don’t believe that it was done deliberately, and that being so some person in authority must have been totally ignorant of the situation—otherwise he would not have created such an impossible position. The man who last year was fair in his charges is now being punished, but the man who was unfair and who overcharged is allowed to continue charging a high price. It is particularly the farmers in the Free State who have been hard hit, as in the Free State in December last we only had a few days of sunshine. It has rained very heavily there. The farmers wanted to thresh but the wheat lay and rotted on the land because they could not get it threshed; they were unable to get a machine. The machine owners say that 1s. 4d. is too little and that they cannot thresh the wheat at that price. The farmer is prepared to pay 2s., but he is not allowed to pay it. In the meanwhile the wheat lies and rots and the people are unable to get bread. I should like to have an explanation from the Minister about this impossible position which has been created, and I should like to know how he justifies it because the farmers are most dissatisfied about it throughout the country, and I say that the Department of Agriculture must look after the interests of the farmers better than it is doing at present.

Before the Minister replies I should like to put a few questions to him. As the Minister knows we drew attention to the fact last year that it was wrong for this subsidy to fall under the Department of Agriculture, but I notice that it is placed under the same department again this year. This gives the impression outside that this is a subsidy which is being given to the wheat farmers, while in actual fact the intention of the subsidy is to prevent the price of bread going up and thus to benefit the consumers. Why should this amount for instance not appear under the vote of Social Welfare? That is the Department which is responsible for the welfare of the people. I should like to know what the reasons are for this amount appearing on this vote again. Last year the Minister himself realised that our objection was well founded, but he did not take any steps. Then there is another question I want to put to the Minister. A subsidy is now being paid for the stabilisation of the price of wheat. Is that subsidy paid to the millers, the big as well as the small millers? I am anxious to have an explanation from the Minister telling us who gets the subsidy. Does it go to the millers, or do the bakers get it? I should also like to have a little more information about this amount of £92,500 for a butter subsidy. To whom is that paid? I am not putting these questions with a view to criticising it; I have no objection to the subsidy, but I should like to know exactly what the position is in regard to it. But whatever the position is the subsidy should be called by its right name and the impression should not be created that it is being given to the farmers.

I would like to refer to the amount of £660,000 which is described as expenses in connection with the stabilisation of the price of bread. I agree, Mr. Chairman, with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) who stated last week that this was a misnomer, and sir, I would like to analyse the position not for the purpose of raising a hornet’s nest, but so that the House may clearly understand exactly what this amount is being used for. First of all, sir, in my analysis, I approximate the wheat crop at 5,000,000 bags for the season 1943-’44. This is only an approximation, but going by previous years, it compares reasonably to the 1940-’41 figure of 4,849,000 bags. There are fifteen grades of wheat. To illustrate, I will take Grade B 1, which represents approximately 50 per cent. of the crop. This grade of wheat is supplied to a miller at 28s. 8d. per bag of 200 lbs. On this basis, compared with world prices, it is obviously a very highly subsidised figure at 28s. 8d. To make a comparison with the Australian wheat price, it is 15s. above the figure ruling there to the producer. On the figure of 28s. 8d. the miller is allowed to charge 39s. 1d. for sifted meal. He does not receive any subsidy. He can produce sifted meal at that price of 28s. 8d., and at the price of 39s. 1d. for sifted meal, the baker produces bread at 6d. over the counter and 6d. delivered. No subsidy passes through this sequence. But the position is slightly different in that the Government fixed a price for B1. wheat, for this particular grade of wheat, which represents 50 per cent. of the crop, at 36s. per bag. So on the figure of 28s. 8d., the price to the miller, there is a deficit of 7s. 4d. This deficit on the whole wheat crop would come approximately to £1,500,000. This item of £660,000 is the first payment towards this deficit between the price of wheat, 28s. 8d. and the price to the producer, 36s. This amount is paid to the Wheat Control Board. The Wheat Control Board, for its part pays out to its wheat agents, and the wheat agents are therefore able to pay the difference to the farmer. Therefore, sir, from an equitable point of view this is a wheat subsidy. But I would like to draw the attention of the House to the inequitable way in which this subsidy works out to the farmers of this country. It is essentially a price factor subsidy. If you obtain the annual report of the Wheat Control Board 1938-’39, you will see that the total number of wheat farmers in the country is just over 37,000. Those producing more than 500 bags of wheat per annum number 2,500 farmers approximately, or 7 per cent. of the wheat farmers of the country producing 50 per cent. of wheat crop. The other 93 per cent. produce the other 50 per cent. Fifty per cent. of the crop is produced by 7 per cent. of the wheat farmers. The result is that with a price per bag subsidy you have instances like the following which I can quote from this report, of eleven farmers growing over 8,000 bags of wheat, receiving £2,500 subsidy each on their wheat crop. On the other hand sir, you may go to the other side of it, and you will find 19,000 farmers obtaining a total payment of £5 each subsidy on their wheat crop because their production averages sixteen bags per annum. If you analyse the figure further, you will see that this is no solution of our wheat producing problem, and that the effect of this price subsidy is only to inflate our land values and not to help the farmers who really need the help.

As a new member, I could easily be misguided by the title of this vote, “Control of the price of bread.” Fortunately we have been forewarned by the Government of the proposal which goes hand in glove with this vote of £660,000. Were we dealing with an increase in the price of motor cars I would not be greatly concerned but when the vote is linked up with the proposed measure which will increase the price of bread, speaking for myself and other members of this House, we are gravely concerned about the proposal to increase the price of bread by a half-penny per loaf. The wheat growing interests, as the milling interests of this country, are adequately represented in this House, and from time to time make representations to the Government, and those representations are being sympathetically looked into. I affirm in the name of the working classes of this country that in view of their struggle for existence today under the impact of war and under the increased cost of living, which is mounting steadily from month to month, it is unreasonable on the part of the Government to suggest a half-penny per loaf increase, and if anything at all applies as a test of the Government it is on this question of bread. Workers struggling to earn a sum of money in the form of wages, anything from 24s. per week upwards, are not able to bear the additional burden. I have no doubt that it is essential in this country to promote the production of wheat growing, and if it is necessary to subsidise the growth of wheat neither I nor anybody else will want to withhold from that section of the community anything that is necessary in the way of subsidy to grow the wheat for our requirements. But if the Government are able to subsidise the wheat grower and the Government are able to subsidise the millers and the baking industry to the extent it is proposed they should do in this measure, then the Government can go a step further and subsidise that class of the community who most need a subsidy, and if necessary bread could be subsidised, so that in effect there should be actual control in the price of bread, and that bread will in the future be sold at the same price it has been sold hitherto.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has said. We approached the Minister at an early stage. I personally approached the Wheat Board after we had been informed that the price for the threshing of wheat had been fixed. But the way in which it was fixed appeared somewhat peculiar to us. The Free State machine owners sent a deputation to Pretoria to meet the Wheat Board. They thoroughly discussed the matter with the Wheat Board and although they tried to explain the situation the Wheat Board and the Price Controller put down their foot and said that they had fixed the price and that it was to remain at that. I had a telephone conversation with the Price Controller and I tried to make him understand that it was a most unfair thing as the people who last year charged 2s. 6d. were allowed again to charge 2s. 6d. this year, while others who had rendered services last year, and who had not gone cut of their way to make large profits but had done the threshing for 1s. 4d. were now compelled again to do the threshing for 1s. 4d. The deputation asked the Wheat Board at least to give the Free State a chance to compete with the Transvaal, because there they were given the right to charge 1s. 9d. but all our representations and all our pleas fell on deaf ears, and the result was that we did not get any uniformity. I am pleased that the Minister, after we had discussed the matter with him, realised that his people were in the wrong, but it only goes to show that we are apt to get into trouble with all these controllers we have today. Apparently jobs are to be created for people who are not worthy of having such jobs. If we had fewer controllers things would probably go better and there would be no need for us to criticise the Minister so consistently.

The Minister will not require me to repeat my speech on the motion to go into Committee, but I do trust he will pay me the courtesy of replying to those remarks, as foreshadowed by the Minister of Finance in his speech. I would only suggest that if my assumption is correct, that this increase in the vote is due to the fact that the crop estimate has been largely exceeded, that he will consider the re-introduction of the making of white bread.

This may be a good opportunity for the Minister of Agriculture to give us some idea of last year’s crop; perhaps it is also a good opportunity for the Minister to tell us what steps he has taken to prevent the same thing happening that happened last year when the Government appealed to farmers to produce although the farmers were not given what they required to enable them to produce. This is a serious matter, and I hope the Minister will give it his attention. I should like to know whether the yield has been sufficient to enable him to comply with the country’s request to allow white bread to be made again. This is a request which has been made to the Minister by the hon. member for South Coast (Natal) (Mr. Neate) and I want to say that it is felt in many parts of the country, that we should be allowed to have white bread again. Why can white bread be made in Southern Rhodesia where they do not produce any wheat?

They get our wheat.

It is a peculiar thing that one is able to buy white bread in Southern Rhodesia, but the nearer one gets to the Union’s wheat areas the worse the bread becomes. Personally, I may not mind eating brown bread, but there are a great many people who are fond of white bread. I want to ask the Minister whether, in consequence of a good crop last year, it is not possible for us to revert to white bread? Then I have another question that I want to put. The Minister last year placed the farmers in a very difficult position by not seeing that they were supplied with the necessary fertilisers. A great many of them could not get the fertilisers they needed in time, nor could they get the necessary labour to enable them to produce wheat, apart from the difficulties and the high cost of farming implements that they required. I don’t want to go into this latter point at the moment, but I want to ask the Minister whether there is any feeling of anxiety at the moment in regard to the possibility of a small wheat crop this year. If there is any anxiety then I should like to know what it is based upon? So far as implements are concerned the situation is really difficult. In 1943 some of the farmers were still in a position to make arrangements to secure implements—with considerable difficulty, but the situation in regard to fertilisers was extremely difficult, and so far as labour was concerned they were in real trouble. Will the Minister this year give his attention to these matters in good time? If the Government appeals to the farmers and asks them to produce the Government should also provide the facilities to enable the farmers to do so. So far as labour is concerned, the Minister last year left the farmers entirely in the lurch and the position is becoming worse and worse. We should like to know what special steps the Government is going to take this year to supply the farmers with labour. If the position remains as it was we shall simply have to expect a drop in production, and then we may possibly be faced with the position of having to import wheat into South Africa on a large scale. That the Minister can obviate. South Africa should, as far as wheat is concerned, be self-supporting. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice possibly had in mind that a large crowd of the skolly boys he released the other day were going to work on the platteland, but if he did have that in mind, let me disillusion him. Not a solitary skolly released from gaol by the Minister of Justice will find his way to the wheat farmers. They will all stay behind here in the town, and that is not going to help the wheat farmers in any way.

It’s much more likely they will get back into gaol.

Yes, that I think is very probable. Before saying anything further on this subject I should like to hear from the Minister what steps he has in mind so far as the future is concerned?

I am rather surprised that this extraordinary amount of £660,000 for the subsidisation of the wheat farmers has not brought forward a shoal of protests from the new members of the United Party —I had expected an outcry! In Johannesburg there was a great outcry when there was talk about an increase in the price of bread and the subsidisation of the wheat farmer.

Who says the wheat farmers are subsidised?

I say so.

You know nothing about it.

Well, if the hon. member will make his speech in his own way I shall make mine in my own way. There was an outcry on the Witwatersrand from a number of new United Party Members, so much so that I thought that this new Parliament was going to give us something that we would have new members here who would criticise this iniquitous proposal, but what do we find? The only hon. member who has anything to say is the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). He got up not so much to criticise, as to give us information-very useful information, although I do not think his information was entirely correct, although it did show that a number of rich farmers—and a few of these rich farmers are actually Members of Parliament —are going to collect a considerable amount of money in the shape of a subsidy at the cost of the people’s bread. I thought that this was going to be a reconstruction Parliament. I thought that with this vast majority we have we were going to get something done, but here on this most important thing—the most important thing which has so far come to our notice—we find there is little protest, except from the Opposition side, and of course they are looking to their own baby.

Of course, you are talking nonsense again.

I have been in this House a considerable time, and I remember a time when strenuous efforts were made to pay the wheat farmers 22s. 6d. per bag, and it was considered then that 22s. 6d. was a price which made it possible for wheat to be grown not in the best districts of South Africa, but in the worst districts.

Ag, kom!

In other words, the 22s. 6d. per bag was based on the Malmesbury district of the Cape and for two or three years we found that the Free State farmers having reaped their wheat earlier were able to sell at a good profit at 18s. 6d. and there was always a row in this House about the Free State farmers jumping the market at 18s. 6d. whereas the Cape farmers had to wait a month and could only sell—so they said—at 22s. 6d. Probably the Minister of Native Affairs may be able to give us some first hand information. Now, we find it has jumped to 22s. 8d. or, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said, 28s., and what is the story? The story is that it is necessary to produce more wheat. Before the war the great effort was to prevent farmers from growing a particular crop on ground which was not suitable for that crop—in other words, the whole trend as I understood it of the intelligent agricultural officers in the Department was to endeavour to stop farmers from growing crops in areas where these crops were not profitable, as compared with other area of South Africa. And when we eventually managed more or or less to stabilise wheat at 22s. 6d. per bag, I know that one of the first results was that wheat began to be grown in areas where it was not a profitable proposition to grow it. Now we have another position, where the Minister of Agriculture apparently says that we have to grow wheat at all costs, and in order that we shall grow it at all costs you must grow it on the most unprofitable ground in South Africa, and, so the Minister says, we shall then give you 36s. per bag. That’s what the Government is doing now. What the Government is doing now—and this possibly accounts for the figures mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove—they are now paying a certain amount of subsidy—it cannot be very large— to individual farmers who are growing wheat on unprofitable ground, but in the course of paying that subsidy to those farmers they are giving fabulous profits to farmers who are growing it on profitable ground. The farmers who before the war grew 10,000 bags of wheat—and there are many of them—there are farmers in this House who grow 10,000 bags of wheat—are going to get a very nice present from the Government. If you calculate what their increase is—what it means from 28s. 8d. to 36s. per bag on 10,000 bags per season—you can see how much is being put into the pockets of certain members of this House.

What are you talking about?

The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) laughs, but he should not laugh; they did the same with mealies last year. In the meantime it is the poor people of the country who are suffering. The Minister tells us that we are only raising the price of bread by a halfpenny— but when it comes to the Budget the Minister of Finance will possibly put on another 6d. or so on beer or on candles, or on something which the poor man needs most of all. And he will not take anything from the wheat farmers. They will get off scot free.

What about the super tax?

The farmers do not pay super tax—they do not pay taxes at all.

Oh, don’t they? They even pay excess profits duty now-a-days.

Not in many cases. I think this is a thorough disgrace. 22s. 6d. before the war—that was the price we tried to aim at and even then we used to object because we knew that wheat was sold in the Free State at 18s. 6d. and I am given to understand that it could be produced at a profit at 12s. 6d. in the Free State. I have that from an economist of repute.

Tell us who that economist of repute is?

Why should I, he might get the sack. Now we have got to the stage that it is 36s. per bag. I see that the Government the other day fined someone £25 because he sold a candle at 1d. more than some controller said he should. On the other hand, when it comes to articles which are manufactured, the Government issues a long string of prices. I see in the paper this morning that some of the stores in Cape Town have littered their windows up with the prices of articles in order that they can control the prices. [Time limit.]

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in his objections to this item appearing under the Agricultural Vote. We heard the hon. member for Natal, South Coast (Mr. Neate), telling the House that even he is not satisfied that this matter should come under Agriculture. He wants it to be placed under the heading of “Assistance to Farmers.” And now the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has got up and has objected to this subsidy being paid to farmers. I want to protest most emphatically against such remarks being made in this House and I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the last war the price of flour was £3 per bag.

It was £3 10s. per bag.

Yes, I know, but let us say it was £3 5s. per bag, yet the price of bread at that time was the same as it is now. Now I want to ask this: Let the Minister of Agriculture explain this position to the House and remove this misconception. Let him make it clear to members why the price of bread in the past when flour was £3 10s. per bag was the same as it is now, when flour is £1 19s. per bag? It is this sort of thing which causes all these misconceptions and misunderstandings. This subsidy actually goes to the millers and the bakers. The producer does not get any benefit from it, and I agree with the hon. member for Fordsburg that the consumer does not get it either. It is the middle man, the person in between the two, who actually gets all the benefit. It is unpleasant to hear every day in this House, especially from our friends in Natal and from the Labour Party Members, the type of remarks we have been listening to—to hear the farmer being put in a wrong light, and it is important that the Minister of Agriculture, seeing that he is encouraging the farmer to produce more and more, should remove this misconception, and that he should explain to our friends over there what the true position is.

I have heard a lot of nonsense talked in this House, but the greatest nonsense I heard this afteroon from the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Bumside). He almost reminded us of some of the Ministers we used to have here. The hon. member made certain allegations this afternoon, and among them he said this, that the wheat farmers in the Free State were able to produce at 12s. 6d. per bag. He does not realise that one good year in the Free State is followed by two bad years. If we take it over a period of years it is more expensive to produce wheat in the Free State than even in the Western Province. Then somebody else said that there were 5,000,000 bags of wheat in the country and he took 28s. per bag as the basis for last year. Now I should like to know from the Minister what was the price of the wheat that had to be imported? I believe that the average price of that wheat was 32s. per bag. This again goes to prove that many of those hon. members over there know nothing of these things they talk about. The Minister told us that we were to produce food for the country, and the farmers did their duty in the difficult circumstances in which they found themselves. The farmers have had to contend with all kinds of difficulties and troubles, and the cost of production has gone up, so I should like to know what is the use of hon. members quoting pre-war prices which have nothing to do with the matter at all. No, in this discussion I behold another attack on the control boards. Hon. members over there want those boards to be abolished. They are looking for all sorts of criticisms to level against them. One hon. member talks about 5,000,000 bags of wheat in the country. Where did he get that estimate from? Is he going to tell me that all of that wheat is B.1. wheat? How many grades of wheat are there among that lot? And if he fixes 36s. per bag for the best grade he will find that the average price was not more than 32s. But these sort of things are said in this House merely in order to scare the public. The farmer so far has always been compelled to produce and to lose money on what he produces. But surely the farmer is entitled to make a living? If hon. members had said that the bakers and the millers made large profits I would have agreed with them. As another member has already said, when wheat was £3 per bag a loaf of bread cost 6d. And they made a living. Where are those extra profits going now? No, all this talk is nothing but exploitation of the poor. Those hon. members pretend to be the friends of the poor. Many of them may be likened to the wolf in sheep’s clothing. They are the ones who exploit the poor for their own purposes. Now let me say this to the Minister. Although in many respects I differ from him I want to congratuate him so far as the position of wheat is concerned. The wheat farmers at least know where they are and in that respect he has done good work. We differ about the composition of the Wheat Control Board, we say that that board allows the millers and bakers to make unduly large profits, and that the farmer is not allowed to make enough. But I also feel that this £660,000 should come under the vote Social Welfare, and should not be regarded as an assistance to farmers. It is there that the wrong impression has been created, it is there that the impression has been created among the towns people that the farmers are always being helped. I feel that if those errors are put right, those matters to which I have referred, the country will be grateful to the Wheat Board for the good work it has done.

One can accuse the Minister of Agriculture of very many things, but one of the most important things we have to charge him with today is that he is responsible for the misunderstanding and the misconception which we have noticed today in the mind of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) and other hon. members. Ever since last year we have been pretesting against expenditure such as this coming under the Agricultural Vote. The public outside believe that this again is a subsidy to the farmer, and if the Minister had listened to us and had brought this expenditure under Social Welfare and not under Agriculture, the hon. member for Fordsburg, who dreams three quarters of the time, and concerns himself with things he knows nothing about, would not have displayed such a lack of knowledge here today. I hold the Minister of Agriculture directly responsible for the attitude of the hon. member for Fordsburg. We as farmers emphatically protest against the country being continually made to believe that we are being spoonfed. Last year we from this side protested against the price of bread, and this subsidy was instituted as a direct result of our protest so that the price of bread could be reduced and not raised. The wheat prices were fixed after a commission of enquiry had gone into the costs of production, and as a result of the findings of that commission the prices of wheat were fixed, and in order to take heed of the demands of the consumers and not have an outcry about the price of bread having been raised, this subsidy was instituted as a direct result of the agitation outside, and also on this side of the House, and our demand that we must see to it that the consumer got his bread more cheaply. And now we, as representatives of the farmers, have to come here again and listen to what we have heard so often; we again have to put up with the unpleasant experience of members of this House approaching the agricultural population and telling them that they are living on subidies and that they are continually riding on the back of the Government. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister and I want to ask him to see to it that that sort of thing does not continue. We cannot protest sufficiently strongly against that sort of thing. Then I want to voice this view, that certain members of this House, particularly members like the hon. member for Fordsburg, are intent on creating a schism by means of their agitations and their speeches — they are intent on creating a breach between the towns people and the platteland. And I do feel that if that feeling is roused in this country, if a break is created between the towns people and the people of the platteland, it will bring about a most unfortunate state of affairs in the economic life of South Africa. It is a recognised fact in this country that certain industries have to be borne, have to be carried. Those industries to all intents and purposes, are subsidised in this country. Let us think for instance of the boot and shoe industry, and other industries in which the towns people are engaged. We, as farmers, have never agitated against that policy, and I want to make an appeal to the towns people and ask them not to try and oppress the farmers for the sake of their own gain. Let us get to understand each other, let us be fair towards each other; only then shall we be able to create a happy community.

I wish to confine myself in the first place to the subjects raised by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). He complained that we had adopted a weak attitude in regard to the fixing of threshing fees.

I complained about the way in which it was done.

One hon. member said that they had begged to be allowed the same charges as those in force in the Transvaal. But I believe hon. members know that in the Cape the average price was no more than 1s. Hon. members will see at once that we have different prices for threshing in three provinces. The Wheat Board approached me and told me that the owners of threshing machines were exploiting the wheat farmers, and that it would be the right thing to freeze the charges at last year’s charges—which in many cases already were too high. That was a request which the Wheat Board put to me. I thereupon advised them to go to the Price Controller and say that we agreed that those charges should be frozen. I must admit at once that I was certainly not aware of the fact that people in the Free State had been obliged to pay as much as 4s. for threshing. If I had been aware of that I certainly would not have agreed to the price being frozen on that basis. We would first of all have gone into all the details, but it would have been extremely difficult to determine what the correct amount was to have been. What we did we did in the interest of the farmers. Now the hon. member says that he has repeatedly made representations. Well, I regret having to say that the first representations I heard of were made when I was here in Cape Town.

But I showed you the letters and the replies.

I accept the hon. member’s statement that he did so, but I only want to tell him that the first I heard of it was when the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) brought the matter to my notice and I thereupon at once said that I had been wrong, and that the scheme was not working correctly, and I also said that the position would immediately be rectified. And the matter was put right as we have said, in the interest of the farmers, but we had to get a line more or less as to where the prices were to be fixed. When the request was made to me it seemed reasonable that the prices should be frozen on last year’s basis. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) came back to the question of the vote under which this subsidy should appear. Well, the hon. member used to be a Minister himself, and I just want to remind his of this, that we must have one or other official to be responsible for specific expenditure, an official to account to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. From the very nature of things the Secretary of Agriculture has to be that official.

Why?

Why is there reference here to the wheat season 1943-’44?

Well, that has to be put in. Other members of the House again have raised objections to this expenditure being shown as a subsidy to the consumer. Others, again, object to it being regarded as a subsidy to the farmers. I feel that the position is perfectly clear. My department is responsible for the determination of the price of wheat. The Wheat Board is responsible for a whole series of prices which with my approval are laid down; the price of flour and the price of everything made of wheat. The Wheat Board comes under my department, so we cannot do anything else. My department has to account for this amount and for the way in which it is spent. It isn’t wrong, in fact it is perfectly correct, that it should be brought under the votes of my department. But we were very careful not to put it on Vote 20. In Vote 20 we talk of assistance to farmers. Here it is not described as assistance to farmers, it is deliberately and expressly described as an item for the stablisation of the price of bread.

But you are talking about the wheat crop for the year 1943-’44?

Yes, that is correct. That is how it should be. And if the farmers take objection to it being put in that way, well, I am afraid I cannot help them.

You are never able to help.

I don’t think there is any need for me to reply to that remark of the hon. member.

If you had put it as it should have been put, you would not have had to face all this criticism today.

The Social Welfare is not responsible for this. What has Social Welfare to do with the Wheat Board? The hon. member over there is a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and what would he say if the Secretary for Social Welfare were to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to give an explanation in regard to this matter? No, let’s be reasonable. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad also asked who got the money, the millers or the bakers? This money is paid out to the Wheat Board which, by means of the Co-operative Societies, and its agents, pays out the money to the producers, namely in the shape of 36s. per bag of wheat. So the producers get the subsidy.

Only for the best wheat.

Naturally, we know that there are different grades. The producers get the subsidy and nobody else. The hon. member put a further question in regard to butter. He wants to know who gets the subsidy for butter fat. The Dairy Board came to me and said, “Look here, we have not got sufficient butter to meet the country’s requirements. The production is dropping and we need more butter.” They further pointed out that the producers of butter fat had stated that in relation to cheese milk and tinned milk, and fresh milk, they were getting a price which was out of proportion.

Not in the case of tinned milk. The price of tinned milk is very much lower than it is for cheese milk.

I think the hon. member knows a great deal more about wine and brandy than he knows about milk. At least I assume so. I may be wrong perhaps but I imagine that the hon. member knows that the man who is best off is the man who sells fresh milk and the man who is next best off is the man who sells milk for condensed and cheese milk, while the man who sells for butter fat is worst off. In any case, the Dairy Board went into the whole question, and it came to me with that contention — and the Marketing Board agreed that the Dairy Board was right — and I could do nothing but agree. To raise the price of butter fat 3d. during April and May and 7d. from June to October would mean that the price of butter would be increased by 2d. I could not agree to that in the circumstances, and my colleagues agreed with me, and it was thereupon decided that instead of raising the price of butter a subsidy should be paid on butter.

Again for the benefit of the consumers.

None the less it goes into the pockets of the farmers, just the same as the wheat farmers, rightly or wrongly, put the subsidy into their pockets, and I also want to point out that we are not talking here either about assistance to farmers.

Well, why don’t you say “assistance to producers.”

Why should we say that? The amount appears here under the appropriate vote, and it is called here what it is. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) also asked a few questions. First of all he wants to know what the size of our wheat crop is going to be. We do not know exactly. People are still threshing, but as far as we are able to see it will be round about 6,000,000 bags. Our consumption is slightly over 5,000,000 bags, but I do not think that our wheat position is such that I am prepared to recommend our going back to white bread.

Did we not have a surplus last year?

Perhaps of 500,000 bags, but the hon. member will agree that with the weather conditions as uncertain and changeable as they are, one is not entitled to be satisfied with a surplus of less than 1,000,000 bags. In any case I am not prepared at this stage to recommend that we should go back to white bread.

Could not we take out the soya beans and the mealies?

Mealies are not permitted; no mealie meal is mixed in with the other. The hon. member shakes his head; I only want to say that that is prohibited and it is an offence to do so. If he knows of millers who add mealie meal and he notifies us, they will immediately be prosecuted.

None the less there is an unsatisfactory factor in the bread.

Well, perhaps many people do not know how to bake. If the hon. member is not satisfied I would advise him to take away his custom from the place where he buys his bread.

What will the women have to say?

Apparently many of the women don’t know how to bake properly.

If the surplus is not used to bake white bread again what are you going to do with it?

The Department has just informed me that our consumption is 6,000,000 bags, and that we do not really expect any over production, but even if we were to have a surplus of 1,000,000 bags I would not yet be able to recommend our going back to white bread. Besides that, the experts say that brown bread is a good thing. I am not offering any apologies for brown bread.

Still, people like to have a little flour at Christmas time.

I am quite sure that the hon. member knows how to go about getting a little flour for the making of cakes. I also want to point out that in cases where people suffer from certain specific diseases they can get white bread.

†I hope the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) understood me. Our supply of wheat is good, fairly good, but it is not large enough to go back to white bread; and even if we have, what I hope to have, a surplus of 500,000 or more bags I am still not going to return to white bread. I do not apologise for that at all.

Why not?

Why should I? I am advised by most health authorities that the people are better off with brown bread and until it is clear that we must cease the control of wheat, we shall have to keep to brown bread.

†*The hon. member for Moorreesburg also asked what we would do to give the farmers what they required to enable them to produce. I think I can assure hon. members that the fertiliser position will be considerably better. My information from various firms is that they are getting larger supplies and we are trying to get still more.

Will it be available earlier than last year?

Yes, there already are announcements in the press stating that people can make applications for fertilisers. Agricultural implements continue to be scarce. We have not got all the agricultural implements we need but we are doing our best. The hon. member also asked that farm labour should be made available. I think I am entitled to say that the hon. member must put that question to the Minister for Native Affairs.

You are sitting so much nearer to him.

But perhaps the hon. member has greater influence with him. The labour question is a question which like the poor we shall always have with us. The position is not good.

And is becoming more and more critical.

The Government will do what it possibly can do.

Have you not got a plan?

Perhaps the Minister of Native Affairs has a plan. I do not think it is my duty to supply native labour.

But surely it is a Cabinet responsibility to secure labour for the farmers.

I admit that the position is difficult. I do believe that labour, like so many other things, tends to follow the market.

Has not the position been aggravated by the war?

I admit that that is so, but if the hon. member wants to tell the House that natives have been commandeered, he should direct his remarks to my colleague here. The position has become worse, also as far as white labour is concerned.

†I am afraid that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) is not so well qualified to talk on this question of wheat as he is on most matters. He is not so very well informed as usual. One thing he told us that was wrong was that the price of wheat was fixed at 22s. 6d. in order to bring the border areas in. The hon. member said: “In order to bring in the areas that were not so good for wheat production”; that is those that are on the border production areas. But it does not go back far enough. Why does he not go back to the last war, when wheat was £3 and £3 10s. a bag?

After the war, in April 1919.

In any case the price was pretty high. And whether it was right or wrong to have fixed the price of wheat at the time at 22s. 6d., during this war we have had the profit of it. If it had not been for that we would have gone without bread in this country, because we simply could not import wheat. Whether at that time the hon. member objected to it or not we would not have got the wheat into this country; I can assure the hon. member of that. He grumbles and he criticises the fact that we are paying 36s. I admit that it is a very good price.

It is only an average of 32s.

Even an average of 32s. is a good price for wheat, and it is also a fact that people who have good wheat and who are getting good returns are making a very good thing out of it. But most of the farmers in the acknowledged wheat areas do not make such a good thing out of it, because their yield is so small. The position is that either we have to encourage wheat growing or to take a chance of getting wheat imported, and the Government have thought that the safe thing was to pay an admittedly good price, to pay the man who obtains a good yield a large price, but you are bound to consider the man with a small crop, and the areas where the yield is not so large, in fixing prices. Although I say again it is a good price, I am making no apologies for having at the time, a year ago, fixed the price at 36s. The result of it was that we either had to put the price of bread up to 7d. or to pay a subsidy in respect of it. There was no other way. The farmers said: “We will grow wheat” and they asked 40s., as members will know.

We still want 40s.

You will want it.

You suggested 6s. 1d. per bag for encouragement.

It was more like a question of 2s. Id. In any case the hard fact was that we agreed to pay 36s., and this was not criticised last year when the statement was made in the House. It was at once agreed that we either had to put the price of bread up to 7d. or pay a subsidy of £1,500,000—this being the first instalment towards that sum.

You increase the price of bread and give a subsidy?

If we had not given a subsidy, bread would have been 7d. and not 6d. Bread today is 6½d. delivered and 6d. over the counter.

†*The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) also asked a question. He drew attention to the price of bread at the time of the last war and today. Last year I already pointed out that hon. members were mistaken in this regard. The price which the hon. member quoted was the price of a 1 lb. loaf during the last war, and the hon. member is comparing that with the price of a 2 lb. loaf now. In order to make a comparison he should have doubled the price that was charged during the last war, and if he were to do so he would find that the price today is somewhat lower than it was then. I believe I have now dealt with most points, and I hope it will be possible for the vote to pass now.

I know the difficulties attaching to the position of a Minister of Agriculture, and that being so I do not want to be too critical, but none the less I am afraid that the Minister’s argument in regard to the matters raised here were not convincing, nor were they consistent. First of all he says that this amount appeared in the appropriate place, that it is paid over to the Wheat Board, and that the Wheat Board in turn hands it to the millers but that none the less the farmers get the benefit of £1 16s. per bag of wheat. He again states that it is a subsidy to the farmers, although it is a subsidy intended to stabilise the price of bread, so as to supply the consumer with cheaper bread, but the consumer is never mentioned. This subsidy is given here for the benefit of the consumer but the Minister runs away from the consumer. Next, the Minister argued about butter, and he said that there was a shortage of butter and that the Dairy Board had told him that the price of butter should be raised, otherwise they would have to give a subsidy. Here, again, therefore, we are dealing with a subsidy which is to the benefit of the consumer. Why is not that stated openly? My objection to the Minister is that he wants to saddle the farmers with this subsidy, although it is a subsidy to assist the consumers. The farmers get the reputation of being carried by the Government, although the subsidy is intended to help the consumer. Then there is the question of farm labour. Let me tell the Minister that in my own constituency there are today 5,000 coloured men in camps who could well be used to do farm work. What are they doing there? They loaf about in their uniforms, with their rifles. I think the Minister should take up a firm attitude towards other Ministers who deprive the farmers of labour. I do not want to go into this matter any further at this juncture, but when we get to the Main Estimates we shall deal with these subjects at greater length.

Surely the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) knows that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The hon. member was Minister of Agriculture for many years and on the Estimates which he used to put up when he was in power there was never any question of assistance to the consumers but these matters were always styled “assistance to farmers.” I put up a plea the other day that this should be changed, but I do not think the hon. member is entitled to critcise the Minister in the way he has done. In the days of the Old Nationalist Party the very same thing was done. The hon. member now tells the Committee that the Minister runs away from the consumers. Well, didn’t he do the same thing — didn’t he also run away in the days when he was Minister? He is a very brave General when it comes to actual fighting, but in the political arena, and so far as agriculture is concerned, he has also done a lot of running away.

Discussing bread and the price thereof reminds me of a certain noble earl of England who was also a good deal of a swankpot, and who used to turn out most gorgeously arrayed in immaculate attire, with the nattiest cane, and the most shiny silk hat, and a trouser-crease sharp enough for a razor. His eyeglass was always just right, and he would not carry a tickey for charity in his vest-pocket for fear it would spoil the outline of his suit. He was a very notable dude and dandy of London. While one day strolling in St. James’s Park he met an individual less well placed. As the latter was hungry, he comes up to the noble earl and says “Sir, you don’t happen to have a bit of bread on you, do you?” Now it would have been hard to imagine anything more unlikely than that the noble peer would have a piece of bread in his pocket. He was of the class not at all interested in the price of bread. He was one of those who would imagine if there was not enough bread to go round that you had better start on cake or sausage-roll, or something like that. But there is a very large class of people the very largest class of people in our country, to whom the price of bread is a matter of life and death; and if prices must go up on this or on that, do not let it be on this that is bread, but let it be on the other thing which can be done without. The British Government learned a very necessary lesson after the South African War. Some of us did not think they were capable of learning a lesson, and some of us are wondering whether our own Government is able to learn today. But the lesson was taught to the Government of England by the people of England. There was a proposal round about 1906 to put up the price of bread. It was only a halfpenny increase, as this is, but at the general election the suggestion did not work. People, hungry folk, were simply asked the one question. On the Opposition party’s election manifesto they had a big loaf contrasted with a little loaf, and they asked the people of England “Which will you have?” And it is not much to be wondered at, Mr. Chairman, that they choose the bigger loaf, or in terms of what we are considering this afternoon, the cheaper price for the loaf of bread. I say in all friendliness to the Government that this is one of the most dangerous proposals ever put before us, this proposal of increasing the price of the elementary, the fundamental, food of the very large proportion of the people of our land. Even a farthing on a loaf of bread, to the biggest number of people, is a tragedy, just as the increase in the price of rice has been to the Indian people. When the price went up to 8d. or 9d. from 1½d. a pound it meant death by starvation to those people of India and of South Africa whose staple food it was. I deprecate with all the strength at my command any increase in the price of bread. If a farmer has to have assistance, and there is nobody whom I respect more or whose work I consider more necessary, than that of the farmers, do it in some other way. Do not make the poor person produce an extra halfpenny or penny for the daily bread he is consuming. I would add that if the price of bread is to be increased, for the love of God and of man let the quality of it be increased also. With all deference to the hon. Minister, who for all I know may eat little or no bread, I guarantee that he could not eat some of the bread that has been put before me to eat. In the interests of economy we tried to feed the cat on it. We put the cat on a diet of milk and bread. I presume that the milk was all right but that the bread was not, for the cat promptly had fits. In my view it was entitled to have fits! It cost a couple of guineas for the veterinary surgeon to rectify this position, so we decided, notwithstanding the price of meat, to feed the cat on beef. The quality of the bread is not merely poor but disgusting, if what I get is representative of the remainder. If we are to pay more for bread then give us better quality. It is in some cases defintely not fit to eat, and it is responsible, I suggest, for a good deal of sickness and the stomach trouble that infests Robben Island and other places, where young fit people are supposed to congregate. When the Minister tells us that he cannot get the flour, I would like to remind him that I do not know a great deal about farming; I know more about farmers. I greatly honour and respect them, and regard them as the primary and most important workers of any country. But I do know the price of bread in England, and I state it is only 4d. against the 6½d. which it is proposed to charge here, or rather which is charged here without the extra halfpenny. The wheat for that bread is not grown in Britain but very largely in Australia, and it comes and looks at us in Durban, and its price at Durban is 15s. a bag. That flour is carried on to England, and the proof of the correctness of what I say lies in this, that for the same wheat and for better quality bread in England the people pay at the rate not of 6½d. but 4d. a loaf. And it is a fact, although they have had many troubles in England, they have less sickness in England today than they had before the war, and there people are better fed, better nourished, and becoming in better physical condition all round, because they are getting cheap bread. I suggest that we need in South Africa the finest physique that we can build up, and one way we can get it is by giving the masses of our people abundant food, and by seeing that the principal article of food is lessened in price rather than increased. If wheat can be grown in Australia at half the price it can be grown here, surely it is common sense to take it into our ports at much less than the price we are now paying. Surely there are many things which we can produce in South Africa better than can be produced in other countries; why cannot we specialise in them? I presume that as a ranching country we could do very much more than we are doing. I presume that instead of importing potted beef, as in the past, we can produce our own; instead of importing our breakfast foods from America, with all deference to our Allies, we would rather eat tinned and potted foods produced in the Union. I would support the farmers in any way which would increase their prosperity as primary workers, but I also want the cheapest possibly primary foodstuffs for the people of this country.

The Minister stated that he would not be prepared to allow an isssue of white bread to take place in South Africa, and I take it that he means that he would not allow it even if we had a superabundance of wheat. I presume that the Minister knows that there is scarcely a household in South Africa that has not got its sifting machine, and if the Minister is really sincere and determined that South Africa should be compelled to remain on this sort of bread, then the least that he could do would be to prohibit the use of sifters. Because a lot of waste takes place in the sifting of flour, and what is the result—it is thrown into the rubbish bin, and then to my mind it is very doubtful whether, having this brown bread instead of white bread, is to the benefit of the people as a whole. I still maintain that we could have white bread in South Africa. Applications galore have been made to the Wheat Control Board to allow people to import wheat and flour from Australia. Any amount of wheat is ready for shipment to South Africa at the docks in Australia, waiting for people to get permits to import the wheat. But you have the same thing again in connection with the Wheat Control Board as I mentioned the other day—they have made a hopeless mess of the wheat industry and today owing to the dictatorial attitude of that board, we have not been able to import wheat from Australia that has been lying there, with ships ready to bring it over, and I know for a fact that there have been tons of flour rotting in the docks in Durban, owing to permits not being granted until the flour had rotted. We have no objection to bolstering up these industries, if it is in the interest of the people of South Africa. I remember when the Wheat Control Board came into being in about 1934 or 1935 I felt that a Wheat Control Board was somewhat premature, and would not be in the interest of the industry and I characterised the wheat industry as a bastard industry, when we could import our wheat at half the price of what the wheat growers were demanding here. Here we have another instance of that criticism being justified. At that time the growers wanted 16s. or 17s. per bag and what do they want now? They are now demanding 36s. per bag and they are getting it, and still they are not satisfied. Surely you will forgive me when I say that our Control Boards have been an utter failure. A control board governing any food industry in South Africa brings with it firstly an increased price in the cost of the commodity. That has been proved the case in respect of every industry. I hope you are not going to say my remarks are irrelevant, Mr. Chairman. This £660,000 on this Vote is linked up with the activities of the other control boards. I suggested to the Minister the other day that it was necessary for him to take action regarding the activities of the Deciduous Fruit Board and I now suggest that he should also have an enquiry into the activities of the Wheat Control Board, and of every other Board, because those Boards know nothing about business and they are not prepared to learn. The public now have to pay 6½d. for their bread—the wheat farmers would probably love it if they had to pay 7d. or 7½d.

You shouldn’t say that.

Oh, yes, and that is what they would have to pay if the subsidy was not paid every year. It was £2,000,000 last year; there is £660,000 on the estimates now, and on the next supplementary estimates there will probably be another £1,000,000. Where is this business going to end? The public of South Africa are just about tired of these subsidies, because it is those subsidies which fail to give the public the cheap food they desire. And what are we going to do about it? Are we going to allow the foodstuffs of the people to rise to such a point that even people of means will not be able to buy anything? What is going to happen to the natives if the price of everything is allowed to rise? They cannot buy meat, they cannot get rice, the price of mealies has gone up, and the Government sits tight, and they say: “The producers demand these prices, so we must give way to them.” Why should these subjects come up for discussion year after year? Why is it not possible to arrange with the primary producers that they shall get a reasonable price? No matter what prices they are receiving on the open market, no matter what subsidies or bounties they get, they want more. Surely it cannot go on like that?

[Time limit.]

I should like to have some information about the charge made for the threshing of wheat? The Hon. the Minister will remember that certain representations were made to the Wheat Control Board last year by farmers at Brits, and at that time there was a provisional freezing of threshing prices, but after that the people undertaking threshing for the farmers raised objections to this provisional freezing. That freezing was not consistent, with the result that further representations were made to the Control Board and the price was thereupon fixed at 2s. 3d. per bag of wheat. That was without labour; with labour it was 1s. 9d. After that the control board again wrote to the people doing the threshing, and informed them that they could now do the threshing for 1s. 9d. if the farmer provided the labour, and 2s. if the farmer did not provide the labour. I should like the Hon. the Minister to be quite clear on this point, and to tell us what the position is so that we may be able to let the farmers know what he means. Does he mean that 2s. has to be paid if the farmer supplies the labour, or is that the charge without the farmer supplying the labour? We shall be glad if the Minister will give us a specific reply to that question?

I am not at all convinced by the Minister’s reply, nor am I perturbed by the Minister’s statement that I may know a lot about other things but that I know nothing about farming. I am satisfied that the people of this country are clearly of opinion that whatever the Minister may know about other things he knows nothing about food, food control or food prices. That is the considered opinion of the people of this country—they consider that the food position of this country has been utterly messed up by the Minister, and the demand is made by every section of the community except the farmers that the individuals who should have charge of food prices and food control should be entirely separated from the Ministry of Agriculture. It is only a common sense proposal after all, because it does seem to me that on every occasion where the agricultural people of this country are in a position to do so, wherever they have the power as the producers of food, they hold the country up to ransom. Now, the Minister said that he made a certain proposal last year, but there was no money on the estimates then. He said he made this very proposal. Well, it is only when there is money on the estimates that we are in a position to oppose a proposal. Now, I find this in a speech by the Minister himself, when speaking to the House on the same subject. There was an interjection by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux): “Does that also include the remuneration for the enterprise?” I don’t know what the hon. member was referring to. The Minister replied: “Yes, that includes everything, the remuneration for the wheat farmer, increased cost of living, 5 per cent. interest on capital, a reasonable profit, etc. But the Wheat Board said that over and above the 33s. 11d. 6s. 1d. should be paid as an encouragement to the wheat farmer.” 6s. 1d. per bag! That is the Wheat Board which includes only one representative of the consumer. That is the kind of stuff which the Wheat Board trots out to the Government. 6s. 1d. per bag is an encouragement, encouragement for what? If, during war time, a wheat farmer refuses to grow wheat I think he should be deprived of his farm, and the farm should be taken over by the Government. However, they wanted 6s. 1d. The Minister did not agree to that fortunately. Then the Minister said: “I notice that the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) is laughing. I suppose he wishes he were a wheat farmer.” You are telling me! I suppose he did wish he was a wheat farmer. It is not everyone who can hold up this country to ransom.

Do you say we are doing that?

Well, it is noticeable that the members of the Nationalist Party are supporting the Government. The Minister in his speech said that the Marketing Board thereupon went into the matter, and the Marketing Board said they could find no fault with the calculations of the Wheat Board, and so on. And then he said that the Marketing Board had stated that if provision was made for increased cost of living.… Yes, increased cost of living! This question of increased cost of living does not bear so heavily on the farmer. Let me quote what the Minister said—

The Minister spoke there about interest on capital—as a matter of fact the interest on capital has gone down. The Government subsidises the farmer for his interest on capital.

You know very well that the Government has taken away the subsidy.

You can borrow money today at a lower rate of interest than before. That is irrefutable. The Government does it itself. So the rate of interest on money borrowed by the farmer is mainly on money in the shape of mortgages. Of course, if the farmer wants to buy land today at highly enhanced values—that is his own lookout and the farmer should not be allowed to try and recoup himself at the expense of the poor man by raising the price of bread. Well, the Minister said there was no necessity to give the farmer more than 1s. 3d. by way of encouragement. So he did not get the 6s. 1d. But what is this encouragement? Does it mean encouragement to come back to the House every year and ask for more? Why should the farmer get 1s. 3d. per bag for wheat as an encouragement to grow wheat for which he is today getting a 60 per cent. increase? I take very little pride in the patriotism of South Africa’s wheat farmers if they need 1s. 3d. per bag encouragement to grow more, and I take even less pride in their business ability if they need that 1s. 3d. in order to grow the wheat at 36s. Well, if we look at what the Minister said last year what does it mean? The farmers are getting 2s. 6d. extra merely as an encouragement to grow wheat. Now, the point is this. Wheat in South Africa is grown in several parts of the country. There are parts in the Free State where wheat can be grown as a reasonable economic proposition at anything from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. cheaper than in the Cape.

What do you know about that?

A lot. There are parts where wheat is grown, where it is not an economic proposition at all, and this price of 36s. is a price for wheat where it is grown on the least profitable basis. So we are paying the farmers who are growing wheat on the most economic ground a subsidy in order to get a few extra bags of wheat grown on the most uneconomic ground. [Time limit.]

I feel a lot has been said on this question which has not been very helpful. I feel the country must realise that when we have a war on, when the position is very critical, when we know the shipping situation is very difficult, the Government has to take the responsibility for seeing to it that the people get food. If they have to rely on the possibility of getting ships to bring out the food they are taking a tremendous risk—a risk which they are not justified in taking with food. I think the Minister rightly gave the people an encouragement to grow wheat, and the result is that we have a sufficient supply of food for this country, and we hope to have a sufficient carry over in case we have a bad mealie crop, or a bad drought next year. I agree that generally speaking this is not a good wheat growing country, and I am rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) stressing the point that the Free State is a country in which wheat can be grown cheaply.

It can be grown there better than in the Cape.

Well, I know the Cape and the Free State well, and I say that wheat growing in the Free State is a considerable gamble and if you are going to grow wheat in the Free State, you are gambling with something that you cannot afford to gamble with—that is your livelihood. The fact that wheat is not grown normally on a large scale in the Free State must indicate that it is not really a good crop there. If you have a drought you have no crop. Well, fortunately this year we have a first class season and we have good prices, but the whole principle which is being attacked is the Government’s policy of trying to provide a livelihood for a large part of South Africa, and to see to it that there shall be ample food. Now, I hope the Labour Party is going to support the Government in trying to build up industries, to see that people who work in this country get a reasonable reward for their labour. We are not grumbling at the large increases which are taking place under these wage determinations and in lots of other ways, and I maintain that if the Labour Party are sincere they should support any earnest attempt on the part of the Government to see that the food of the country is plentiful and they should not continue to raise this cry of “cheap food”. Any country that wants cheap food must be an importing country and not a manufacturing country. I think the thanks of South Africa are due to the Minister for the fact that in these difficult times he has seen to it that we have an abundant supply of bread at a reasonable price.

It’s interesting listening to these “yes men;” the blame which should be cast on the Government is now being cast on the farmer. If the Government’s chaotic marketing policy is responsible for the fact that one has to pay 9d. per lb. for grapes in the coolie and Jew cafes, and 6d. for a peach, the farmer is blamed, and if, as is the case today, the Government gives a subsidy, then it is not the Government which is blamed for the maladministration of our marketing conditions, but the farmer is blamed, and I should think that our farmers’ representatives in this House must be getting tired of this sort of thing. I think the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) was quite correct when he told the Minister that he should inform those people what was the true state of affairs. I really got up to say that the farming section of the community will learn with joy that the Minister has promised an improvement in regard to fertilisers.

If one makes a promise one has to carry it out.

Things went so badly awry last year, the Minister had such a bad time of it that I think he will be well advised to make a promise, to see to it that the necessary arrangements are made in connection with fertilisers.

I have not denied that.

No, the Hon. the Minister does not deny it — he would rather die than admit a mistake. I think everybody except the Minister knows that. Still, he has now promised an improvement, and if the Minister carries out his promise we should be satisfied. Now, what he has said about the labour conditions — that is a horse of a different colour. I think the farming section of the population was entitled to expect the Minister to have announced a plan as soon as this matter was raised in Parliament. What is the Minister doing here today? He discloses a lack of policy which is absolutely scandalous. He sends us to the Minister of Labour.

To the Minister of Native Affairs.

He first of all sent us to the Minister of Native Affairs, thereafter to the Minister of Social Welfare, and next to the Minister of Labour. And then he said that we should approach the Minister of Defence. He is sending us from Pontius Van der Bijl to Pilate Smuts. That’s no use. The Minister should realise that the agricultural section of the population looks to the Department of Agriculture to assist him in these matters. His department has to act. Now he says we must approach the various Ministers. Is there so little joint or common action in that Cabinet? The Minister should himself make representations to the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Labour, the Department of Defence, and the Department of Native Affairs, all of which are concerned in this matter, and he should come to this House with a scheme. If he keeps on displaying this same lack of policy I can assure him that things are going to be made very difficult for him. He will have to promise to do better. The Minister in his speech admitted that the situation was unsatisfactory. He knows what the facts are. He knows that large numbers of farmers last year, after they had sown and planted their seeds, did not know where to turn for labour. The Minister knows that the labour is available. What is happening today? The towns are so attractive to the coloured people especially in the Western Province, that with their families they drift to the towns. Many of them join the Army. That is so. I think we must draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are any number of coloured men in the army who should not be there at all. But apart from that one finds day after day that natives and coloured men leave the areas in which they are living, and run to the towns. The influx of coloured people into the Cape Town area, just to mention one, has become so serious that the Minister of Native Affairs has been compelled to set up a reception depot for them here. That is how serious the influx of the natives into towns has become. The lights of the big towns are all to attractive to them. So great has been the influx of the natives into the towns. They do not go to the farms. No, the small lights of the town are too attractive. And what is happening to the natives is also happening to the coloured people, on a larger scale than the Government is prepared to admit. While the farms on the platteland are losing their coloured labourers, and while the position has become as serious as it is today, the Minister of Agriculture comes here at the beginning of the session of Parliament, and tells the House that he is not responsible, and he says: “I cannot do anything about it.” Of all the lack of policy that we have experienced from this Government, the lack of policy of the Minister of Agriculture is the worst of all. I really feel that the Minister should give his attention to this matter. The agricultural section of the population is entitled to better treatment. One hon. member has already stated that the farmers have responded to the appeal made to them by the Minister to produce more and keep on producing more. The farmers have produced more, but conditions are becoming impossible in regard to production, on account of shortage of labour, and now the responsible Minister, the Minister in charge of the agricultural department—which is the farmers’ department—comes here and tells this House that he has no policy in regard to this great difficulty with which the farmers are faced. He sends the farmers to other Ministers. I am afraid that they have no policy either, so far as this matter is concerned. No, my advice to the Minister is that he himself should consult the other Ministers and should then take co-ordinative action. I predict that when the time for sowing and planting arrives the agricultural section of the population will make things so hot for the Minister of Agriculture that he will hardly dare to take a seat in this House. He will have to stay outside to try and extinguish the flames. The Minister this year is doing what he has been doing year after year; he is showing a lack of knowledge of labour conditions on the farms, especially here in the Cape. When we raised this question earlier on this afternoon he told us that native labour was available. So far as the western parts of the Cape Province are concerned we require coloured labour. We have always had thousands of coloured people here and the Minister should know better than to refer us to native labour. Surely he is not such a stranger in Jerusalem after all the years he has been Minister of Agriculture? I have shown that there are very few coloured workers left on the farms. The coloured people drift to the bright lights of the towns, and something has to be done but the Minister, on behalf of his powerful Government—powerful so far as numbers are concerned—declares that he has no policy in regard to this matter. He condemns himself and he condemns the Government. I can only say that the agricultural section of the population has no reason to expect that the Minister, when he discloses such a lack of policy, will meet them and assist them in regard to this question, and that things will not be allowed to continue in the same way as they have done in the past.

I don’t think the Minister of Agriculture need have any sleepless nights on account of the criticism of his policy in connection with the wheat farmers to which I have had to listen here this afternoon in this House. Take the criticism that has come from the Labour Party and the Dominion Party. In the years that I have been in this House I have become accustomed to listen to that kind of unfounded criticism, and I have learnt not to take that kind of criticism seriously. But none the less I did expect that instead of hearing the type of criticism to which we listened this afternoon, extremely unfair criticism, the representatives of those people would have come to this House and through the Minister of Agriculture thanked the farming population of this country for having saved the country at such a critical period, one of the most critical periods in its existence—that they would have thanked the farming population for having saved the country from absolute chaos, and a catastrophe in respect of its food requirements. It certainly is not the Reef farmers who benefit by this policy of the Government’s. Unquestionably it is not the wheat farmers. If it had been left open for the prices of products to take their course without any pegging by the Government the price of many products, and especially that of wheat, would have gone up to an unprecedented level. Instead of allowing that to happen the Government stepped in and fixed prices. I approve of that. It was a statesmanlike and wise policy because an unsound condition of affairs would have been created if the Government had not done so. But has the wheat farmer been benefited by that? If wheat prices had gone up to any heights, as in the last war, the price of bread would have gone up to the same extent, and who then would have had to pay for it? And who would have been the people who would have condemned the Minister most drastically for such a policy? It would have been the same people who now condemn the Government’s policy, now that wheat has been fixed at 36s. per bag for the best grades. The wheat farmers have not benefited from that policy. Assuming, however, that that policy had not been followed—that the Government had not tackled the situation— and the facts being as they were, that the wheat shortage could not have been supplemented from overseas owing to the fact that during the war there is no shipping available for the transport of such products—what then would those self same people have said if we had not had sufficient wheat for the country’s requirements. We would then have been told that the situation was due to the shortsighted and unstatesmanlike policy pursued by the Government. If we keep those things in mind we really cannot take their criticism seriously. There would have been an outsry and there would have been all kinds of protests if there had been a wheat shortage, but now that everything has gone smoothly, now that the wheat farmers get a price for their wheat at which they are more or less able to produce, without making any undue profits, now the Government is being criticised. No, I am satisfied that the Government has handled an extremely difficult position in a statesmanlike way and with great common sense. This criticism is unfounded and unfair. The criticism to which I have listened today is devoid of all foundation. Are there any countries where bread is cheaper today than in South Africa? If there are such countries then I should like to know where they are. Assuming the Government had followed that policy which hon. members over there apparently want it to follow, do hon. members think that the wheat farmers could have been compelled to produce wheat? They would not have been able to produce it, because there would have been other products which they could have produced at better profits. Take such things as wool, meat and dairy produce, the prices of which are high. Those commodities can be produced more advantageously than wheat; why then should the farmers have produced wheat. If they had to do so on an uneconomic basis? No, I say that there would be more satisfaction and a better understanding, a better relationship between the producers and the consumers, if it were not for exploitation by politicians who are causing discontent in this way—a way which is extremely unfair and uncalled for. A large proportion of the people of this country are today paid an allowance in respect of cost of living and I want to ask the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), who is not here just now, whether the workers do not also get these cost of living allowances in respect of the increased cost of living, whether they do not also get it because of the increased price which they have to pay for bread although that increase is very trivial?

And some of them in addition get double salaries.

I am not even talking about double salaries. I want to say this, that the Government made an appeal to the farmers and the farmers rose to the occasion. They saved the country at a critical period in its history. Not only did they Save the country but they rendered a most important service to the country. The grain farmers in general and the wheat farmers in particular have rendered the country a service of such inestimable value that that service is not generally realised. Had they not met the position we would have known the seriousness of the situation, but they met the position, and that is why we do not fully realise the situation. When one listens to the criticisms that are levelled here one would almost come to the conclusion that the wheat farmers are not merely fed with a golden spoon but that all of them are tremendously wealthy. Are those hon. members aware of the fact that 90 per cent. of the wheat farmers are very poor people, who have to make a living by means of hard work, and who are hardly able to make ends meet out of what they get from the production of wheat? We must arrive at the conclusion that the criticism we have listened to is based on pure ignorance and that one should make an effort to supply these critics with information so that they may come to a realisation of their ignorance. Even before the war there were whole farms in my district and in other parts of the Western Province where no wheat was being grown. At the ruling prices of products it did not pay the farmers to sow wheat. It was not economic so far as the farmer was concerned to grow wheat, and large numbers of farmers left their farms. Wheat was required to meet the country’s needs, and now the Government is being criticised because it has fixed a price for this product which is going to return the growers a fairly decent profit. All the other sections of the community are doing well and are better off than the wheat farmers. If there is one section which is not yet better off, it is the wheat farmers of the Western Province. They are not better off because they are subject to changes in climatic conditions, bad crops and poor prices, and things were very bad for the wheat farmer for several years before the war. This year the season was more or less normal, but that does not mean that the shortfall, and the losses suffered by the farmers, can be made up by one normal year. Hon. members over there imagine that 36s. per bag is a wonderful price. Are they aware that 36s. per bag hardly puts the wheat farmer in a position to make up the increased cost of production? Are they aware of that? Are they taking into account the increased cost of production with which the farmers are faced in producing their wheat? If the increased cost of production during the past year is taken into account, there will be less talk about a subsidy, but hon. members will realise that the increase is allowed because of the increase in the cost of production. This kind of criticism is childish, and it does not do credit to this House which is the highest council in the country; it is a council where we expect to find people who speak with a knowledge of affairs, and we do not expect them to talk without knowing what they are talking about. Nor does this sort of talk tend towards bringing about better relationship between the towns and the platteland.

It is rather refreshing that the last speaker has now really for the first time this afternoon thrown some very important light on this whole subject, namely the question of the millers, and there I do ask this Committee to focus its attention. I appreciate the remarks that have been made this afternoon with regard to, shall we call it the bribe, offered by the Minister of Agriculture in the past few years to secure a greater production of wheat, and I appreciate the fact that under the Government we have, with the political blending between the Nationalist Party and the section of the United Party, when we are dealing with a subject such as this—it was very noticeable this afternoon dealing with this particular subject.…

And you voted for that party.

I will vote again for that collaboration. But it is very significant on this occasion and it is plain to us that the blending of the Nationalist Party with the section of the United Party is reflected clearly in connection with this Question of wheat. It comes to this, that there is an element of sham fighting in that respect. Therefore I think I must address myself to the Minister of Agriculture and tell him that in connection with this racket—and I use the word advisedly—this racket put across the people of this country with regard to the price of flour and the quality of bread we have today, the public while they have been satisfied to accept the position previously on the assumption that it was part of the war effort, when they begin to see it is not part of the war effort, and that there is no need for the increased price of bread, and there is no need for mixed flour in the bread, are going to express a good deal of opposition throughout the country. We are in the position today that has been lightly indicated by the Minister when he said that whilst there was a good supply of wheat this year he does not say there is enough to have white bread. On the other hand, the suggestion has been made I think by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett), that the only way we can have an abundance of foodstuffs is by following the policy laid down by the Minister, and that we have to thank the Minister for it. I am not blaming the Minister for securing that abundance, but I am blaming him for not securing the proper control, and the distribution and the price and the method in which the consumer ultimately receives that product. Now we have had quite clearly shown to us that in so far as the control is concerned—it is quite clear from the remarks made in the earlier part of this debate—our weak spot is in the lack of an organised arrangement from the farmer to the consumer. Why should we have this sham fight time and again? First of all some Minister gets up and blames the farmer. I am not prepared to blame the farmer at this stage, though I am not saying that he is not to blame sometimes. On the other hand, the distributor is blamed, but particularly in the question of dealing with wheat there is that very substantial octopus, and I use the term advisedly, the miller. The miller today has not only secured control over farming, but he has secured control over bakeries. He has got his thumb today on the whole organisation of the supply of bread to the people of this country; and he is so clever that right through this debate only one or two members have referred to the miller’s position in this regard. The time is fast arriving when that has to be put a stop to. There is one thing that is essential, and that is in the proper control and distribution of the people’s food there has to be removed the octopus that is in a position even to secure support from all political parties, at times through sheer placing a veil over the true position in so far as distribution is concerned. I am going to put it to the Minister this afternoon, and to put it to this Committee, that we have to lay it down definitely that there are two things that the people of this country demand, and over which their patience is being exhausted. The first is that the price of bread instead of being stabilised at 6½d. or 6d. should come down to something near the world price of bread, and the time for that is long overdue. I know of no other country in the world where the price of bread is 6½d. a loaf. I know of many countries in the world where they get good bread, better bread than we do, at 4½d. and 5d. per loaf.

Where is that?

In England the price of bread is 4d. per loaf. Let me tell you that this is not a new position. This is not a war position. We had it years ago when the Wheat Board was first put up, when we were told that certain parts of the country — I remember Bredasdorp was mentioned—were very suitable for wheat growing, and we were told that if we set up an organisation such as the Wheat Board we would be able to develop the production of wheat in this country to an extent which would make it satisfactory as far as this product was concerned; and we were also told at the same time that the nature of our wheat was such that we required substantial importation of a harder wheat to make good bread. We have heard all these arguments in favour of the wheat producer, and this afternoon we are getting down to the true facts of the position, and I am going to put it that the Minister will be well advised to take heed and to take a little warning of what the people of South Africa are thinking with regard to the manipulation of wheat, the manipulation of flour, and exploitation as far as bread is concerned.

I very much regret that the Minister in his reply failed to furnish an answer to the points I made. I made a simple suggestion that in view of the present wheat production he would consider a reversion to white bread. Instead of accepting that as a suggestion and giving it his consideration, he goes for me and says that he has absolutely no intention of introducing white bread, and he added that he was not going to apologise for saying that. I put a simple proposition before the Minister. I refer to what I said on the motion to go into Committee, and I suggested that the Minister would take the opportunity to reply to the points I had raised during the debate. The Wheat Control Board recommended £2 per bag for wheat, and the description that the Minister gave of the cost of production, which was 33s. 11d. per bag, included fair remuneration to the farmer for his services, 5 per cent. on his invested capital — which is quite a large consideration — a reasonable profit, so that he is getting his money’s worth, and the cost of living, which I do not think he is entitled to, as well as other incidental items. That made up the cost of production to 33s. 11d. based on six bags per morgen throughout the country. Now we have the Wheat Commission’s report, which stated that in the best part of the Cape Western Province, and in the best part of the Transvaal, seven bags per morgen was the best production they could hope for. I have the authority of a farmer who used to be at Standerton, that in the older days he could produce 16 bags per morgen, and that he was well paid for it at 13s. 6d. per bag. This encouragement of 1s. 3d. per bag and the additional 1s. which the Minister granted brought the price up to 36s. The result was that many farmers cut down their mealie production and went in for wheat. Why, if they are getting a reasonable remuneration for their service, 5 per cent. on invested capital and a reasonable profit, why should they want any encouragement to produce more wheat? Surely that is enough for the farmer; he does not deserve anything beyond 33s. 11d. That is my considered opinion, and I am going to stick to it. It appears to me from the attitude of the Minister, both last year and this, that this question of a misdescription of a sub-head under which this money has been spent has put the Minister rather in a hole—possibly not the Minister but the secretary of the department; and that they do not care to reply to the question I have raised. I have the greatest admiration for the Minister of Agriculture, and I know him sufficiently well to appreciate that if he is convinced he has made a mistake he is man enough and has courage enough to get up and say so. Last year and this year I have been dismissed if not with contempt, with either a brief reply to the effect that I did not know what I was talking about, or else I have been ignored altogether. That sort of thing will not go down for ever, and I am perfectly satisfied that having put the matter to the Minister in this way that he will at least reply to the representations I have made, and reply reasonably to the reasonable and logical request that I have made to him.

Particularly to us young members on this side of the House it is very amusing to see how deeply unhappy this unconsummated marriage has become of late. Only a few months ago we had to listen to all those stories of the wonderful happiness of this marriage and today we already see what is going on. My friends on my left base their arguments on things of which to my mind they know nothing. I must assume that they are either ignorant or malicious. One can perhaps take it for granted that they are ignorant, because I have often held the opinion while I was a practical farmer that it was only the towns people who were being assisted and that the farmers were getting nothing, but since I have made a practical investigation as a townsman I have come to a different conclusion. On their side there are very few who have had any practical experience in that direction, and I assume that they are somewhat ignorant of these matters. But the great point is that we really cannot take these people seriously. They have to do something here in order to try and show the working people something. They have to raise a little dust in order to show the workers that they have the interests of the workers at heart. We have seen that sort of thing so often of late. They are the people who have contracted this marriage, and their leader is a member of the Cabinet today, but in spite of that they are making a feint at the Government merely to raise a smokescreen and then to run away again. However they will be able to go and tell the workers that they have criticised the Government in regard to this or that particular matter. No, let them get to the bottom of what is really wrong. If they want to attack the Government let them attack it about its neglect in regard to the threshing fees and all the irregularities that have taken place. It is those things which are the cause of thousands of bags of wheat perhaps having been lost, but they have never thought of that. The next point is the increase in the cost of production, and my hon. friends over there in all probability know very little about the increase in cost of production. If we take the increase of the cost of production into account we shall find that the farmers have not benefited to any great extent from this so-called subsidy. And in addition to that we have the question, how can the farmers produce the maximum if the Government is negligent or incompetent in regard to supplying the farmers with the necessary fertiliser to enable them to produce? Let us base our attack on that. I want to associate myself with hon. members on this side and I also want to ask where this £660,000 has gone? The Minister of Agriculture has been challenged to prove that the money has gone into the pockets of the farmers by way of subsidy. He is unable to prove that. If that is so the item should not appear at all on the vote of Agriculture. That is the great trouble. The kernel of the whole matter has always been this, that there is still too much play between the producer on the one hand and the consumer on the other hand, and it is in between those two that the money is made. It does not find its way into the pockets of the farmers and the workers have to pay more for everything, but who is responsible for that? We must blame the Minister of Agriculture. The people who are making such a terrible fuss now are equally guilty because they constitute part of this Government, and their leader is a Minister in this Government. The great trouble lies in the play between the producers and consumers, and it would be very much better for members of the Labour Party to stand by us in our efforts to cut out the middle man, so that the producer will be brought into direct touch with the consumer. In the circumstances we cannot take the argument of the Labour Party members seriously; they have to do something in order to try and show the workers that they are doing something in their interest, but unfortunately they have contracted this unfortunate union, and they have to see the war through—and that is the difficulty they find themselves in.

I should like to say a few words about the criticisms of hon. members representing the Labour Party. You so often find that comparisons are made between the prices of products in this country, and prices in England. I have not yet heard once that hon. members over there have talked disparagingly of the tremendous subsidies which are paid in England to farmers to keep the prices of products down. Will hon. members deny that over £200,000,000 are paid in England in subsidies to the British farmers to keep prices down?

They need it.

So do we. The average production of wheat in England per acre is about three times that in South Africa.

It is more than three times.

They do not employ native labour.

The real argument comes in here. Comparisons are made between the prices in this war and at the time of the last war. People were satisfied in the last war to allow the price of wheat to go up although the price of bread remained more or less stationary. I put it to hon. members of the Labour Party that in those days the wages were never as high as they are now, and I also put it to them that the people who are to a certain extent responsible for the increased cost of living are the members of the Labour Party themselves. I do not for a moment say that the people who work have no right to have better wages, but after all when you increase labour costs you must force up other costs at the same time, and that is the whole crux of the situation. During the last war we had none of these things. Now, we have heard it said that the Minister had stated that if such and such things happened wheat growers would be on a better footing. Well, we find that in many parts of South Africa people are growing wheat today where they never did before—and in many areas they have been growing wheat very successfully. One hon. member stated that at Standerton at one time they could produce 16 bags to the morgen. I can say that any man who grows wheat in the Transvaal under irrigation is a poor man and always will be a poor man. That is a fact. Wheat farming is the worst paid kind of farming you can find in the Transvaal. I am not talking of wheat farming now under dry land conditions, but what is more, your production even on your irrigated land has gone down by at least 50 per cent. Something goes wrong with the soil after you have grown wheat on it—the soil is not as productive as it used to be. In my own area we used to get up to 20 bags of wheat per morgen under irrigation, but we no longer get that today. And the same applies to areas round about Pretoria and Brits. You no longer get the big yield that you used to get. I take very strong exception to the suggestion that there has been manipulation as far as wheat is concerned. I can tell hon. members this, that if we had not encouraged the production of wheat there would have been a shortage, and I go further and say that if we had not encouraged wheat growing, with this tremendous shortage of mealies, which we shall probably have, we shall be in the soup once again. Don’t forget that the two crops do not come at the same time. If you have a bad mealie crop you have to do your utmost to get a good wheat crop. That part of the argument does not seem to strike my hon. friend. And for the hon. member to say that wheat growing is not a war effort is surely also a very strange argument. One of the first things we have to do is to see that we have enough food. People may not get exactly the kind and quality of food they want, but let me say this to the hon. member—if he does not like the bread he gets, let him change his baker. Everyone can get good bread. I am satisfied as far as wheat is concerned that this war has taught us that we must grow wheat—there is no doubt about that, and that being so I fail to follow the argument of some members who, while supporting the war effort, say that we are rendering undue favours to farmers.

It seems to me that Ministers on the other side, when they decided to put their allies, the Labour members, on this side of the House, committed a serious psychological blunder: They have now loosened the tongues of the Labour members, and the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) discovered this afternoon that he had given his followers the wrong advice when he told them to support the Government at the last elections. He has now found out that he is too late. Eyen hon. members opposite, such as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) now talks of people belonging to the same party as he does as individuals who begrudge the farmers everything. The Labour Party is in this trouble, that it has to support the Government unconditionally, and today those members find out the morass they have landed themselves into. They are now objecting to this subsidy of £660,000 but I want to ask them to have the courage to move the deletion of the amount—an amount which will benefit the consumers. Some of those hon. members are opposed to this subsidy, simply because they are under the impression that it will go to the farmers. Well, one can quite understand that if one looks at the way that party is made up. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) is perhaps the only one who knows anything about the difficulties the farmers have to contend with. They advised their followers to vote for the Government, but they did not realise that they were advising the people to vote for a Government which is always supporting the middleman. They will yet find out when the new meat control comes into operation who it is who is being protected. They will then find out that they are busy protecting the wholesalers, the auctioneers, and the middlemen in the towns, so that their own supporters will have to pay more for meat. And the same thing applies to the price of bread. It is now too late to complain. They should have given different advice to their supporters on the 7th July. But let me come back to the Minister of Agriculture, on this question of the scarcity of farm labour. The Minister saw fit to raise the price of wheat and I agree with that, but I do not know whether the Minister realises the tremendous difficulties the farmers have to contend with on account of the scarcity of labour. It is no use having rain, it is no use the farmers having ploughs to plough their land, if they have no labour. I wish the Minister would come to my constituency where he could see the immense damage suffered by the farmers owing to their being unable to get reapers. The Minister says that we should direct our representations in this regard to the Minister of Native Affairs and the Minister of Defence. I am surprised he did not also mention the Minister of Railways. The Minister knows perfectly well where the labourers are going, and why the farmers have to contend with so many difficulties. I do not want to be personal but I am convinced that members opposite have approached him and have told him that they have had to sell their cattle and have had to drive their stock into their cultivated lands because they live alongside the Native Territories, and are unable to get labour. The natives who can also get £20 for an ox, no longer want to do any farm work. The Minister of Railways last year had 3,011 more natives in the Railway Service, while the number of white railway workers went down by 425. That is where the labourers go. The Minister also knows that as a result of the recruiting of coloured people and natives by the Minister of Defence the farmers are without labour on their farms. If the Minister casts his eye at the dispersal depots which are being set up, he will notice that in one depot out of 606 men about 300 refused to accept any work. They don’t want to go to the farms. Why should they go there if they can get higher wages in the army? I don’t want to dilate on that, but I can say this, that the farmers, if they do not know that they will be able to get their crop off the land next year, are not going to sow as much this year as they did before. The Minister has a good many difficulties and he deserves our sympathy, but it is his duty to find a solution of this difficulty, and we shall be obliged to keep on pressing this point until something is done.

I want to tackle this question from a slightly different angle. In order to illustrate my point, may I quote the parable of the Good Samaritan. I am sure hon. members know that parable very well. The point I want to make is this, whenever I have gone to church the preacher has always extolled the Good Samaritan. But listening to the debate, the point which struck me forcibly was that instead of extolling the Good Samaritan we should eliminate the thieves. If we could only eliminate the thieves in connection with this matter we should go a long way towards getting cheaper bread in this country.

Who are the thieves?

After listening to the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) I think one can safely say that the thieves may have been the millers themselves.

I don’t want to labour this question of the wheat subsidy any further. I think it has been very fully discussed. I only want to put a few questions to the Minister about the butter subsidy. What applies to butter applies to many other things, and the Minister owes the country an answer. Until recently on the Rand one could never get more than half a lb. of butter at a time. One could do what one liked but one could never get more than half a lb. of butter at a time, but when one goes tot the butter producing parts of the Union the farmers tell one that they are only allowed to make 50 lbs. of butter and no more. Many a farmer has told me that he could have made another 100 lbs. but that he is not allowed to do so. That was at the time when in Johannesburg one could only get half a lb. of butter at a time. The producers complained that they were not allowed to take more butter to the market.

You’re quite wrong.

This is a matter which I have personally gone into and the hon. member knows what the position is, but now it’s getting even worse. Now the farmers are not even allowed to sell 50 lbs. of butter, but they are compelled to sell their butter through the creameries. The farmer is compelled to deliver his cream to the creamery and the producer is compelled to sell his product through the channel of the exploiter. The Minister shakes his head. Well, that is what I have found, what I have seen in the Free State with my own eyes. The farmer tells you that he is not allowed to sell butter, that he has to sell through the creamery. Anyone who has seen the way the creameries handle those products, how the natives handle those products, will never again deliver his product to the creamery.

You are now criticising your own Government.

I am criticising the kind of measures which the hon. member over there was in agreement with. There are many new members here who do not know for instance how the Wheat Control Board secured the power to allow a wheat farmer who stored more than 800 bags per year to get compensation out of the pockets of the consumers in the event of the vermin or insects eating the wheat, but the small man who produces less than 800 bags can never get a penny. That is my answer to hon. members over there. The small man also produces wheat, but the Subsidy Act of 1925 only gave that privilege to farmers producing more than 800 bags. That is my reply to the great champions of the Nationalist Party who are now pretending that this is something new, something which has been introduced by this Government. When I protested against it they had no time for me at all. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) talks of an unhappy marriage. What do you think of a man who approaches a young woman and tells her that her marriage is unhappy? He tries to break up the marriage and, of course, the young woman may listen to him if he puts a good proposal to her. But that has nothing to do with the case. We are entitled to criticise and to draw the Minister’s attention to the matter. I want members to recollect that I told the Minister last year that his Department was going to make an even greater failure of distribution. That prophecy of mine is coming true today. Take the position in regard to meat. I know I am not allowed to discuss that on this Vote, but the position is getting worse and worse. I should like to have an explanation from the Minister on this Vote of the position in regard to butter. The producers are being forced to sell through the channel of the middleman, to whom hon. members over there have given the status of consumer. Now they are kicking against it, but they themselves are to blame for the position which exists today.

I should like to say a few words to correct the mistaken impression created by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg).

Leave him alone; it is nothing but propaganda.

Still, I want to nut him right.

How delightful things are when brothers live together.

The hon. member has been confusing farm butter with creamery butter. Rightly or wrongly, the Dairy Board suggested to me that they should impose a levy on farm butter. I said “No.” A farmer has two or three lbs. of butter, in exchange for which he wants to get groceries, but a man who sells more than 50 lbs. of farm butter has to pay the levy. Surely that man is not the poor type of man to whom the hon. member was referring. The provision in regard to the 50 lbs. is being used by certain individuals to get underneath the wings of the poor farmer’s wife in order to evade the levy.

What about the farmer’s wife herself?

The position is that there was no levy on farm butter, but if a man makes more than 50 lbs. per month he is no longer regarded as a manufacturer of farm butter, but as a farm factory butter manufacturer. The position has now been changed so as to prevent people avoiding the levy. The Dairy Board has made representations to me and I felt that they were correct. They said that all the butter should be brought under the control of the Dairy Board. But it is incorrect to say that a man is prevented from making butter. He can make as much butter as he wants to, but he will have to pay the levy of one penny per lb. The hon. member can take my word for it that there is no such thing as a farmer being compelled to send his cream to the creamery. He is allowed to do what he wants to, but if he produces 50 lbs. he has to pay the levy. With a view to catching the people who have attempted to evade the levy it has now been decided that the levy will also apply to farm butter.

But they are allowed to produce as much as they want to?

Certainly, they can make as much butter as they want to and they can sell provided they pay the levy. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) asked me a question regarding threshing fees in the Transvaal. The difficulty arose from the fact that some of the farmers supplied their farm labour or other labour to assist at the threshing machine, but other farmers again are assisted by means of labour brought along by the thresher who carries his own labour. The former farmer pays 2s. If the thresher has to supply the labour, the farmer has to pay for it.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that last year after the provisional freezing of wheat prices, the Control Board stated that if the farmers supplied the labour, the threshing fee would be 1s. 9d.

Last year the fees had not been fixed.

But you wrote to all those threshing machine people. They were to get 2s. 3d. if they supplied all the labour. Afterwards they received a letter that it would be 2s. if they supplied the labour, but without the labour it would be 1s. 9d.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 23—“Agriculture (Forestry),” £42,000,

I want to ask the Minister whether this increase has any connection with a change in the wages of forestry workers, and if so to what extent the wages have been altered and what the conditions of service are today.

These are the ordinary cost of living allowances. There is an amount of £2,000 in connection with the increase in wages for these labourers. If the hon. member will study the Loan Estimates he will find an amount of £8,000 there. One part of the forests is worked under the ordinary Estimates and another part under the Loan Estimates. This additional amount of £2,000 is in connection with the increase of wages. The men who have been less than one year in the service and who used to get 5s. are now, if they have free quarters, getting 6s. Those who have been in the service longer than one year get 6s. and 6s. 6d. and those who are in the service longer than two years are paid 6s. 6d. and 7s. In addition to this all these people get £1 per month cost of living allowance.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 25—“Public Works,” £66,339,

We are dealing here with an increase of £66,000, and I take it that the Minister will give us an explanation.

£26,000 represents increased cost of living; relief of lower paid officers, increase in pay and regrading of new posts account for £8,000, and officers discharged from military service account for another £3,000; and it all comes under this amount of £63,000. It is expenditure that we could not possibly contemplate at the time.

I think this is the occasion when the Minister should give us some more information about this matter. Is there no building material available for the public to enable them to continue building? Last year there was a considerable amount of difficulty in regard to this matter, and I should like to know from the Minister whether he is now allowing people to have more building materials.

I am afraid the hon. member is out of order. The subject does not fall under this vote.

I merely put the question; perhaps the Minister is in a position to give a reply.

I am quite willing to give the information. The position is very much easier in connection with the matter. As a matter of fact, I have given a public statement that will appear in the Press tomorrow dealing with this particular point raised by the hon. member.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 26—“Government Motor Transport and Garages,” £20,500,

I would just like to ask the hon. Minister whether this increase is due to an increase in the price of petrol, oil and grease, or whether it is due to further use of Government, transport.

The increase is primarily due to the fact that we are paying a penny a gallon more for petrol and 8d. per gallon more for oil since the 28th September last year, and a further increase on 8d. per gallon on oil and a 1d. per lb. on grease from the 4th July last year.

What do you pay for your petrol?

I thought these things were controlled.

I am afraid I cannot answer that question at the moment.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 27.—“Interior,” £53,000,

I would like the hon. Minister just to tell us what this amount of £36,000, “Immigration and Asiatic Affairs,” represents.

It is due to the fact that we have increased the rate from 15s. to 20s. in the country and from 20s. to 25s. in the town.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 29.—“Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-minded,” £25,500, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 31.—“Public Health,” £4,605,

We would like to have some information in connection with this National Blood Transfusion Services. Will the hon. Minister kindly tell as more about it. Why cannot it be increased? It seems to be such a necessary service.

The position is that provision was made on the previous years estimates, but there was a delay in starting the work and on that account it has been necessary to vote the money again, but I believe the work is now on the way and all necessary progress will be made.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 33.—“Social Welfare,” £5,000,

I should like to know from the Minister what he means by K.4, Purchase of the Assets of the Rossouwdorp Maatskappy (Eiendoms) Beperk. What have we to do with the company and what assets did the company have for sale? I should like to know what is the meaning of this?

The position in regard to Rossouwdorp is that it is a township between Dordrecht and Barkly East. This township belongs to a private company of which Mr. Greyling was the managing director until the time of his death some years ago. It also appears that there is a Village Management Board which is financially weak because of the company’s levy on the residents. The majority of the residents of Rossouwdorp are in humble circumstances. Many of them are in receipt of invalidity grants, old-age pensions, and so on, and it has been found that owing to shortage of water, owing to unsatisfactory sanitary conditions very appalling conditions have prevailed in this township. Very few of the erven sold by the company to the occupiers have actually been paid off. Some four years ago the then member of Parliament for Wodehouse, Mr. Bekker, made representations in regard to these persons and the conditions under which these inhabitants were living, and departmentally investigations were carried out by the Department of Social Welfare resulting in the findings now mentioned, and after further investigations and discussion it was decided that the only way in which the Government could assist would be to obtain control of the company’s assets by purchasing the shares of the bondholders, and in order to enable this to be done, authority was obtained to negotiate with the company. As the result of negotiations the company eventually agreed to sell out to the Government for the sum of £4,500. It was one of these peculiar and difficult positions which arises from time to time in our rural or peri-urban areas where either there is no authority or there is no authority financially able to carry out its obligations under the Public Health Act; and the only way in which the Department of Social Welfare could help was to step in and to buy out the company and bondholders, and that has been done. The Government Attorney on behalf of the Government has negotiated with the company’s attorneys and the assets of Rossouwdorp will now be transferred to the Village Management Board on certain conditions. Taxes are to be levied to cover the salary of the secretary, not to exceed £8 10s. per month, the Provincial taxes, interest on the loan of £2,000, at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum, repayable after five years, and of the £4,500 which is now being paid to the bondholders, £2,500 will be given to the Village Management Board as a non-repayable grant and the balance is by way of a loan. In other words, the effect of this transaction will be that the Government, in order to come to the rescue of this little place it had developed into a slum—is now giving a grant of £2,500 and a further loan of £2,000. That is the position. The Department acted in the way it did as it seemed the only practicable way of assisting the community in the difficulty in which it found itself.

Yes, now I understand the position. The company and the Village Board were both there and the company had more power than the Village Board. Now the company has been bought out and the assets have been given to the Village Board. But why do you still make them pay the £2,000? Are the erfholders not going to be in the same position as they were in before, because is not the position now that the Village Board or the Village Management Committee have the same powers as the company had before. It seems to me that if it was intended to give this help to someone it should have been given to the erfholders, and not to the Village Management Board, because the Village Management Board will levy rates in order to pay the interest on that money and look after the cleaning services of the dorp and so on? It seems to me that the position of the people living in the place is going to be this; they have got rid of a master who used to knock them about, but they are going to get a new master who may perhaps knock them about even more.

I think the hon. member can rest assured that the steps which have been taken are in the best interests of the inhabitants of the village.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 34.—“Mines,” £39,600,

An amount of £100 is set down here in regard to diamond cutting, and I should like to draw attention to the conditions now prevailing in the diamond trade, where we are faced with a monopoly against which the South African diamond dealers are powerless. The diamond dealer in South Africa is under no circumstances permitted to send rough diamonds anywhere in the world without such diamonds passing through the Diamond Trading Company in London. If a private diamond dealer wants to send a parcel of diamonds to America, British India or Australia, he has to make up his parcel and send it to England to the Diamond Trading Company. They open the parcel and give him a permit, and he is then allowed to send it to the parties to whom he sold the diamonds. The dealer has to pay insurance and freight—and those costs are very considerable.

Under which item is the hon. member discussing this question?

I am discussing it on the item of £100 for the diamond cutting industry.

But that item only concerns the training of apprentices.

This is a new item appearing on the additional estimates, and I am therefore of opinion that. I am entitled to discuss the Government’s policy.

Yes, the Government’s policy in regard to that particular item. That is to say, the training of apprentices. That is what the hon. member can discuss.

But those apprentices are being trained to cut diamonds, and those diamonds are being cut for the trade. If this had not been a new item I would not have attempted to discuss the Government’s policy in regard to this question.

The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

But we are dealing here with a new item on this vote. I would not have tried to discuss this question if it only had been an increase.

Yes, I notice that this is a new sub-head, but the hon. member is only permitted to deal with the details of this particular item, viz.—“Contingent liability in respect of the training of apprentices, including wages and incidental expenses”.

On a point of order, it is perfectly true that this is a new item, but it has nothing whatever to do with the export of diamonds to London.

What happens to the diamonds; do you not export them?

If the Chairman will allow me, I am prepared to answer that.

If the diamond dealer does not have his diamonds cut here it means that he has to send them overseas, and then he is compelled to sell his diamonds there through the Diamond Trading Company which has its offices in London. Even if the diamonds are intended for America, India or Australia, they still have to go through this London Diamond Trading Company which itself is interested in the diamond trade. I have a case here of a private dealer wanting to send diamonds to Palestine.

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot pursue that subject.

May I know the reason for your ruling, Mr. Chairman? We are dealing here with the diamond industry and the question of the establishment of diamond cutting works.

No, we are only concerned with the conditional responsibility of the Government in regard to the training of apprentices, including wages and incidental expenditure.

But surely those apprentices are being trained for the purpose of cutting diamonds for sale?

The hon. member is going too far into this matter. He will have another opportunity of raising this question.

Will the hon. Minister be good enough to inform the Committee whether the increase under “N” is due to the development of new mining districts or whether it is due to his drive for oil, and if so, whether any discoveries have been made, and, if so, whether he is prepared to give us any indication whether he has found anything which will give us hope for the future.

This item is confined to the mining which is taking place in Namaqualand. There is no item here at all on the question of boring for oil. It is entirely confined to the development of Namaqualand. About a year or two years ago we had a great demand both from the United States of America and England for tungsten which was very much required for war purposes, and we undertook the development of our resources to the utmost extent we could. As the result of an aerial survey, followed by ground parties, we came to the’ conclusion that roughly from Upington down to the sea there were likely tracts for the finding of tungsten. This was followed up last year with field parties to do prospecting, and prospecting took place over scattered areas but very considerable areas of Namaqualand with the result that we found a good deal of tungsten. It was scattered; it was not concentrated, but in the result we proved that it existed at depth and was a subject for mining enterprise and not merely the collection of alluvial stuff. There are considerable prospects of winning this metal. The demand for tungsten has fallen off and our parties have been withdrawn although the price for tungsten which was a very satisfactory one, is not being guaranteed by the United States or England after this war.

In regard to the training of apprentices, I should like to know from the Minister what liability the State has undertaken in respect of the training of these apprentices, and what liability is conditional? I should also like to know how many apprentices are being trained today under this conditional liability, where they are being trained, and whether there is any intention of expanding the industry in the future, and also whether the Minister will give his attention to the question of South African boys being given preference, as in the past.

This item, as I stated before in answer to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), is a new one. It is a token item, and it appears on the Estimates this year as a token of a contingent liability which will arise in the following circumstances. It is the desire of the Government, and I am sure it is a desire which is shared by the House, that we should develop to the utmost the industry of diamond cutting. As the prime diamond producing country of the world it is right and proper that we should endeavour as far as possible to process these items in our own country and to give the opportunity to our own people to become skilled in the working of it. The industry has developed up to a certain stage, and the diamond market now for gem purposes in the Union is something like £2,000,000 per annum, which is a very substantial market. Where we are falling short at the present time, where we have been hampered is that the number of journeymen and apprentices has been very limited. The number has been so limited that wages in the diamond cutting trade have reached a height which is almost fantastic, but we hope to increase the number of apprentices. That has been the trouble. Under the Labour regulations passed in accordance with the Labour legislation there anent, one apprentice to four journeymen only is allowed. That would limit the expansion of our apprentices very sharply indeed. I desired that that should be extended and that we should have a ratio of one apprentice to one journeyman for the time being. My colleague, the Minister of Labour, has agreed with this, but we have to take precautions to see that there is not a breakdown in the training of apprentices such as took place some years ago with dire results. What happened then was that apprentices who were taken on and who were half trained, bumped up against a slump in the diamond business and they were thrown out of employment, half trained as apprentices, with their work thrown away and with no chance of becoming skilled in the future. We devoted ourselves to that and now we have made an arrangement with master cutters whereby they undertake to take apprentices and to train them fully, and if a time of depression comes and they cannot afford to keep their factories going and the training going without assistance, the Government will come to their assistance; and the assistance takes this form, that we will supply from our sources the stones which are to be cut. The master cutters will see that the stones are cut properly, and after cutting they will be returned to the Government who will have the benefit of the appreciated value of the stones which are cut over the value of the stones which were uncut. The cost of the wages is to be paid by the Government and as against that—the cost of these wages and the supplying of these stones—they get the cut stones. In this way it is guaranteed that the training of apprentices shall not be interfered with by the intervention by a time of depression. I hope the House will agree that this is a satisfactory arrangement and one which we hope will lead to the training of a considerable number of apprentices.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 35.—“Lands,” £300,

I should like to have a little information on this vote. There is a reference here to a Nature Reserve. What is that?

For quite a number of years already we have a series of farms in the Northern Transvaal. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) knows about that. They are held as a Nature Reserve. Of late the expense connected with these farms has been increasing, particularly as a result of the cost of living allowances that are paid, and also because of a windmill which has been erected. For that reason it has become necessary to have an additional £300 voted.

But I want to know whether there is a white person in that Nature Reserve? In the past there were only Natives there.

There is no permanent white official, but the Natives, of course, also draw cost of living allowances.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 39.—“Justice,” £9,100,

I should like to know from the Minister of Justice why such a large amount is being asked for here? One hears complaints all over that the legal expenses are too high. This seems to be a very large sum. Did not the Minister know that this amount would be required? Surely you have your Government attorneys and advocates. What are these extra expenses? Did the Government lose a case?

The amount is tentative; we do not know how many cases there are going to be. Some cases are won and others lost. Some years there are easy cases and few cases, and other years there are more. Some years there is a saving on the vote, other years the amount of the vote exceeds the estimate. It is impossible to make any definite estimate, and that is why a tentative amount is set down.

I should like to know if it is not possible to bring down the legal costs. People complain that after they have been involved in a law suit they are bankrupt, even if they have won the suit.

We are tied down to certain tariffs.

The tariffs are too high.

They have been laid down by the Law Society. The Government can do nothing about that.

Surely the Government is appointing controllers for everything. Why has it not done so here?

The attorneys and advocates in this House know what the position is.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 42.—“Prisons and Gaols,” £56,000,

I should like to move that progress be reported. I want to discuss the question of the release of prisoners.

Can that be done on this vote? If it is permissible, I shall accept the motion for the adjournment, but not otherwise. I think we can finish the Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, will you give us some guidance and tell us whether that question can be discussed?

Before you give your ruling, I want to say that. I intend moving the deletion of this amount, and the reason for my wishing to move that is that this amount is no longer required in view of the fact that there are fewer people in our gaols. Less money is required for rations and fuel, and I shall therefore move that the amount be deleted.

I am afraid I shall have to move the hon. member out of order; he can only discuss the increases on this vote.

The Minister is asking for an extra amount of money here, and we want to know whether that is necessary. How many gaol birds have been released, and how many of the Minister’s friends are back in gaol again? This estimate of £20,000 was made before these people had been released, and I take it that that amount is no longer needed. We should have the information before we can vote this amount. Does the hon. Minister know how many people he has released, and how many of them are back in gaol?

I am sorry but the hon. member cannot pursue that subject.

But if the gaols are empty the money is no longer needed. I am only asking for information and I think I am entitled to ask that question.

The hon. member is allowed to ask a question.

That is what. I am doing.

But the hon. member is not allowed to put a series of questions.

I am only asking the Minister how many people he has released, and how many of them are back in gaol.

There is a question on the agenda to that effect: I am getting the information. Of course, it is not only prisoners in Cape Town who have been released.

Don’t you even know how many you have released.

We shall have to find out how many have been released in the various places. I have telegraphed for the information because of the question appearing on the order paper. It is absurd to expect me to give this information here without previous notice.

You should have had the information in connection with this vote.

I have not yet received the information; we have to get information from Durban, Johannesburg, Bloemfontein and various other places, and it all takes time. Bearing in mind this vote I tried to get the information, but it is not yet available.

I hope the Minister of Finance will accept the adjournment of the debate. The Minister of Justice himself has admitted that there is certain information which he regards as essential for this debate, which he has not yet got. In the circumstances I want to move that the debate be now adjourned. We need that information. Prisoners have been released on a large scale, and we do not know how many are left, and whether this amount is justified or not. Since this large number of prisoners has been released this extra £20,000 is probably no longer needed. The Minister does not know how many he has released and how many are still in gaol. Perhaps the Minister can give us the information tomorrow. I therefore move—

I do not think the hon. member is entitled to expect the information before this vote has been disposed of. I fail to see why this information is needed for the discussion of this vote, but in view of the late hour I am prepared to report progress. I do not expect, however, that we shall have to come back to this question next Wednesday.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 2nd February.