I move—

I second.

We have not got this Bill before us yet and I imagine that this is going to be a very hefty Bill which will require a great deal of careful study, seeing that it is a consolidating measure. I wonder whether we shall have the Bill in our hands before the 7th. If not, I would suggest to the Minister that he should put down the date for the second reading later on.

This is not a consolidating Bill, it is an ordinary amending Bill.

Is it the same one that we had last year?

Yes.

Then it is alright.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill to be read a second time on 7th February.

In introducing the motion to go into Committee I referred to the details of this vote in summary form, perhaps I should do so again in English at this stage. It will be noticed that while there is a large additional sum required that sum falls in effect, under two heads. In the first place, an additional amount is asked for in respect of war allowances, moneys payable under the War Pensions Act. That may be ascribed in part to the enactment of the amending Act passed last session under which payments have become due which were not due under the previous Act, and were therefore not allowed for when the estimates were framed. In the second place the increase asked for is due to the fact that there has been an increase in the number of people who are entitled to war pensions. The second main head is in respect of old age pensions and war veterans’ pensions. There, in the main, the additional provision asked for is the consequence of increased cost of living allowances to pensioners. In addition, however, it is due to the increase in the number of pensioners, more especially as far as war veterans pensions are concerned, where the total number of recipients of this pension is now greater than we anticipated. That increase is partly due to the fact that as a result of the provision which we made last year for the additional payment of war veterans’ pensions a certain number of old age pensioners transferred from the old age pension group to the war veterans’ pension group, as they were entitled to do, to receive this additional amount. The additional amount therefore, on this vote, is solely to be accounted for in the ways I have indicated.

It has happened more than once that we have found printing errors in the estimates and on this vote, too, there is a printing error. There is reference here to “onderdomspensioene” and it should be “ouderdomspensioene.” I hope this will be rectified. I want to see justice done to Afrikaans.

We on this side of the House have no objection to pensions; far from it. In the past we have agitated for proper provision being made for those people who have rendered service to the State and who are entitled to a pension from the State. Only last year we pleaded for an increase in pensions, but in spite of that we cannot refrain from objecting to this extraordinarily large additional amount asked for on Vote No. 8. The Hon. the Minister of Finance has tried to explain why the Estimate in connection with pensions and allowances for war pensioners was so hopelessly low, and he gave us three reasons for this unusual increase. The first reason is that there is an increase in the number of pensioners. My contention is that in view of the fact that the Minister and his Department have for several years been making their estimates for this service one fails to see why estimates should have to be made at this stage and then find at a later stage that the estimates were 40 per cent. out. The other day the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) stated that it appeared as though the Minister was afraid to tell the people clearly how much money he actually would need. He was afraid of scaring the public because of the largeness of those amounts, and he stated that it was for that reason that expenditure of this nature was submitted by way of instalments. When we are faced with a shortage of 40 per cent. on a vote, then the Minister must not blame us if we agree with what the hon. member for George told this House, and what he intimated was the actual position. Here we are dealing with a vote which we estimate for year after year, but in spite of that we find that we are 40 per cent. short in our estimates. We want to object most emphatically to this procedure. When the Minister comes to the public and when the representatives of the public are asked for their approval to the expenditure of these huge amounts, the public must not be given the wrong impression. The representatives of the people were given the impression that an amount of £575,000 would be spent on war pensions. Now we are suddenly asked for an additional amount of £224,000. No matter how able the Minister’s staff is we realise it is quite impossible to estimate quite accurately what the amount required for pensions will be, but we never expected the Minister to come along with an underestimate of 40 per cent. That sort of thing we cannot just approve of without saying anything about it, and we want to make our objections heard. If we look at this Vote No. 8 we must come to the conclusion that the estimate was a bad one. Let us take the three large items on this Vote which will show us the enormous extent to which the estimate was wrong. I have already spoken about the additional £224,000 in respect of war pensions. When we come to old age pensions and pensions for oudstryders we find that those amounts were out to the extent of £124,000 and £126,000 respectively. But what is strange to me is that in my constituency there has been a curtailment in regard to payments of old age pensions. This has happened in several instances. As I know that old age pensions have been reduced and not increased it seems most peculiar to me that this huge additional amount is now being asked for. I am in daily touch with matters of this kind. I know that pensions have been cut down and in spite of that I now notice on the estimates that an additional amount of £124,000 is asked for in respect of old age pensions. It seems to me that this cutting down of those old age pensions has been the result of this hopelessly bad estimate which was originally framed. I do not think I am wrong in my contention that the Minister has been wrong in his estimates. There was a shortage on that vote, and that is why the old age pensions have been cut down. The amount of £2,695,000 which the Minister originally estimated for was hopelessly short; somebody had to pay for that, and it was the people on the platteland who were made to pay. I want to protest most emphatically against the Minister making a bad estimate and then, when in the course of the year he finds that he has under-estimated, making the people suffer as the result of his own under-estimate. I again want to point out to the Minister that we are in favour of proper pensions being paid, but we would be failing in our duty if we did not protest most strongly against the Minister under-estimating to the extent of 40 per cent. and then expecting the public to bear the result of his mistake.

I should like to make a plea on behalf of the retired civil servants who are drawing pensions today. We have a large number of civil servants who are on pension.

The hon. member is not entitled to discuss that question under this vote.

I am referring to the item of pensions and allowances. It is about the cost of living allowance.

The Committee is now only dealing with war pensions. The hon. member will have other opportunities of discussing the Question he wishes to raise.

As the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) has said, it is very difficult to understand how the estimate can be wrong to such an extent that there should be such a large shortage on the pension vote after the Minister and his department have had to frame estimates for this vote for so many years. If we look at the amount for pensions and allowances for the Great War we find that an additional amount of £9,000 is asked for. I understood the Minister to say that the number of people entitled to those pensions had been added to.

No, that referred to the 1939 war.

Then it has nothing to do with the Great War. We do not object to a man who has done his duty according to his lights and convictions, getting a pension, but is is somewhat difficult to understand why, after twenty-six years, the amount for these particular pensions should go up instead of down. I should like to know from the Minister on what basis those pensions are allotted? Those pensions were not referred to the Pensions Committee, and I take it that those people were entitled to their pensions.

They have only become poor now.

I should like to know why these pensions have been allotted? And then I want to say something about the allotments made by the Special Allotments Committee. Originally an amount of £50,000 was voted, and now a further £44,000 is asked for. We should like to have some more information, and we particularly want to know what this Special Allotment Committee is?

I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions in regard to sections H. and U. of this vote. There is an increase of £124,000 on old age pensions. Might we be told whether that is due to the payment of more pensions or higher pensions, or is it caused by increased cost of living allowances?

I have already said that.

I am sorry I was not in the House. That explains that point clearly. I was hoping that the increase was due to the payment of permanently increased pensions to these people who are at present in dire need — in this time of scarcity and high prices — that they were being paid the maximum allowance payable under the Act. I am sorry if that is not so. Now, may I come to section U, War Veteran’s Pensions? I want to call the attention of the Minister briefly to a very special class of persons who in my opinion become due for pension, and whose dependants get into a state of want, owing to the loss not of an arm or a leg in the service of their country, not because of some actual physical wound, but through damage to their mental capacities. Details of these cases have been brought to me in more than one instance. Men have been sent while still serving in the army, while still receiving pay and allowances from the army, to Valkenberg and other similar institutions. As long as there is any hope of their recovery their pay and allowances proceed and their families are not in actual want, but in some cases there comes a time when it is decided that they will not get better — at least not for a long period — and at that stage my information is that they are discharged from the army. When the military income ceases, who pays the household expenses of such families? What I want to know from the Minister is this: Do the dependants of such a person whose mind has suffered, and who is incarcerated practically indefinitely, in a mental hospital, qualify for a pension? One hopes that such people do get some consideration, and if not I think some provision should be made without delay. They must not be overlooked and forgotten. Their daily needs are a just charge upon the State.

I should like to know from the Minister how these allowances for cost of living in respect of oudstryders and old age pensioners are calculated? Are they calculated on a percentage basis in the same way as is done in the case of officials? I assume that that is the position, and I notice from the Minister’s attitude that it is so. May I appeal to him to place these people on a different basis? Such a calculation is totally inadequate so far as they are concerned; they are in receipt of £2 10s. or £3 per month and only in exceptional cases do they get £3 10s., and if the allowance is calculated on the percentage basis it means that they will only get a few shillings more, which is really quite insufficient, particularly in the towns and dorps.

They get £1.

I hope the Minister will again consider this matter, because it is difficult for those people to come out on a few shillings extra. £1, of course, goes further. Then there is the question of administration which I should like to refer to.This affects the people drawing old age pensions and who apply for oudstryder pensions. Unfortunately the ruling given is that they cease drawing old age pensions until they get the allotment of the IUD-straders’ pensions, and that may sometimes take a couple of months. Eventually they get the money back, but the Minister will realise the unfortunate position these people find themselves in during those couple of months when they get nothing. Let them continue to draw old age pension until a decision has been arrived at in connection with their transfer from the one pension to the other. There is another matter I wish to refer to, also on the same subject. Say a man and his wife both get a pension and the one dies, under the present procedure the payments made to the surviving party are suspended until such time as the pension is being reconsidered. As a rule, the pension is increased. To that I have no objection, but the payment of the pension is suspended until the matter has been adjusted and the amount has been fixed. This causes a great deal of dissatisfaction because it means that these people have to go without their pension for a few months.

I should like to come back to what the hon. member has just said in regard to the matter of oudstryder pensions. I also want to tell the Minister that in my constituency there is a poor man who is 65 years of age, who has a wife and three children. He lives in a little dorp where he is unable to make a living. The Town Council could not give him anything to do, so he set up as a shoemaker out of which he made an income of something like £3 per month. He was in receipt of an old age pension of £1 10s. per month. Now his old age pension has been taken away from him because he was earning £3 per month, without any account being taken of his expenses. In view of the fact that we have to make this huge provision for increased expenditure I think we should also make provision for cases of this kind, and we should not deprive people like that of their pensions.

I want to raise the lot of the Great War pensioner with particular reference to the allowance paid to the wife and the widow and the child, if there are any children eligible at this stage. It appears that in the Pensions Act which we passed in 1942, the Great War pensioner is excluded from the benefits which were laid down in that Act and which were increased by amendment last year, and that those benefits only apply to volunteers serving in this war. It is very difficult to understand how a distinction came to be made. I feel that the members of this House at that stage were under the impression that the benefits apply equally to the pensioners of the late war and this war, and that there was no distinction.

The hon. member cannot pursue that question. He is advocating legislation. He should deal only with the reason for the increase of the vote.

Am I not allowed to raise it on this item?

The hon. member is not allowed to raise a question of original policy. The committee is dealing with additional expenditure, and only reasons for the increase should be discussed.

It would be a matter of considerable public interest if the Minister could tell the committee why no pension of any kind was granted to the dependants of the woman who was killed while on active service in a Durban aerodrome through an accident for which a soldier’s carelessness was responsible. I think he was trying the mechanism of a machine gun in a neighbouring room, and a burst of firing went off and the shots killed the woman. Now, that woman was a soldier and she died under conditions of active service. I understand that no pension was granted to any of the dependants of this lady, and in spite of repeated appeals, both to the authorities concerned.…

Under what item is the hon. member raising this matter?

Perhaps I am out of order, in not confining my remarks to a question.

Arising out of this expenditure in respect of oudstryder pensions I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. When we had the debate last year regarding the increase in pensions, it was explained that a minimum pension was sometimes offered to the applicant for an oudstryder’s pension. I mentioned an instance where 10s. per month was offered. I said at the time that it was nothing short of a scandal to offer an oudstryder a pension of 10s. per month. There has now been an increase in these pensions and more money is now being asked for, and as I thought the Minister at the time undertook that he would go into this matter, I had thought that he would on this occasion tell us that he had done away with these very low minimum pensions of 10s. or £1 per month. He did not say a word about that, however, and I should very much like to know the Minister’s opinion on the subject. When we deal with these pensions, especially these oudstryder pensions, we feel that a grateful people and a grateful generation want to show their appreciation of the services which those people have rendered the nation in those dark days of the past, and surely we cannot show our appreciation by granting these minimum pensions. Then I also want to refer to another fact which we often have to face, that when people transfer from the old age pension to the oudstryder pension they receive notification that the oudstryder pension is less than the old age pension. Only a few days ago I happened to receive a letter telling me about a case of that kind. I want to ask the Minister whether there is no way of treating such cases in a just and fair manner. If a man gets an old age pension because he is in such poor circumstances that he requires relief, and if he wants to have the honour of being recognised by the State as an oudstryder, and he converts his old age pension into an oudstryder pension, and if, after say two months, as the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) has said, he receives notification that he will now get a pension as an oudstryder which is lower than the pension which he got before, then surely it shows that there is something radically wrong? That sort of thing cannot be tolerated. In these oudstryders we have people who have taken a very active part in the fight for existence of the people of this country, and we encourage them to convert their pensions into oudstryder pensions, but in doing so we at the same time expose them to the danger of getting a pension on a lower scale. I also wish to say this with reference to the Minister’s explanation. The Minister says that an additional amount of £1,24,000 is being asked for for oudstryder pensions. He says that this additional amount is asked for on account of the fact that it was impossible to estimate how many people in receipt of old age pensions would make application to convert their old age pensions into oudstryder pensions. If that is so, then their estimates in regard to old age pensions must have been totally out. I should like to have some more information on that subject. I also want to object to this huge amount of £561,000 appearing on these additional estimates. I want to repeat what I said yesterday, that additional estimates are intended to authorise expenditure in respect of matters which have not been anticipated, amounts which have already been spent. Only in special circumstances should the House be asked to approve of such expenditure, and it should be possible surely to estimate the expenditure more accurately, so that such unexpected expenditure should not run into these huge amounts. The large number of votes in respect of which additional amounts are being asked for give the impression of bad and slovenly original estimates.

I also want to object to the increase of these old age pensions, but my objection is not against too much money being given; I object to the amount of the increase being too small. I want to ask the Minister whether I understand him correctly, that married people were now to get a cost of living allowance of £1—that is to say, £1 for the two of them?

Every European pensioner gets an additional £1. If there are two of them they get £2.

It should be at least £2 each. In the towns it may perhaps be possible for people to come out on what they get. There they get £3 10s. as their maximum pension, but on the platteland they get £2 10s. One quite understands, of course, why the Government goes out of its way specially for the towns, but I have never been able to understand why the people on the platteland should get smaller pensions. Why has not the Minister availed himself of this opportunity to put the platteland on the same basis as the towns? The increase is too small. These people find it difficult to come out, they have to pay house rents which are very high, and everything has gone up in price. In the towns the people can get assistance from all kinds of organisations and societies, but we have nothing of that kind on the platteland.

I do not think this is the occasion for us to go into the basic payments made to the various classes under the Old Age Pensions Act. It will be possible for us to discuss that on some other occasion. I only want to give the House the assurance that all the European old age pensioners throughout get a cost of living allowance of £1—whatever their basic amount may be.

Only married people?

No, all of them. In the case of a man and wife each of them get £1 provided they are old age pensioners. Even the individual who only gets £1 as a basic pension gets an additional £1 as cost of living allowance. The hon. members for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) and Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) referred to the increase of £221,000 in respect of pensions for the 1939 war. I want to point out that we are not dealing here with something which is not stable. When we make a calculation of pensions for the great war we are dealing with something which is stable—a reducing figure, but so far as the 1939 war is concerned, we are in the middle of the war, and when the Main Budget was framed a year ago we were not in a position to say how many casualties there were going to be during the next twelve months. The hon. member can therefore not say that after so many years we should be able to know how much money is required, because we are not dealing with something settled. No one can anticipate what is going to happen in the course of the war over the next twelve months. But furthermore, as I have already said, the increase is not merely due to an increase in the number of pensioners, it is also due to the improvement in the pensions passed by this House last year, after the passage of the Main Budget. That also is my reply to the hon. member for Somerset East. Possibly there is a small reduction in the number of pensioners of the last Great War in spite of which the amount has not come down, because as the hon. member knows, when we passed legislation last year to increase pensions, that legislation was also made applicable to former wars, and that involved an increase in the amount. Then I want to give the hon. member for Smithfield the assurance that the shortage which we have had in the amount required for old age pensions has not led to a cutting down of the pensions of certain people. Those people have not suffered as a result of that. The shortage has mainly been due to the fact that not sufficient provision was made for cost of war allowances, and the increase in the amount set down for cost of war allowances was larger than we had expected. The index figures have gone up to a greater extent than we had expected. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) asked why, if more money is needed for war veterans, the number of old age pensioners has not gone down as a result of the conversion. The point is that a drop in the number of old age pensioners does not necessarily mean that the amount paid in old age pensions also goes down. The cost of living allowance has gone up, and if it had not been for these conversions a considerably larger amount would have had to be asked for under old age pensions. The hon. member for Somerset East also wants to know what this Special Allotment Committee is. This Committee was appointed as a result of a clause in the Pensions Act of 1942, which was extended by last year’s Act. Under that clause that Committee was appointed, and that Committee has power to act in respect of special cases. I think we should all realise that it is extremely difficult so to frame our legislation in regard to war pensions that it will cover every case. There are always hard cases falling outside the scope of the law in respect of which, however, it is felt that assistance should be given. With a view to dealing with such cases this House two years ago appointed this Special Allotments Committee.

†The hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) has raised the question of the position of the dependants of mental cases. This Special Grants Committee to which I have just been referring could deal with cases of that kind. I do not know if an application has been made; if it has not, I should be glad if my hon. friend would bring a specific case to my notice, but as far as I can say, cases of that sort would fall within the scope of this Special Grants Committee.

†*The Hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) raised the question of people who transferred from old age pensions to oudstryder’s pensions, and he said that it often took a long time before they were paid out their pensions on the new basis. Of course, they eventually get their money, and it is paid to them retrospectively. The hon. member’s point is that they sometimes suffer privations because they may have to wait a month or two before they get their money on the new basis. I shall go into that question. I shall be glad if the hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. Pieterse) will bring the special case to which he has referred to my personal notice. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) also said that there are cases where old age pensions have been converted into oudstryders pensions, and that such people are now getting less than before. I was surprised to hear this, and I shall be glad if he will bring these cases to my notice. He also asked whether this amount which is now being asked for provides for an increase in the pensions of people getting a minimum of 10s. or £1. No, we are not introducing any change here in the basic amounts that are paid under the Act, but those people also have the benefit of the £1 cost of living allowance. We are only dealing with additional cost of living allowances here.

I notice that under item H, Old Age Pensions £124,000, the Minister is asking for this additional amount to be voted. I take it that for all these old age pensions the means test is still applied. I take it that is the case. I have been ruled out of order once, and I would not dare to use the word which I intended to use, but I was wondering what the Minister’s method was As you told me a few minutes ago that a matter of policy could not be discussed under this item, I am not going to use the word. But I take it that the means test is being applied as far as old age pensions are concerned.

Order, order; that is in terms of the law.

I assume it is being applied. I recognise it is being applied. I was wondering whether the Minister could not save some money—he is asking for an extra £124,000—if he were to alter his methods. At the present time if a person applies for an old age pension he has got to state who his dependants are; he has got to state who they are dependant upon—

I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the means test.

It is only a suggestion I am putting forward. I only wish to ask a question.

Order, Order!

If hon. members opposite would only keep quiet they would find possibly that it is quite an intelligent question. I wanted to know whether the Minister would possibly consider that the onus should be on the State to be able to bring an action against a person who was in a position to be able to support an old age pensioner, instead of the onus being on the old age pensioner to have to bring an action against possibly his own kith and kin. That is the only question I wish to put, and I would suggest that hon. members opposite also give it their very careful consideration.

There is one very pertinent question which was raised here which the Minister has not replied to—in regard to those people who by their own initiative perhaps earn a little extra, and who then find that their pensions are cut down. In that way the spirit of enterprise of these people is penalised.

The hon. member cannot discuss that on this vote.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. Pieterse) raised that point, and the Minister replied that he would discuss the question with the hon. member.

The hon. member is out of order.

While thanking the Minister for his reply to me that the dependants of what we may call mental casualties may perhaps get a grant from the Special Grants Committee, I would, with all respect, recommend to him, or rather suggest to him, that a grant is very different from a pension. A grant is arbitrary in amount, and carries no guarantee of continuance, whereas a pension is a fixed sum awarded on a permanent basis. And I would ask him this particular question, whether in view of the fact that 100 per cent. mental disability is probably or certainly equally grievous as 100 per cent. physical disability, and obviously precludes the sufferer from earning anything whatever towards the support of his family, he could not consider under this £126,000 extra vote the pensioning of such dependents.

I shall deal with the legal aspect.

When I had the opportunity of seeing the figures under this head that the Minister has put before us, I came to the conclusion that at last something had been done for the benefit of the old age pensioners, and that the Minister had acceded to the numerous requests put forward on numerous occasions, and during past years, in connection with this matter. I know that if I encroach much further I shall be called upon, and I want to conclude by saying that I hope when the hon. Minister frames his budget he will not forget the old age pensioners, but will come forward with a very substantial increase in the amount that will be voted for them.

I should like to have a little more information from the Minister about this Special Allotments Committee. The Minister has now told us under which Act that Committee has been brought into being and he has told us what the functions of that Committee are. From his reply it appears that the Committee is expected to deal with such cases as are not absolutely covered by a law. In other words, ex gratia cases. The Committee in such cases will have to use its discretion. It is a matter of great interest to us and also to the public to know in what way the Committee uses its discretion, and I shall be pleased if the Minister will be able every year to submit to this House the principal allotments made ex gratia by this Committee.

May I just reply to a question which the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) put to me? He will find that in clause 32 of Act No. 33 of 1943 there is a full definition of the functions of the Special Allotments Board. That Board or Committee consists of the Commissioner of Pensions as Chairman, Adv. Duxbury, who for many years was a member of the Pensions Advisory Board, Col. Jordaan, Col. Freeth, and Mrs. P. N. Anderson. The Board carries out its duties in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In regard to the hon. member’s request for more particulars I shall try and provide more information by way of a report of the Board. I shall go into that question.

Under item U, I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice the case of the oudstryders residing in adjacent territories, for instance, in the Swaziland and Bechuanaland Protectorates.

The hon. member is out of order. He must confine himself to the reasons for the increase of expenditure. Moreover if the law were to be applied to people outside the Union, legislation would be required.

I realised when you drew my attention to it I was inclined to discuss a form of expenditure that may not be provided for in this vote. I think, however, I was entitled to ask the Minister a question in regard to the woman soldier who was killed on an aerodrome, in an accident, and to ascertain why her dependants were not granted any pension.

I am not acquainted with the case to which my hon. friend refers; perhaps it would be a good thing if he put a question on the Order Paper.

It seems rather extraordinary that the Minister should not be acquainted with the case, which has been described very fully in the newspapers. We get this business from Ministers on all possible occasions. It is all very well to say: “I am not acquainted with the case; nut the question on the Order Paper,” and when you ask supplementary questions the Minister again says, “Put it on the Order Paper.” The Minister of the Crown should at least be aware of what is going on in this country. It is the old old story, the Minister adopts one attitude, and the people of the country have their divided opinions. The Minister says, “I have never heard about the case; put the question on the Order Paper.”

Order order. The Committee is confined to reasons for an increase in this particular vote.

Yes, I am discussing the matter. I presume that I am in order if the Minister makes a statement in discussing that statement that he has made. If he is in order in making the statement, we are in order in discussing that statement.

The question put by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) was out of order.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 10.—“Miscellaneous Services”, £27,000,

I should like to have a little more information about this tremendous increase in expenses for commissions. I should like to say, in order to avoid any misapprehension that my complaint is not against commissions as such. Often commissions are necessary. There has never yet been a Government which has not appointed commissions. When you get too much of a good thing, however, it leads to bad results. I am unable to criticise the first £14,000 spent on commissions but I believe I am in order in criticising the astonishing increase of this expenditure by £22,000. I want to remind the Minister that the old South African Party Government in 1924 was defeated largely because it handed practically all the work it should have done itself to commissions. Now this Government is going along the same course.

If that is so, then let them go on.

It is not necessary to do so. This Government will go under for many other reasons, but the country now has to pay for the commissions because the Government apparently is not competent to do its own work. The test of a Government’s competence is usually in direct relation to the money which such a Government spends on commissions. We do not pay Ministers to shift their responsibility and their work on to the shoulders of other people. If I look at the smile on the face of the Minister of Agriculture I can see that the country does benefit from the fact that he pushes his responsibility on to someone else. I don’t want to be so personal as to scrutinise the position of three quarters of the members of the Cabinet to find out whether that self same argument does not apply to them as well. The point is that they are not elected as Ministers in order to put their responsibility on to the shoulders of other people. They must carry the responsibility on their own shoulders, however weak those shoulders may be. But the whole matter is now becoming a farce. We have a Cabinet which sits and waits for the reports of commissions. Those reports are submitted to the Cabinet and then the carpenter is called in to make more pigeon holes so that those reports may be shelved. We have had commissions this last year, the Lord only knows how many, and the Lord only knows how many reports we are going to get. Are those reports given effect to by the Government? No, not one of them. And in spite of that we are asked now to spend another £22,000 to enable the Government to get more reports so as to divest itself of more responsibility and to dump those reports into pigeon holes where they will lie until some Government comes at the head of affairs which may perhaps give effect to them. With these few words of criticism, I want to ask the Minister which commissions have been appointed during the year, which commissions have reported, and what has become of the reports of those commissions which have reported?

The position apparently is this, that when the Government itself decides on a matter it is accused of acting in a dictatorial manner; and when the Government on the other hand calls in the assistance of people from outside to serve on commissions to investigate matters, it is accused of avoiding its responsibilities. It seems as if we are never able to give satisfaction. Now, what are those commissions which are referred to? First of all there is the commission in regard to National Health Services.

How long has that commission been sitting already?

That commission has been sitting about a year and it is engaged on its report. Then there is the commission which has reported on the riots among the natives in the Pretoria Municipal Location about a year ago. That report has been handed in and is being given effect to. Then there is the commission on the wages of mine natives, and that commission also has nearly concluded its labours. Then there is the East Coast Fever Commission. I understand that commission has nearly completed its work. Then there was the Crocodile Valley Citrus Estate Commission. That commission was appointed on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

That was a good commission.

My hon. friend, the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is not going to criticise me about that commission because he himself recommended it.

Why did you take any notice of him?

I take notice of the Select Committee on Public Accounts which the hon. member apparently does not do. Then there is the Pongola Settlements Commission which was also appointed on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Commission. Then there is the Meat Commission which has presented a report on which we are acting.

What about the Pongola report?

I understand that its report is nearly ready for publication.

How long has that commission been sitting?

That I could not say. Then there is the Non-European Bus Services Commission, dealing with the Witwatersrand and Pretoria. That commission has been sitting for a few months and will present its report shortly. Then there was a commission in regard to the baking industry which was appointed in December and which has nearly completed its work.

I want to move the deletion of this sum of £20,000 for commissions. I do so in order to draw the attention of the House once more to the position in which we as Members of Parliament find ourselves. We have had these commissions appointed, and it is becoming a matter of Government policy almost that if there is anything to be investigated, if any policy has to be introduced, if any further step has to be taken, we find a commission appointed mainly composed of people outside the Members of Parliament. I am not going to say that all the personnel of these commissions are incompetent. I know the Government usually appoints one or two members of Parliament to each commission, but by and large there are a large number of people appointed to these various commissions who are completely incompetent to do the work with which the Government entrusts them. And don’t forget a commission in this country is a very good thing from a pecuniary point of view.

In what way?

They get £3 3s. per day and travelling expenses, and I think we have got to the stage where certain individuals are appointed to commissions for the purpose of providing them with some ready cash and not because they know something about the subject. I want to emphasise again why I object to the appointment of outsiders to commissions to enquire into subjects which it is the bounden duty of Members of Parliament to enquire into. We are the elected representatives of the people —good or bad—but we are passed over. The Minister suggests that we are here to say just “yes” or “no” to what the Ministers decide. That may be the idea of a Minister, but that is not the idea of the people of the country. They feel that the 153 members who are elected to Parliament are here for the specific purpose of running the affairs of the country. Now, we have this position. We have a commission appointed to enquire into the Alexandra bus dispute. I suggest that there was no necessity for the appointment of such a commission. The question at issue was a very simple one and I understand that in that instance the Minister of Native Affairs chose the line of least resistance and appointed a commission—and incidentally I have a grave objection to the personnel of that commission. Appointed to that commission was at least one individual who was in such a position that he should not have been on it. That was the individual who was a member of this House last session, and his personal connection with that particular transport undertaking was such that it was difficult for him to bring a wise judgment to bear on the subject. That commission will probably last some time—yet the point in dispute presented no difficulties. Now that position is counterparted by the Provincial Authorities. Of course, that does not enter into this discussion, but I want to draw attention to the fact that in Johannesburg a dog racing commission has been sitting for 18 months, and it seems likely to become a perennial affair. It seems likely to go on for ever.

That has nothing to do with it.

I know that, but the policy of the Government in appointing these commissions is being followed by the provincial authorities, and I suppose it will shortly be followed by the municipal authorities. Take the Citrus Commission. There, again, the public money of South Africa was wasted in a long drawn out dispute which should have been settled in a court of law. Why a commission should be appointed where an individual is concerned I cannot understand. Surely, if there was any suggestion of malpractices, of maladministration, it is a job for the court, and not for a commission each of whose members is paid £3 3s. per day plus travelling expenses. The chief point I want to emphasise is this. We sit here for three or four months in the year; we are paid £700 per year. It is not a lot of money. We are paid that for representing our constituencies, and when it comes to an important point of Government policy, when the Government wants to investigate a particular thing, when the Government wants to produce documents which are going to lead us, we hope, to progressive legislation, they go outside of Parliament. They say: “Although you people have been elected to this House we do not think you have the brains, and so we are going to appoint someone else.” We recently had the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission. There you have one of the most highly complicated documents that I have ever read. I am sure it will take members hours and hours to understand what these people are trying to tell us. I have read it carefully three or four times, and I am still at a loss to understand precisely what they mean. And we have there a commission of five people, so three make a majority report and two a minority report. And in the long run we in Parliament have to decide which of the two reports we have to accept. So we pay these people £3 3s. per day over a long period to produce these verbose reports and yet in the long run it is the members of Parliament who have to decide which of the reports we shall accept. So why can we not do the job in the first instance on our own? Why should we not have a select committee of this House to investigate the facts and the disabilities of people suffering from miners’ phthisis. And then we have this other commission, the chairman of which informed us through the Press that it would take three years to enquire into the question of prices. This commission is particularly concerned with the position which has arisen owing to the war. When they report the war will be finished—so we hope, and the unusual circumstances with which they have to deal will no longer exist. So for three years these people will be gallivanting all over the country, getting their £3 3s. per day plus travelling expenses, and by the time they report their report will be out of date and absolutely useless. I say this to the Minister of Finance, that the people of this country are getting sick and tired of commissions; they have got to the stage where they believe that the Union House of Assembly has been elected for the purpose of governing this country, and they do not want commissions to do it on their behalf. [Time limit.]

In the light of the fact that various important reports dealing with Reconstruction are likely to come before the House during this session I think it is of importance to know whether the report of the National Health Commission is also likely to be available. I ask that not because I want to suggest that there has been any undue delay in the presentation of that report. I do not think that is the case. But the report of the National Health Commission assumes far greater importance than it would ordinarily in the light of the other reports which will in the ordinary course of affairs come before the House. We have had it from the Chairman of the Commission that the commission finds that it has gone beyond the scope of the commission as originally contemplated. That happens to create a likelihood of difficulties in the circumstances such as they are today. One of the important considerations which the social security committee obviously dealt with is the matter of medical services. That in turn is primarily what the Health Commission has investigated and has to report on. If the report of the Health Commission is not available this session, and the report of the Social Security Committee is available and discussed, and the recommendations contained in it are discussed with regard to medical services, the Government, as I see the position, will be obliged to await the further recommendations of the National Health Commission. I am not desirous of reflecting on the commission which has done excellent work. What I am desirous of doing is pointing out the position which may to a large extent stultify the discussion which will take place in the next few weeks. I am therefore anxious to hear from the Minister whether he is in a position to say whether the report of the Health Commission is likely to be available this session.

In the same way as in the past this Government has continued its usual custom of appointing commissions to cover its sins. It is becoming a farce. We have heard of the Meat Commission; there, I think, the Minister has done a good bit of work, but why make a farce of it, why frustrate all the Minister’s good work by appointing a man in his place who knows as much about these things as a sailor knows about deep level mining? At the moment the whole thing has been turned into a farce; seeing that we have a Minister, and seeing that we have heads of departments, and seeing also that we have appointed a commission in regard to the bread position, I want to know what’s the use of all the work that is being done if the Minister of Agriculture is simply kicked out and if somebody is appointed in whom we have no confidence? We have no confidence in people who are sent to us from the towns and who come and tell us how we are to run our affairs in connection with agriculture. I want to protest against the policy that is being pursued.

I am very glad indeed that this question of commissions has been raised. Now that we are at the commencement of a new Parliament, I think this whole Question should be reconsidered, particularly from the point of view of the feeling throughout the country. For some time past we have heard it said repeatedly that the appointment of a commission is equivalent to Ministers hiding from their responsibilities. I am not suggesting that that is the correct position, but the fact remains that the public are of that opinion, and the tremendous expenditure which is now paid for commissions could easily be avoided by more responsibility being taken by the Minister and the officials of his department. And this House I am satisfied is prepared to take the responsibility. There is no reason why we should not at the beginning of the session set up select committees covering the terms of reference of these commissions. Let members of the House sit on these committees and they will be able to sit in this House and advance the views which they put forward in their reports. The position today is that we have numbers of men appointed to commissions. Some of them may be there for political services rendered, or perhaps because of their qualifications — they may not have the actual requirements and the knowledge they should have of the affairs the commission is enquiring into. These seem to be the last considerations when these men are appointed. I feel that now that we have an opportunity, of making a fresh start we should do so. We are hearing a lot about some of these commissions, and we know that in one case the Chairman of one commission has told us that his commission’s job will take three years before they will be able to report. I heard a member of the commission say jocularly that he had a life sentence on his commission. I think this is a serious matter and we should review the whole position — it is a serious matter when we begin to look with levity at the time occupied by commissions. Therefore I think the Minister should look into this question of the appointment of commissions with a great deal more care, and I think he should use select committees for making his investigations.

May I first of all reply to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) and say that as far as I am aware it is unlikely that the Health Services Commission report will be available before the end of the session. The job of work which that Commission undertook was a very big one, and I do not think we can reasonably expect that it will be completed in time for the report to be available before the end of the session. Then I come to the general question which has been raised on the subject of commissions. Let me say at once that as Minister of Finance I welcome anything which will lead to a reduction of expenditure, and from that point of view I am myself disturbed about the increase of expenditure on this vote. But I think we must look at this in its correct perspective. Two aspects have been raised. One is the question whether the Government should appoint commissions or not. We are told the impression exists that the Government appoints commissions simply to cover things up. Now I should like hon. members to go through the list which I gave here this afternoon and say to which of these commissions that applies.

What about the Miners’ Phthisis Commission?

As a matter of fact that commission was not on my list. We are dealing with the expenditure before the House, and I want to ask again to which of these commissions on this list that description applies.

The Alexandra Bus Service Commission.

Oh; was that commission appointed with a view to covering things up?

Yes, I think so.

Well, let me tell the hon. member that probably by the time that commission has reported it will become possible to take action. The whole purport of the commission was to get the facts so that action would be possible. I am afraid we are in danger of losing sight of this fact, that the scope of Governmental functions is increasing year by year and the Government is expected to deal with an increasing variety of questions. It is expected to deal with matters which more and more touch the lives of people at more and more points. You cannot expect a Government of twelve people to be experts on all these subjects, and with all due respect to the House you cannot expect a House of 153 members to be experts on all these subjects.

I beg to differ.

To an increasing extent we have to look for expert advice outside our own ranks, and the appointment of commissions is really an indication of our acceptance of the principle that we should look for that advice and assistance outside. It shows that we are not so dictatorial as we are sometimes represented to be, it shows that we do desire co-operation—the co-operation of the public in the determination of important subjects. And I think perhaps it is not inappropriate that I should say that hardly a session passes without motions being put forward in this House asking for the appointment of still further commissions. The other aspect of the matter which has been raised this afternoon is the personnel of commissions. Now I do not think you can lay down a hard and fast rule that commissions should be appointed from the ranks of members of Parliament, or that they should be appointed from outside of members of Parliament. You have to deal with each case as it arises.

Are not we experts?

Yes; but we are not experts on everything, and there are certainly questions which arise in respect of which we can find people who are more expert than the hon. member for Fordsburg or any member of this House.

I doubt it very much.

Well, we have not got the complete monopoly of expert knowledge in this House, and we would be foolish indeed if we took the line that we did not intend to invite expert opinion and advice from outside.

Why is a large section of the community never represented on these commissions?

I wonder what section that is.

I am referring to this side of the House.

Were you not on the Cost-plus Commission?

That is the only commission on which we were represented and we did good work.

I can think of an hon. member who last session was on that side of the House and who was a member of one particular commission, and I can remember an invitation being addressed to the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) to serve on a commission—which he did not accept.

Why not?

No, I am afraid my hon. friend goes too far.

Was any member of this side of the House represented on the commissions which the Minister enumerated?

Yes, one member of the other side was a member of one of those commissions. I did not refer to the Cost-plus Commission, otherwise I might have brought the hon. member for George into it too. We must also realise this fact, that very often members of this House are committed to a particular line of action, and that on that ground it may be more desirable to appoint people who are not committed as such members are. But we do not lay down a hard and fast rule. There are two of these commissions to which I have referred this afternoon on which members of this House are acting as chairmen. We do not cut out members of this House. We make use of their services just as we make use of the services of others. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has referred to the Miners’ Phthisis Commission. If ever there could be a question which requires to be examined in the first instance by experts, that is one.

Who are they?

They are people who have knowledge of various aspects of that problem.

There are men in this House who are suffering from phthisis.

Yes, but chat does not necessarily make them experts on all aspects of this problem. There are few problems that so demand investigation by experts as that miners’ phthisis problem, and it is on the basis of that investigation that we are determining the course of action which we should follow. The hon. member for Fordsburg has referred to the Crocodile Valley Citrus Estates Commission. He said: “Why was not it dealt with by the courts; it only concerned an individual.” It did not only concern an individual; it also concerned a provincial administration. Moreover it was a judicial commission. It was not a £3 3s. a day commission such as my hon. friend refers to, but a judicial commission, and there we acted on the advice of the Public Accounts Committee of this House which, according to what my hon. friend told us the other day, we always scorn, and the advice of which we always reject. I feel that in this matter we must have flexibility. We cannot commit ourselves to a policy of only making use of the services of members of this House, however valuable they would be in many cases. We do make use of their services. I do not think we would be acting wisely if we took the line, especially with the growing complexity and scope of governmental functions, that we do not want to make use of the services of people outside this House in the investigation of matters which come up for decision here.

I have listened with a considerable amount of regret to the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance. I want to say first, he thinks that he has not got a government of experts; I am quite satisfied on that, we know that very well, and the country probably knows it a great deal better. But the trouble is we have reached a stage where we are not being governed by our Cabinet at all, but by so-called experts and controllers and all sorts of bodies. In other words, we have in the Union a Parliament whose legislation is extra-Parliament, done by people outside who have no responsibility to the people of this country or to Parliament. We cannot even criticise, and sometimes we do not even know what they are doing. Regulations are issued from day to day, and I believe that it is impossible to conduct any form of business legally under the system prevailing at present, You have to spend half your time, if you are a business man, reading the legislation in order to find out what regulations have been repealed and what new regulations have been introduced. The hon. Minister says: “Neither is the House expert”. How does the hon. Minister know? I am satisfied he does not know the qualifications of 10 per cent. of the members of this House. We are in the position in this House that if you have any brains you are not allowed to utilise them in the services of this country. All you are allowed to do is to indulge in a little bit of talk. Last year there were some members who, I know, have quite a lot of brains, who were allocated actually four minutes to say what they had to say on the most important debate that took place. I do not want to mention names, but I am going to say this: I have studied the matter carefully, I have gone into the personnel of many of the commissions that have been appointed, and I am satisfied that at least 50 per cent. of the appointments are comprised of people who have no expert knowledge of any description in connection with the matters they are appointed to investigate. The Minister referred to the Miners’ Phthisis Commission. I am prepared to say that the Miners’ Phthisis Majority Report is one of the most ridiculously verbose things that has ever been printed in the English language. It is ridiculously verbose, and why should Prof. Frankel know anything about miners’ phthisis? He is an economist; but because a man is an economist he does not necessarily know anything about miners’ phthisis. I forget the names of the other two gentlemen. One was a judge who was ill most of the time; he could not help that, but it is made clear in the report that he was ill most of the time, and I presume the report was the work of Prof. Frankel. It is one of the most complicated and verbose pieces of language I have ever read in my life, and I still do not know what it means.

That is not to say he knows nothing about phthisis.

Well, I do not know what you mean sometimes, but it is no reflection on you. I presume the Minister is prepared to agree with me that there are, strangely enough, some men, possibly officials of the Mineworkers Union, who themselves suffering from phthisis, do know something about it. I assume that is correct, but the hon. Minister did not appoint any member of the Mineworkers Union, the members of which are particularly concerned and represent not only the present phthisis sufferers but the potential phthisis sufferers. But the Minister did not appoint any of them to this commission. And so we have two reports; the second report is signed by two direct representatives of the Chamber of Mines. Since when have they become experts in miners’ phthisis? I presume the representatives of the Chamber of Mines are experts on the making of profits; that, as far as I know, is the only reason for the existence of an official of the Chamber of Mines— that you should know how to make more profits, how to increase tonnage and reduce working cost, and have so many more tons of ore milled. But they are alleged to be experts on miners’ phthisis, and they have given us another report which I will say is at least readable. The majority report is, I consider, completely unreadable. And so the argument about the experts falls to the ground. The point I want to make and will continue to make as long as I am a member of this House, is: “Are we the elected representatives of this country, actually the Government of this country, or are we sent here to be merely registering machines and to allow the Government of the country and the policies which are followed by the Government of the country to be assumed by people outside, who are well paid for doing a job in respect of which they have no responsibility either to Parliament or to the people?” That is the whole point. I am perfectly satisfied that if this kind of thing continues, by and by I will be in a position to move on the first day of the session, if I am permitted by Mr. Speaker, “that Parliament now and hereafter adjourns, indefinitely, and appoints a commission to get on with the job.” That is the position we are gradually coming to. Our job of work is not to tell the Government, not to discuss one with another the kind of policy we think should be adopted, but our job is—if the Minister gives his permission—to discuss policies which are laid down by people outside Parliament. In other words, we as members of Parliament, as I have said so often in the past, have to discuss the policies of these “experts”—precisely what is an expert? I do not know, and I would like the Minister to tell me what the qualifications of an expert are. What, for instance, were the qualifications of the members appointed to the Alexandra Bus Commission? I do not know those qualifications, but I know that at least two of the experts happened to be interested in the company that is running the Alexandra bus services. That, to my mind, is not a qualification, to be a representative of vested interests. And so this kind of thing is going on, and I feel Mr. Chairman, that it has got to stop. There are probably many more commissions in the offing. There are many things in this country which require very careful investigation by some body of individuals, and as I have said — and the vast mass of public opinion in this country is behind me in this — the proper persons to investigate them are members of Parliament. I want to say this final word to the Minister, and I know in this instance he will not disagree with me. Some of the most valuable reports, some of the best information, some of the most weighty and responsible legislation ever passed by this House has been the product of select committees, comprised of members of this House. When, for instance, we wanted to investigate the question of soldiers’ pay, for once the Prime Minister was wise in his time, and instead of handing it over to a commission he handed it over to a Select Committee of this House, and the report of that Select Committee duly approved by the House, was one of the wisest and one of the most generally accepted things ever done in this House. I can say again there are many other occasions I can remember, for instance, the workmen’s compensation question, and even this pthisis question, have all been investigated by Select Committees of this House, and they were well reasoned, well considered reports that were submitted. Then the Minister wants to tell me we are not experts. You do not need to be an expert. [Time limit.]

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 11 — “High Commissioner in London,” £20,000,

The hon. member for Smithfield, (Mr. Fouché) raised a point on the previous debate which I want to reply to now. It is in connection with the £15,000 which the House is asked to vote for incidental expenses. I want to assure the hon. member that this money is not spent on parties which have been given. This money has been spent as a result of the change in system as a consequence of which expenses incurred in connection with the official Air Service or the cost of telegrams for the various departments are now all borne on one vote, and the fact that we are making provision on this vote involves a reduction on other votes.

I am very much interested in the reply which the Minister of Finance has just given, because yesterday we raised the same objection in regard to incidental expenditure on the Prime Minister’s vote. I think it was an amount of £8,000 and the Prime Minister’s reply was — he made a long speech about the great increase in cables and telegrams as a result of war conditions — his reply was that there were no more ships available and that everything had to be cabled. Well, there is an old expression which reads: “You cannot have your cake and eat it.” Now the Hon. the Minister of Finance has to decide. He tells us that there is a new arrangement under which all the cables are put on this vote.

From overseas.

I assume that those cables go to the office of the High Commissioner. Does the Minister want to tell us that those cables from the High Commissioner’s office have cost this huge amount of £21,000.

No, of course there are other items as well.

Am I to understand that the whole of this £15,000 relates to cables that have been sent? Is that correct?

Cables and airmail.

Then it is £15,000 for those items alone? Can the Minister tell us what was the original estimate in connection with that item for that year?

I do not think my hon. friend quite followed me. In the past payment for these items was made under different votes. It does not mean that we have spent £15,000 more than we had expected to spend. It means that the one amount is now placed on one vote and not on the different votes.

But the money has been spent on telegrams and airmail. It is not quite clear whether the whole amount has been spent on those two items alone because there is a tendency on the part of the Minister’s department and on the part of other departments to include all kinds of other items of expenditure more and more in the general term “Incidental Expenditure,” and I should like to suggest that when we have this item of incidental expenditure we should be given a note to show what this incidental expenditure consists of. I should say that the whole item, the whole vote, is not made up of cables and airmail. To me the amount appears to be tremendous for just those two items, and I should think that other items are included. My experience in the past has been that incidental expenditure amounts to about £500 or £600. Now the amount runs into thousands of pounds, and I am afraid that there is a tendency on the part of departments to hide items of expenditure under this heading “Incidental Expenses.” I want to suggest that we should have a note showing the main items in respect of which this incidental expenditure applies.

The Hon. the Minister has told the House that this amount of £15,000 has now been put under one heading. If. I understood him correctly, there has been a saving in other cases. Will the Minister tell us where that saving has taken place? I understand him to say that we had this £15,000 under this heading because the expenses of other departments have been transferred to this head. If we had a note to say: „Here is an additional amount of £15,000, but so much of that constitutes a saving on other votes,” we would be able to understand it, but the position becomes very difficult if we are to deal with estimates like this under the general heading of “Incidental Expenditure.” Yesterday we had an item dealing with increased telegraphic expenses, and now we get this heading again. One does not know where one is. I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us now, or at a later stage, where the savings have been effected, so that we may know what the actual increase amounts to.

There are savings on a number of votes. There are savings on votes such as agriculture, commerce and industries, also on the Treasury Vote, and even on the Defence Vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 12.—“Inland Revenue,”

£17,000,

I notice that an additional £17,000 is asked for under this vote. Can the Minister responsible tell us whether this has anything to do with the additional inspectors who have been appointed to scrutinise income tax forms?

No. There is an increase in respect of the ordinary clerical staff, and in addition provision is made for increased cost of living allowances.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 14.—“Audit,” £10,900, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 16.—“South African Mint,” £63,100,

May I just explain that this increase in the amount is due partly to the increase in the cost of living allowances, but it is also partly due to the fact that the Mint is now doing much more work, such as minting coins for other countries.

This has nothing to do with ammunition?

No.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 17.—“Union Education,” £6,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 19.—“Agriculture,” £58,250,

I would like to explain one or two of these items before hon. members come to them. The item of £1,250 is there in consequence of a resolution taken at the United Nations Food and Agricultural Conference at Hot Springs. What is visualised here is an organisation something on the same lines as the Imperial Agricultural Institute at Rome and the Imperial Agricultural Bureau in London, which is largely scientific. If members will permit me, I would like to give them the benefit of a few notes. Last May the International Food Conference was held in the United States, to which the Union had sent representatives especially in the capacity of observers. The Conference recommended to the governments represented that in order to attain the objectives of winning and maintaining freedom from fear and from want, an interim commission be set up for carrying out the recommendations to be made to governments. The functions of the interim commission were to formulate and recommend for consideration by each member governed—

1. (a) A specific plan for a permanent organisation in the field of food and agriculture.
2. (b) Prepare a form of declaration of agreement for signature by member governments in which the obligation is recognised, henceforth to collaborate in raising levels of nutrition and standards of living of their peoples; to improve the efficiency of agricultural production and distribution; to cooperate as far as may be possible with other nations for the achievement of these ends, and to undertake to report periodically on the action taken and progress achieved towards these ends.

At the end of last May the Union Government advised the South African Legation at Washington that the proposal to establish an interim commission was acceptable in principle. As I have said, it is on the same lines as the International Institute of Agriculture in Rome, to which we always contributed. In terms of the recommendations of the conference member governments are asked to solemnly pledge themselves to take all measures within their powers—

1. (a) To raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its own people;
2. (b) to improve the efficiency of agricultural production and distribution;
3. (c) to co-operate with other nations for the achievement of these ends;
4. (d) to report periodically through the permanent organisation on the measures taken and the progress achieved in these matters.

Is that our yearly contribution?

This is the only amount we know of. I am informed that it is not visualised for any nation to pay any large sums, as in the case of Unrra. It is essentially a scientific institution, to get information and to disseminate information amongst the nations. The other two items are merely the ordinary cost of living allowance and special war allowances.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 20.—“Agriculture (Assistance to Farmers),” £775,000,

As hon. members know, the first item £285,000, is really from my colleague the Minister of Finance.

And was explained by me.

It was explained by the Minister of Finance when he introduced the motion. The amount of £210,000 is comprised entirely of amounts that were short on the 1941-’42 and the 1942-’43 pools of the Deciduous Boards. It is the only expense that is required in this vote. There are no other moneys to farmers, although it is stated here “Subsidy in respect of railway rates and general assistance to agricultural producers.” The Deciduous Fruit Board shortage is the amount of £210,000.

In dealing with the item of £280,000 the Minister of Finance announced that it had been decided to adopt a new method of assistance to the deciduous fruit industry. Until recently this assistance had been in the form of a guarantee by the Government of the pool account, but now the Government had undertaken to grant the Deciduous Fruit Board a fixed annual amount. The incompetence of the Deciduous Fruit Board in distributing its products to different parts of the Union has caused the most patient people to blaspheme everywhere. Even the League of Women Voters at Pretoria has been moved to exclaim that the £280,000 has not subsidised the producer, it is subsidising wastage. I go further, sir, and say that it is a subsidy to incompetence and a form of expenditure which we are entitled to condemn. I am a supporter of the Government and it is precisely for that reason that I raise my voice against the state of affairs that has been brought about by the acts of the Deciduous Fruit Board. A man who has been concerned with the distribution of fruit in Pietermaritzburg since 1926 stated on the 19th January: “in all my experience since 1926 I have never seen less fruit. In my opinion this is due firstly to the Deciduous Fruit Board’s policy in their monopolistic control of Cape deciduous fruit and rigid method of fruit inspection which is driving most of the undergrade fruit off the market”; and he goes on to described the humiliation of having to offer decaying and noisome fruit to the public. The deciduous fruit season which most consumers look forward to has this year been remarkable for the complete failure of distribution in centres like Pietermaritzburg and Pretoria. My informant in Pietermaritzburg states that as a result of the small quantity of sound fruit arriving prices are sky high. And as the hon. member for Tembuland remarks the fruit itself is “high” too. The system of placing unlimited power in the hands of incompetent persons and persons who have no goodwill towards people who are not members of the Deciduous Fruit Board, does not end merely with the public being offered, and in some cases sold, unsound fruit, but it enables such a Board to prevent Natal people who have supplied Natal markets for years from selling their products on the central markets, and in some cases has even prevented the distribution of such fruit to orphanages and to the troops. I can cite a case in which a farmer wished to consign a truck load of fruit to a soldiers’ camp as a gift, but he was informed by the Railway that the Board concerned would not allow any consignment to be sent to that destination. Is there any need for this sort of petty persecution? On the 19th January, 1944, the Natal Witness reports that a prominent Chase Valley fruit farmer had 50 cases of good edible plums rejected on the Pietermaritzburg market. He accordingly asked the Market Master to send them on to orphanages or other deserving institutions. The Market Master later informed him that the Fruit Inspector had refused to allow him to send the fruit to the orphanages as it was not good enough. The farmer then himself had most of the plums sent to orphanages while others he distributed among his friends, all of whom found them very good to eat. This year’s operations of the Deciduous Fruit Board have served to drive off the markets well-known fruit growers in the Natal Midlands. Mr. David Smythe of Nottingham Road in a public statement says that the market control had stopped farmers from sending fruit away because they never knew whether it was going to be sold or rejected and thrown away. In the latter case the farmers lost their boxes, their railage and their fruit, so that it was not worth while sorting and packing the fruit. Mr. Smythe was willing to sell his fruit, as he has done hitherto for a large number of years, but he is now feeding to his pigs large quantities of first class peaches, apples, plums and pears, as he found it impracticable to send them to the Maritzburg market as in previous years, owing to the control system. It is idle for the Minister of Agriculture to advise me to see the Deciduous Fruit Board. In the circumstances it would be a stupid thing to suggest. During last year I spent a considerable amount of my valuable time interviewing the representatives of the Deciduous Fruit Board with the Undersecretary for Agriculture, and I received no satisfaction whatsoever from the promises made to me by the gentlemen in question. I have no intention of going near them again. If the Minister is incapable of getting rid of the incompetence which surrounds the administrative side of his own department, it would be far better for him to confess it in public than to encourage the people to believe that improvement will ever be brought about through the ministrations of his department. I am merely expressing the disgust of the fruit buying public with the arrangements made by the Deciduous Fruit Board for the distribution of fruit throughout South Africa.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) in so roundly condemning the work of the Deciduous Fruit Board. We in Pretoria have been particular sufferers from the inefficiency and incompetence of this particular Board. We were under the impression that when once the overseas market was closed to the producers of fruit here at the Cape, we in the interior would be able to get good fruit at reasonable prices. Instead the position in the Transvaal and certainly in Pretoria has gone from bad to worse, and today it is almost impossible to get any decent fruit in Pretoria at a reasonable price. The reason, I understand, is that the fruit is first of all collected here, sent to cold storage at the nearest point to which it is grown, kept there for some days, and then it is put on to the train, where it is again subjected to cold storage, and then it is released in a heated atmosphere, and in consequence the fruit loses all its flavour and such as has not lost its flavour becomes rotten. We in Pretoria are particular sufferers because in Pretoria the Deciduous Fruit Board has decided for some reason or another that Pretoria is only suitable for second and third grade fruit. The first grade fruit is sent to Johannesburg, and the second and third grade fruit is sent to Pretoria. And the reason given is that the Deciduous Fruit Board considers that because they get good prices for second and third grade fruit in Pretoria, these grades are all they need send to Pretoria. Pretoria has had to pay more for second and third grade fruit than Johannesburg has had to pay for first grade fruit. It has become such a scandal that there has been a public outcry and it is high time the Minister recognised the position. I want to support the remarks which the hon. member has made, and I want to ask the Minister to go into the whole position so that we should not have rotten fruit foisted on us at exorbitant prices.

I am really astounded to notice the way hon. members opposite are carrying on. Although I do not agree with everything the Boards do, none the less I want to draw attention to the fact that the Boards also do some good work. Hon. members could have been of great assistance to us if they had made some suggestion as to how the difficulties could be solved, but they have just made a fuss, and the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis) spoke about third grade fruit which was being sold in Pretoria. I must say that he himself gives me the impression of being pretty sour as a result of the sour fruit he has eaten. Those Boards are necessary, and in that respect we are prepared to support the Minister. We may differ from him as to the composition of the Boards, the people who are on those Boards, but the Boards as such are good and sound institutions. I want to tell the Minister, however, that if he introduces control he should not do so in a half-hearted manner. If he wants to exercise control, it should be done thoroughly. I further want to tell the Minister that without proper storage accommodation being provided he will never be able to exercise proper control. If one wants to exercise control so far as fruit, meat and other products are concerned, storage accommodation is essential. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) made a very good suggestion, namely, that there should be depots in the various towns. If there were such depots it would be possible to satisfy the farmers and also to help the consumers and thus wipe out the middle man. If we were to do that it would be possible to improve the position. I again want to say this to hon. members opposite, that if they think they are going to cut out the Boards they are quite wrong. Those Boards are necessary but they have to be improved.

At the outset I want to say that I rather disagree with the manner in which this amount of £280,000 is placed on the estimates. It is placed on the estimates under the heading of “Assistance to Farmers.” I think the House will agree that this amount is there purely because of blunders that have been made by the Board through the Board being unable to keep down distribution costs. I think the amount should have been expressed in a somewhat different way because it is not a matter of assistance to farmers. I want to go further and to say that if I am to prophesy for the future in regard to the errors of the Deciduous Fruit Board, I am quite convinced that this amount will be nearer £500,000, and in making that statement I feel that if one takes into consideration the errors which have been made in the past, and the fact that there will be an increase in the amount of fruit to be handled in the future, this amount instead of £280,000 will be nearer £500,000. Resolutions have been passed at various farmers’ meetings expressing dissatisfaction with the unbusinesslike manner of the Board, and I think there has developed a growing avalanche of resentment throughout the country. The Deciduous Fruit Board has made official statements from time to time but unfortunately those statements have not given us a correct perspective and have not cleared the atmosphere, and it is for that reason that apart from the Departmental Committee which has investigated the matter, but whose report has not been published, the time has arrived when the Minister should appoint a public committee to take evidence from all points of view, and the report of such a committee should be made public.

You want another committee or commission?

Briefly it can be said that the Board has failed in that it has been unable to bring all types of fruit to all sections of the community at prices within the reach of those sections. That is the principle which the Board has failed to carry out. I make that statement firstly because I think the complaints against the Board can be examined from various points of view, and in the first place I want to deal with the consumers and the retailers’ point of view. They complain that not only have they not had fruit, but what little they have had, has been too expensive, and in addition the fruit is tasteless and of poor quality. The complaint of the consumers I think is understandable when one realises that the members of the Board — and I am not casting any personal reflections — are representative of only one section of the community, and that is the grower. And it is for that reason that I contend that growers primarily are not in a position to understand the basic principles of distribution. Fruit is a highly perishable commodity, and as its quality cannot be maintained for any period by artificial methods of refrigeration, I think it is understandable how these errors have occurred in the past, and will occur again in the future. It is because of that that the Board should realise that the fruit of this country when picked should be sent direct, or at any rate in the shortest possible time, to the distributors. But apart from that we find that the Board are encouraging a system under which fruit in this country is picked ripe and is sent, in accordance with instructions from the Board, direct to the cold storages. Again we come to a second point, and that is in regard to these cold storages. Now when it comes to refrigeration I contend that cold storages should only be used as a last resort to take in surplus supplies and it is only by applying that principle that we shall be able to balance supply and demand in this country. I have been informed, and I think the manager of the Deciduous Fruit Board himself said on the 6th January, that there is no surplus supply, and yet I am in formed that the cold storage here is full of fruit. It is for that reason that I am surprised, with the shortage of fruit there is in the country, that it should be found necessary to nut fruit into cold storage. The Board having the control which it has should have seen to it that only where there is over-supply should fruit have been put into cold storage. But that is not the position. Even where there is a shortage the Board is still holding back supplies of fruit. I say again that refrigeration should only be resorted to in the last instance. We find that instead of, fruit being sent direct to the distributors it is first sent to the cold storage and then to distant fields and by the time it arrives at its destination it is unfit for consumption. Then, further, if the Board were to consign fruit direct from the farmers, it is not guiding the farmers as to how the fruit should be picked. I am led to understand that it is an accepted principle that the fruit is picked at full maturity which means that it is picked for cold storage. I believe it is only a few weeks ago that the Deciduous Fruit Board instructed their representative in Paarl to consign fruit to Natal and that fruit having been picked at full maturity had to be condemned when it reached Natal. To me it would appear reasonable that the Board should realise that if they are not going to put some of their fruit into cold storage they must see to it that the farmers pick some of their fruit fit to be sent to distant parts. Now in this respect the Board’s policy should be to place the responsibility on the farmers to see that the fruit is in a fit condition to be sent to distant parts. [Time limit.]

I have been sitting here and listening carefully to the criticism exercised this afternoon by members opposite in regard to this matter. We can quite understand that they are concerned. All they want is good fruit at low prices.

Why do you say that?

I should like to put a question to the Minister, because I feel, after all the criticism that has been levelled here, it is the Minister’s duty to tell us whether he intends carrying on with the Boards of Control. It seems to me that some members opposite are opposed to the control of the farmers’ products for no other reason than that they want to get hold of the farmers’ products cheaply.

You are quite wrong.

They are opposed to control because the object of control is to secure a fair and reasonable price for the farmers’ products.

Wrong again.

I have heard no objection yet to the subsidy on the ground that it is paid to the wrong person. The subsidy is paid to fruit farmers to enable them to supply the town people with fruit at a reasonable price. The farmers are unable to produce fruit at the prices at which town people want to get their fruit. Any attempt made by a control board to secure a reasonable price for the farmers’ products will be opposed by certain interests, and we have to assist the Minister to the best of our ability. I am not here for the purpose of defending that particular board of control, or to defend the people who are members of that board. I am speaking about the principle of control. That board has made mistakes, it is making mistakes, and will make mistakes in the future. Of course they are not as astute and as clever as some hon. members opposite who only eat fruit and then think they are experts. The distribution of fruit is a difficult matter. I should like to be told by the Minister whether he agrees that we require control. We are anxious to have control but it must be good control, exercised by individuals who are capable of doing the work, individuals with a knowledge of affairs. I got up to put a question to the Minister, a question which I also asked yesterday. I stated that the difficulties our farmers had to contend with in connection with their grapes were very great and I should like the Minister to reply to that point. The request I want to make to him is that he should instruct the Board of Control that fruit—grapes—which are intended for table purposes, should not be used for wine making. The grapes which I am referring to can be sold as food, or they can even be given away, but they should not go through the press. These people get a subsidy. If the subsidy is not sufficient, the Government should give more, but table grapes should not be used for any other purpose except to be eaten. If these grapes cannot be sold—well, there are thousands of people in the country who never get any grapes simply because they are too poor to buy them, but they are anxious to get grapes. Let these grapes be made available cheaply or let them be given away, but do not let them become a burden on the wine farmers. There is already a wine surplus of about 40 per cent. and all the grapes that are added for the purpose of distillation increase the difficulties. That is the position. The management of the K.W.V. has felt obliged to declare a surplus of 40 per cent. for next year and every leaguer of wine that is added increases that surplus. I contend that it is unnecessary to make distilling wine from those grapes. Last year 20,000 leaguers were offloaded on the K.W.V. and it is expected that this year it will be 15,000 leaguers, but if there is any mismanagement it is quite possible that 25,000 leaguers may be offloaded on the K.W.V., which we will have to pay for and which we cannot use. The Government subsidise these grapes and quite rightly so. Those farmers have had to give up their export market where they used to get better prices than they are getting now, even with the subsidy. They made this sacrifice for the war by curtailing their market and it is only right that they should be subsidised. That being the position I don’t think it is right that those grapes should be offloaded on to the K.W.V. If it is necessary then the Minister must see to it that they are given a bigger subsidy to enable them to look after their affairs so that they will not be compelled to offload the grapes for the sake of a further subsidy, on to the wine farmers. I am not in favour of commissions being appointed to investigate matters. The Minister and his department are quite able to do these investigations. They have had a departmental investigation and if these people are not prepared to give effect to what the department demands of them, if they make a failure of the whole matter, then give them notice and appoint other people. I must say that if I had served on that Board or Committee, and if I had been criticised in the way that body has been criticised, I would not have remained a member any longer.

Do you want me to appoint the Board?

I should prefer to see the farmers themselves appoint the board. At the moment members are recommended and the Minister appoints, but we all know what the position is. We have these dying bodies which are not doing anything at all, but they remain in existence merely for the purpose of putting nominees on them. The Co-operative Societies are no longer exporting but they are still nominating people, and the Minister appoints these people. We have seen the criticisms that have been levelled against these people and I do not want to say anything more about it. Let the farmers come together and elect the people they want. That is the only way to put matters right, and if the people who are elected do not do their duty then others will have to do it. At the moment you are appointing the people and you have to take the responsibility. If the farmers themselves appoint these people they will see to it that they appoint people who are able to control the position. In that way we shall get people who will be able to regulate matters satisfactorily. I am anxious to get these two replies from the Minister, and I should also like to know what the position is going to be in regard to raisins; has the Government any intention this year of subsidising raisins?

Rather let us not talk about raisins.

I only want to know whether you are going to give us a subsidy. [Time limit.]

During the last session of Parliament members expressed their disappointment at the work of the Deciduous Fruit Board. I thereupon appointed a committee of enquiry and I was fortunate in getting the assistance of Mr. McDonald, who is a business man. The other members of the committee were Mr. Keegan, Mr. Adams, Professor Leppan and Dr. Du Toit, the Director of the Fruit Research Station in the Western Province. It was a very competent committee and that committee made its report. The findings of the committee have been published. I don’t know whether all members have seen the report but full publicity has been given to the committee’s findings. This committee in its report recommended that the Deciduous Fruit Board should be given full control over deciduous fruit. As hon. members know, the Deciduous Fruit Board had control only over plums and pears. The committee recommended that the Board should also be given control over peaches and grapes. As hon. members also know, the argument of the Deciduous Fruit Board was that it was unable properly to do its work unless it was given full control, a principle with which I necessarily have to agree. Personally I was very nervous about giving the Deciduous Fruit Board full control because I was not satisfied that the Board had carried on its administration as effectively as we had expected. The committee, however, went fully and thoroughly into the whole matter, and I agreed with what the committee recommended, namely, that the Board be given full control over these kinds of fruit. Grapes are the great thing and they have been the cause of severe losses to the Government in past years. I felt, however, although I doubted very much whether it would be the best thing, that I had to decide to give them this chance. I want to remind hon. members that we have not yet reached the end of the season; we are only at the beginning. It is true that the plum season is over, and the position in regard to the plums has given a fair amount of satisfaction. Twice as many plums have been sold and consumed as in the previous season. Peaches are still in season and as hon. members know, the grape crop is pretty late. From what I have been told I have certain objections to the way the work is being done.…

To whom is the Board responsible?

The Board is responsible to the Minister.

Then you must keep an eye on them.

I am doing so and I am also doing something else, but I must say this to the House. Hon. members will agree that during the grape season the earliest grapes should fetch a slightly higher price. Then we come to the time when grapes are plentiful and after that grapes become scarce again. When grapes are scarce the fruit gets more expensive again. Unfortunately the Fruit Board, during the time of scarcity, started selling early fruit and it would seem that their policy was wrong in charging too much. I have not the available information yet, however, to enable me to judge the position fully. If what I have been told is correct then they certainly have carried on their administration in a manner such as I would not have done had I been in their place. When I agreed that the Deciduous Fruit Board was to take control of the grapes as well I made this condition, that they were to leave alone those people who themselves had packed their grapes, and despatched them by post, and by rail, to the consumers. We know that in the Western Province there are people and companies who have their own markets on a large scale. They sell by post, and I told the Deciduous Fruit Board to leave those people alone. I now understand that a complaint is made that while in the main that request has been complied with none the less certain difficulties have been put in the way of these people. I am making an enquiry into the position but the season is only just starting. I quite agree with what has been said by some hon. members here, and I agree with the suggestions of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) that there should be more distribution depots, but that is not the Government’s job. That is the Deciduous Fruit Board’s job. That is what they are given money for.

Have they got a fund for that purpose?

To my mind the funds are adequate to enable them to open up such depots.

The hon. member for Humansdorp did not speak of one or two depots, his suggestion was that there should be something like 25 of them.

I am of opinion that with the funds they have at their disposal they can open up half a dozen and more. It is for them to tell the Government that they require additional funds for this or that purpose.

And will you assist them?

I consider that they have adequate funds for half a dozen depots and more. I am not going to make any promise now—which the hon. member wants me to do—I am not going to promise that I will let the Board come to me for more money. So far the Government has made up the deficits which have been pretty considerable. We have been urging them for two years to work hand in hand with the Citrus Board in the establishment of depots. The citrus season does not coincide with the deciduous fruit season, and I fail to see why they have not found it possible yet to make the necessary arrangements.

Perhaps they have not got the necessary funds.

It is not a question of funds; I can assure the hon. member that that is not the case. If I advise anyone to do a thing, it is my policy to always help him give effect to that advice; the hon. member can take that from me. There are many farmers who are dissatisfied with the composition of this Board. I must admit honestly that I, too, am dissatisfied. The composition of that Board to my mind is on an antiquated basis. I doubt whether the Board, as now composed, can cope with present day conditions. I have already given the Board notice that it is our intention to reorganise it, but it is impossible for us at the moment to proceed with that plan. I think hon. members will agree with me that it would be foolish to take such a step in the middle of a season. But the Committee can take it from me that as soon as the season is over it is our intention to reorganise the Board. The criticisms levelled by the producers against the Board are that the Board is concerned more with export than anything else. To my mind that criticism is pretty well founded, and I am convinced that the fruit industry and the Board itself, too, will benefit, if an element is added to the Board which will be able to a greater extent to take present day conditions into consideration. But I say again that this re-organisation will have to wait until after the season is over. I don’t want to place any obstacles in the way of the Board, because if I do so it will be able to say to me: “You detracted our attention from our work at a time when that work required our full attention if we were to make a success of what we had to do.” The consumers throughout the country, especially in view of the fact that the Government is paying such a large amount, are entitled to get export fruit at a reasonable price, but a great many consumers expect to get their fruit at prices at which the farmer is unable to produce, and I want to make an appeal to the consumers, and ask them should they get good fruit, if they are prepared to pay a reasonable price for that fruit. There is one thing I am convinced of, and that is that the producers of deciduous fruit are not making a fortune today. It is the Government’s intention in this exceptional case so to help those people that they will be enabled to remain on their land. I have already told the House that for quite a number of years the Government has been guaranteeing the Board’s deficits. We have now followed a different procedure, and we have told the Board that we are prepared to give them a fixed amount. The Board will then have to come out on that amount, and it will have to see to it that it runs its business in a proper way. The way in which the Board wants to do it is to give an advance of 80 per cent. of the price of the fruit last year, and possibly it will have to pay an additional amount afterwards. Well, I know that the mealie and other farmers are not very keen on this “after payment” (agterskot). I have tried to put the position frankly to the Committee so that hon. members may know exactly what the situation is.

Are you prepared to tell them that they must sell the table grapes and not make wine of them?

I am prepared to give them that advice, but I am not prepared to force them not to sell their grapes to the K.W.V. I think the hon. member was speaking with his tongue in his cheek. The K.W.V. gets its grapes from every wine farmer, every individual growing grapes is entitled to a definite quota to be turned into wine. In the same sense is this Board entitled to do so. I agree with the hon. member that table grapes are estimated at about 40,000 tons. Those the Deciduous Fruit Board have to attend to. What is happening now is that instead of the farmers going to the K.W.V. and delivering there, the Deciduous Fruit Board goes to the K.W.V. I want to put the hon. member right there. The hon. member expresses himself too strongly when he says that the farmers should sell all their table grapes and not turn any of them into wine. I agree with him that the Deciduous Fruit Board should do everything it possibly can to sell as much of the crop as possible as table grapes. That should be their aim and their ambition, and the Government is prepared to assist in that. A further question has been put to me, and I shall try and answer it just as frankly. I am in favour of control. If the producers of deciduous fruit were to come to me today and say that they do not want a board of control and that they are satisfied to carry on without a subsidy I would also be satisfied, but the Government realises that in the circumstances in which the deciduous fruit farmers find themselves through the loss of their export markets, the Government is compelled, at any rate for the duration of the war, to pay them this subsidy. That is why we need a board of control to exercise control, and in my opinion we can establish a body which will be able to carry out this business properly. I shall do my best immediately after the season to establish such a body which will be able to give satisfaction.

†There are other points of criticism that will not, I think, take me much further time to reply to. The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) declares that they refuse to eat rotten fruit or diseased fruit. I have a certain measure of sympathy with hon. members, but I want to say this, I have lived in this country as long as the hon. member and a little longer, and we have never had fruit in the interior at prices that obtain in the Western Province. Owing to the long distance it has to travel, the fruit must be subject to a certain amount of deterioration, and I certainly am not going to say to the Board: “You have to distribute through the ordinary channels, fruit merchants, market agents and similar people.” What we say to the board is this: “There is the amount of the subsidy, and it is your duty to see that the consumer obtains fruit at reasonable prices, and you have to see that your members’ fruit is marketed.” If they cannot do that, I submit it is time they made room for someone else. As I have already explained to the Committee, we have already informed he board that it is time that they reorganise the board. I think there is some justice in the criticism that this board is still perhaps too much concerned with export. They have grown up in the export trade. More attention must be given by the board to the local market and the local trade. I certainly am going to do all I can to get this board reorganised. In the first place, I am not going to stand for this criticism any longer. The Government has gone out of its way to subsidise this industry, man for man much higher than any other industry. The Government was satisfied it had to give them special subsidies, but for the Government to subsidise to this extent and then to have continual criticism as we have had for the last three years—well, I am getting tired of it and something must be done to rectify matters; and the Committee can take it from me that I am going to do all I can to reorganise the board and to see whether the new policy we have embarked on this year to accord them full control of all the fruit, is justified; or whether we must take away some measure of control or make some other plan. I trust that the Committee will take my word for it that we are going to have this reorganisation, and that I am not satisfied and the Department is not satisfied.

I have been listening very carefully since yesterday to the criticism that has been levelled against one Board. Let me say straight out that I am in complete accord and that I am in favour of control over the farmers’ products, and we should not take up the attitude that because one Board in particular circumstances has perhaps not given the satisfaction expected of it, that therefore the principle of boards of control is wrong. It may perhaps sound unfair to judge before we have really gone into the matter and have determined what are the reasons for the dissatisfaction. So far as I have been able to follow the debate not a single member has criticised the individuals as individuals on that board, or attacked them of being incompetent to serve on such a board, but on the other hand, I have not heard a single word either from any member in which the question has been raised, what powers the board has got and whether the board was in a position to decide as it thought best. We heard the Minister say that after the investigation which has been made it has now been decided to give the board the power of full control. If one has not had the experience of sitting on a board which has not got full power of control, which has not got full physical control over the commodities it has to control, one cannot just state offhand that the people on that Board are incompetent and unable to carry out the duties imposed upon them. We must first of all make sure of the circumstances in which they have to do their work. We, as farmers and producers, have been fighting and struggling for years to get control over our products. We fight for stability in our industry. Yesterday I listened to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) who got up here and in sharp language made an attack on boards of control and on producers. I wonder whether the hon. member for South Coast has ever tried to look into the very involved conditions prevailing today, and to see how difficult it is to exercise and apply control, and whether he has ever tried to appreciate the difficulties and hardships which the producers have to contend with today in their efforts to produce these goods. If we look very carefully into these matters we shall find that things are not so easy for the control boards; particularly in the case of young boards which have not yet had sufficient time to find their feet will we find that it is not so easy for these boards immediately to apply measures which will give satisfaction both to the consumer and producer. But there is another aspect of the matter as well which we have to take into account—particularly those people who are shouting so loudly:—Is it really the consumer who is shouting, or is it the individual who comes in between the consumer and the producer? Are they the people who are objecting and are making propaganda for profit and for gain, are they the people who are making all the noise today? We as farmers claim, especially in times like the present, that there is no place for people who want to put large profits or gains into their pockets. I don’t want to level any unjust criticism against the Deciduous Fruit Board; I have had experience of the work of such boards, and I know that when a board has got the actual power of being able to say that this or that must or must not be done, it is very unfair to criticise the members on such a board. An additional difficulty which all boards have experienced is that when the boards started to function normally another department came into being, the Food Controller came along, and the Food Controller constituted part of the Minister’s department, and the boards had the experience of having to take very definite account of that part of the department. The Minister of Agriculture is also the food controller, and no board can afford to ignore him. We know him and we do not want to criticise him too strongly, but none the less circumstances make it necessary for the boards to take very definite note of the control measures that are taken. I for one am not disposed to criticise before I have thoroughly gone into a matter, before I am able to determine that the individuals as individuals are incompetent; until such time I am not prepared to condemn them. I feel this—give them full control and power. Only then can one test whether they are really too weak, or whether, given full control, they will be able to carry out their duties in the way they should do.

I would like to say a few words on this Vote which is described as “Assistance to Farmers.” I feel that many of these items might have been better described, but the time at my disposal and my inexperience of the rules of this House prevent me from elaborating my arguments to any great extent. I feel, however, that many of these items are undoubtedly of assistance to farmers, but they also are of considerable assistance to other sections of the community and I do feel it is rather unfair that farmers should have to bear the criticism that is levelled against them today, that they are spoon-fed and that they are getting assistance all over the place when, strictly speaking many of these items should not appear under this heading at all. I would like to refer to item A. 2, “Payments in terms of Section (3) of Act No. 8 of 1943.” This is a very sound principle. It is a principle that has been appreciated by the farming community. It is having a very excellent effect throughout the country and the extra money that Parliament is being asked to vote for this purpose will, I feel sure, be well repaid in the help that it will be towards reducing the bonds on many farms that have been very considerably overbonded. This principle was discussed by the Minister of Finance with the Executive Committee of the South African Agricultural Union, and I feel certain that some of these suggestions were incorporated as a result of that discussion and I feel that if more frequent discussions of this kind could be held between Ministers and representatives of the farming community who are organised on non-political lines in their Agricultural Unions, it would be all to the good of the farmers in this country and the country generally. On the question of control many of us have heard criticisms of the various control measures, and there is a tendency on the part of the general public to confuse the ordinary controllers—the Building Controller, the Petrol Controllers and other controllers—with the control boards. I feel that we are getting much criticism which is not strictly justifiable. I do feel that we should ask the Ministers in future when the Votes come up, clearly to differentiate between the different items. Items that do not represent assistance to the farmers should be shown under different headings. To take only one item, the subsidy on railway rates. I think if anyone took the trouble to go through these items, he would find a large number of items where the Railways get a subsidy which is shown as “Assistance to Farmers.” These items are in many cases so complicated in the Railway Tariff Book that it is very hard indeed to know where the subsidy ends and where the ordinary rate begins, and I feel that it would be of considerable benefit to all concerned if a similar system were evolved. I feel that these Railway subsidies might be better described as “Subsidies to South African Railways.” I feel that would be a very much more accurate description of the subsidy. The Railways are getting the full rates and they are also getting the very considerable amount of traffic that is being carried at a very low rate. As I have said, the Railway Administration is getting the full rate, and I think they are getting very much more benefit from the subsidy than the farming community. There is one point which I feel I might be allowed to mention and that is that an ordinary mistake made by an ordinary Control Board is very often exaggerated; it gets headlines in all the newspapers, and we never hear a word about the mistakes made by people who might have been speculating in food. They keep very quiet. The Control Board suffers a little loss here and there and it is exaggerated and attention is drawn to it all over the place, and a strong attempt is made to discredit the principle of control by Control Boards. I feel that if we are to have an efficient method of marketing the foodstuffs of this country, we have to try to eliminate this unfair criticism. We have to encourage the co-operation of the consumers. In that respect I heard an interjection, “Was the Minister prepared to give the consumers more representation on the Control Boards?” I feel it is absolutely essential. I do not want to go into matters of policy, but I do feel that these items might very well be considered by the hon. Minister and if assistance could be given along the lines I have indicated, I feel it would be of very considerable benefit, not only to the farmers but to the consumers, and go a long way in establishing an efficient method of marketing our foodstuffs in this country.

I was very pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down. I quite agree with him on some of the points that he made. I share his views in regard to the question of showing these items as “Assistance to Farmers” in a manner that anyone can understand them. The hon. member stated that a number of these items ought to be debited elsewhere and not to the farmers. Let me make my attitude perfectly clear. I advocate that we do all we possibly can to assist the farmers. We have in past years criticised the export subsidies for very good reasons. In this case an amount of £280,000 is being voted this year in respect of assistance to the deciduous fruit industry. Well, there has been no fruit exported this year and it would be interesting to know why this amount is necessary.

Nor last year.

I would like the hon. Minister in the future, when these Estimates are being framed, if it is at all possible— and I cannot see any reason why it cannot be done—to show the various forms of assistance to the farmers under one heading. I do not see why these separate items should be set out all over the Estimates. I submit that it is impossible for anyone to find out the actual cost of the agricultural industry to South Africa. The assistance is scattered all over the Estimates, and I agree with the hon. member that has just sat down that we should have them all on one list so that we can see at a glance how much assistance we are giving to the farmers of South Africa. We would then be in a position to judge whether this expenditure of public money is justified or otherwise. I am glad to hear from the hon. Minister that he is going to see whether he can possibly straighten out this Deciduous Fruit Board muddle. May I suggest to him that there is a large number of other Boards that need looking into. If the hon. Minister has not yet come to the conclusion that the people in South Africa are somewhat perturbed at the method of control in South Africa, then I say he ought to get in touch with public opinion. If we are to be faced with an additional expenditure of £210,000 in respect of assistance to one branch of agriculture, while we cannot get fruit in South Africa, then I say it is time that the whole of the agricultural industry should be looked into. I do not want to suggest that another commission should be appointed but there is definitely something wrong. Today we cannot get fruit in South Africa, although we are prepared to pay high prices for it.

[Inaudible.]

You will get your chance, Mr. Wool-expert. I have noticed that when an hon. member cannot get attention in this House, all he has to do is to level some sort of criticism at the farmers; then they all sit up and take notice, and that is the time you can get attention. I say that the hon. Minister ought to look into the question of these other boards as well. It is not only the Deciduous Fruit Board. There is the Dairy Control Board; a bigger farce.…

The hon. member cannot discuss other boards.

The Deciduous Fruit Board is a glaring example of what is taking place in South Africa, and as I have said before, I am glad the hon. Minister now proposes to take some action which is long overdue. We have drawn his attention to this board for several years, and although one is not permitted on this occasion to discuss other boards, there is no doubt at all that South Africa is suffering from “Control Board-itis”. This board has undoubtedly been a failure and if the hon. Minister finds it necessary perhaps to abolish this board, then there is some justification for him to enquire into the functions and powers of the other Boards. I am sure the people of South Africa will be very pleased to hear that the Minister now proposes to sit up and take notice and probably take charge of one little department that has been neglected in the past. They will be pleased to hear that there is a possibility of this board being reconstructed, if not abolished. I hope it will apply to all the boards dealing with foodstuffs in South Africa.

If a person listens to the criticism which is levelled at the Deciduous Fruit Board in this House as well as outside one gets the impression that very little, or no account has been taken of the difficult circumstances with which the Deciduous Fruit Board has had to contend. No account is taken of the fact that the Deciduous Fruit Board has to handle one of the most perishable products, and that it is no small business, that it is not a business which can be controlled entirely, completely and perfectly. The criticism in this House and outside has been directed principally against high prices. I can quite well remember that when the export of fruit was still in full swing some of the same people who are today criticising the high prices, in this House and also outside, were raising a big cry and were shouting: “Give us export fruit, we are prepared to pay for it”. It was repeatedly asked: “Why must South Africa be given only second grade fruit for consumption in this country, while all first grade fruit is being exported—give us the export fruit and we shall pay for it.” What do we find today? Today that fruit is available to the consumers and now the great complaint is that it is too expensive. Even with the increased cost of production of today people are not prepared to pay for it. All that sort of criticism is levelled against the Deciduous Fruit Board, and the board is also criticised because of the high prices. If the Deciduous Fruit Board has made one mistake in regard to the unduly high prices it is that it has not exercised full price control. Now, who is it who is getting unduly high prices? We have the fact here that at the Deciduous Fruit Board’s depot at Salt River grapes are offered for sale at 5 lbs. for 1s. and only a short distance away from that depot, in a fruit shop selling fruit retail, the public have to pay 5d. and 6d., per lb. Is the Deciduous Fruit Board responsible for that?

Definitely yes.

The fact remains that the Deciduous Fruit Board wants to avail itself of the ordinary channels of distribution and it has availed itself of those channels; but unfortunately the ordinary distribution channels have stabbed the Deciduous Fruit Board in the back and they have not co-operated by allowing the retail prices also to go down. And what is the source of all the criticism which is today being levelled against the Deciduous Fruit Board? If hon. members leave this House and go out they will find that source in the fruit stalls and the retail shops selling deciduous fruit. If one goes to those places and asks for a box of peaches, or for 1s. worth of peaches, and one objects, as a consumer, to having to pay 1s. for five or six peaches, which at Salt River are sold at the rate of 12 for 1s., then the retail dealer immediately turns round and says that it is the Deciduous Fruit Board which requires them to make that profit. If, in levelling criticisms, we were more careful in investigating the cause of the trouble, a great deal less of this unfair criticism would be heard—and I would say almost that 90 per cent. of the criticism is completely unfounded. Let hon. members think of the contention put forward here this afternoon, that Pretoria is only supplied with second and third grade fruit. I can assure the House that assertions of that kind are devoid of any foundation. The Deciduous Fruit Board thoroughly realises that one of its duties is to have the crop of fruit used up and consumed. I am not here to defend the board, and I am the last one to say that the Deciduous Fruit Board is perfect, but I realise the difficult conditions under which that board has to carry out its duties. One of its main duties is to see to it that the crop is used up and consumed. Why then should it leave places, and an important place like Pretoria, in the lurch, and hold back first grade fruit from Pretoria? As I have already said, let us investigate the difficulties, and if that is done there will be no need for criticism such as we have heard here, but on the contrary we shall encourage people to do their duty under difficult conditions.

I am not satisfied with the position being glossed over here and with the difficulties of the distribution of fruit being put up as a complete excuse for what has happened. While on the one hand grievances are aired and criticism levelled, on the other hand the Deciduous Fruit Board is being whitewashed. In the meantime, however, the whole of the population wants fruit. We all need fruit for our health, and the people of the country are not able to get fruit. There are parts of the country where fruit is produced but people are not allowed to sell there. I am not opposed to control but I want to say this, that while we are sitting here and trying to gloss over things, the public are unable to get fruit. It’s no use saying that things will right themselves in about a year or two years’ time. They must be put right at once. There is no doubt that the farmers are producing what the country requires. The grapes, peaches and other fruit is there. We know that the farmer would be satisfied with one sixth of the price of what the retail trade is demanding for his fruit. The farmer would be perfectly satisfied with one sixth of that price if he could get that net. The fault does not lie with the farmers; they produce, and do their best. The fault lies in between the producer and the consumer. When there was no control one could at least, when there was plenty of fruit, secure it cheaply. When fruit was not plentiful it was impossible for everyone to buy it, but there was always a certain time of the year when fruit was cheap. Control is desirable, but it must be of such a nature that every individual in the country, rich or poor, shall have the opportunity of buying fruit at the lowest price which will give the farmer a profitable existence, and that can be done. We are asked to vote hundreds and thousands of pounds for control boards. It is self evident that they require funds because they have to regulate the distribution of extremely perishable products, but we cannot defend the sale of fruit being so centralised and so regulated that people in the areas where fruit is produced are unable to buy or distribute that fruit. I say very definitely that this difficulty is not insoluble. The whole question can be solved and should be solved as soon as possible on a scientific basis. The price must be such that the farmer gets enough and the difference in price between what the farmer gets and the consumer pays must not be too great. There is evidence to prove that fruit can be distributed at very much more reasonable costs than is considered necessary today, for instance by the Control Board. I say again that while we are discussing this matter there are many people who are hungering for fruit. The whole of the population requires fruit; we need all the fruit we are able to produce. The fruit must be better distributed, and that can be done. Don’t let us try and gloss over things, but on the other hand, do not let us be unreasonable in our criticism in respect of a matter of vital importance to the whole people, namely the food of the people.

We thank the Minister of Agriculture for what he has already done for the deciduous fruit farmers. We say give the Deciduous Fruit Board a reasonable chance. There should be such a body and we feel we should give it a chance. The Transvaal is somewhat dissatisfied because we are producing thousands of tons of deciduous fruit and we have no one today representing us on the Deciduous Fruit Board. That is why we want to ask the Minister to cast his eye at the Transvaal and give us pro rata representation on the Deciduous Fruit Board. We want to suggest to the Minister that he should give a subsidy to the jam factories, to the farmers who supply fruit to the jam factories. We need a lot of jam in this country and if we can give them a subsidy, if they supply fruit to the jam factories, large quantities of fruit will be turned into jam by those factories.

I realise that we have started a hornet’s nest, but I feel that I must express my opinion at this stage on what I consider is rather a serious State of affairs brought about by certain measures of control by the Deciduous Fruit Control Board. And let me say at the outset that I am not advocating the abolition of that board or any other board. The position is simply this that I feel that some criticism in this House, even if it may be considered a little harsh, may bring about some little measure of reform. I would like to correct the statement of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), or rather challenge him in regard to his remarks. I want to tell him, in the first place, that I speak as a consumer, and as a consumer I want the best fruit that the Western Province can supply to me and at the lowest reasonable price that will allow the producer as much profit as possible and allow me a reasonable price to pay as consumer. I think the consumers in South Africa are prepared to pay the Western Province a reasonable figure for the products they supply, but I would like to draw the hon. member’s attention to this. The Deciduous Fruit Board advertisers 38 lbs. of Hanepoot at 8s. 8d. Well, 38 lbs. of Hanepoot was supplied for a period of twenty years for 5s., delivered at 6s. 6d. We are prepared to pay 8s. or more if you will give us first grade, but why should we have to consume your second grade grapes? Why should Johannesburg only have the pleasure of consuming your first grade fruit? Then we come to the other fruit that is advertised: “First grade trays of fruit at 3s. and 3s. 6d. per tray.” I am only dealing with first grade fruit now. Three shillings is the price advertised here; 4s. 6d. is the price delivered in the Eastern Province, and we allow anything between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. for decomposition in transit; moreover, this can only be supplied to agents who send their cheque with order, and they are called upon to bear that loss. This will give you some idea of the price at which that fruit must be retailed to the consumer and its prohibitive price in that part of the country. In view of what I have said, one welcomes the Minister’s statement on this matter and one hopes that he is going to carry into effect his re-organisation scheme. I only wish to express the hope in conclusion that he is able to strike a little more intelligence than he has struck in the past.

I should like to reply to what the last speaker has said. He spoke of 4s. 6d. for a box of peaches. At the station yesterday I bought eight big peaches for 1s. So far as grapes are concerned I agree with him but he should not direct his remarks to me, he should direct them to the Minister of Agriculture and the Control Board. I have already said that they are charging too high a price for the grapes and that is why they are unable to sell sufficient grapes, and the result, is that they are making distilling wine from the grapes. I have already given an instance of the grape farmers at Vredendal to whom lorries are sent from the whole of Namaqualand, to go and fetch grapes there. They get the grapes at 3s. 6d. per case. The wine farmers do not get 8s. for 50 lbs. of grapes. They get about 3s. That is all they get. The man who sells fresh grapes has to get a little more because he has to treat his grapes differently, but I want to say again that so far as grapes are concerned I agree with the hon. member. If he sends me his order I shall sell him grapes at 3s. 6d. for 50 lbs., but I am not allowed to do so, because the Control Board will not allow me to. If every one has to have sufficient grapes then we have not enough. I want all the people to be able to get grapes, just as I would like everybody to drink a little wine and a little brandy.

What about a little whisky?

If he is so stupid as to want to drink whisky let him to do. Brandy will do him no harm, but whisky will. The position simply is this, if the Deciduous Fruit Board sets about its business in a reasonable manner, this problem will not be insoluble. I am not quite satisfied with the reply given by the Minister. I can quite understand hon. members opposite saying they are grateful that there is to be an improvement. In their heart of hearts, however, they do not expect the difficulties to be done away with, but they feel that it is their duty to say “thank you.” These people have been trying now for three years to regulate affairs. They have made a mess of it, and now the Minister is going to give them a chance for another year, which means that we shall have another year of trouble. Last year they could have dried the pears and the peaches. They simply allowed the fruit to drop off the trees. Someone at Paarl approached them and told them that the jam factory was prepared to take all his plums, but the Deciduous Fruit Board replied to this man that he was to leave the plums on the trees because they would be low grade. Is that the sort of thing one expects from reasonable people? There is a market for jam, and if reasonable distribution methods had been followed, those difficulties could have been solved. One hears from people all over that they are unable to get these things —but I am convinced that if the Deciduous Fruit Board sets about its work in a reasonable manner, it will be possible to sell the farmers’ products. I again want to point out that it is the object of this Board to secure reasonable prices for the farmer, and the subsidy is paid by the Government because the farmers have lost their overseas market. We must give these people a reasonable income and that is why we are in favour of the subsidy. The Minister did not answer me fairly, so far as table grapes which are sent to the wine press, are concerned. If grapes are regarded as fruit then those grapes must be treated as fruit. That also was the case under the Emergency Regulations. They were unable to use those grapes for the purpose of making wine, but the Minister amended the emergency regulations so as to enable people to make wine. Now, those people are no longer satisfied to make distilling wine. They have now made application to us for a permit to enable them also to make good wine.

And the K.W.V. have the power to turn down that, application?

Yes, and we have turned it down. The first year we refused to receive the grapes for distilling wine because we were able under the regulation to make such refusal, but the Minister has now compelled us to receive such grapes for distilling purposes. The best advice I can give the Minister is to give the fruit farmers the right to elect their own Control Board. We have the example of the tobacco and the wine farmers. Those farmers control their product and they have made a success of it. If you allow the fruit farmers to elect the members of the Board, they will elect people who will be able to look after the industry. I admit that it is more difficult to control Deciduous Fruit than it is to control wine and tobacco, but the farmers have sufficient intelligence to elect people who will be able to do it. The Minister admits that the people who have been nominated are not the right people, and he has told us that he is going to take steps to get another board to handle the whole matter, but he is still giving them a chance. Well, I can only say that if I were a member of that board and I had been criticised in the way the board has been criticised here I would resign tomorrow. I would feel that people had no confidence in me, and I would resign. We want people elected by the fruit farmers themselves and those people will have full control over this product. I asked the Minister whether he would tell the board that they were to regard the grapes as table grapes, and to sell them as such, and if they could not sell them then they should give them to the people who are unable to pay for them. That would not spoil the ordinary market, because the people who would get the grapes are the people who cannot pay for them. I said here a few days ago that the K.W.V. had given away 1,000 tons of grapes to people who could not afford to buy them. Well, that did not spoil the market. Now the Minister says that he is willing to recommend that this shall be done, but that he is not going to compel the board to do so. What’s the use of that? Now that the board has heard that, it will simply not accept the Minister’s advice. They estimated that last year they had offloaded 20,000 tons of grapes on to the K.W.V. in the shape of distilling wine. They believe that this year they will offload 15,000 leaguers on us, but if things go on as at present it is quite possible that it will be 25,000 leaguers. We should bear in mind that right throughout the country grapes have been sold which did not come under their control, and everything has now been placed under their control. I have already pointed out that the farmers at Vredendal have sold their Hanepoot grapes. They did not turn them into distilling wine because people came to fetch most of their grapes off the farm. Now, they are no longer to be allowed to sell their grapes in that fashion and they are going to turn their grapes into distilling wine. The difficulty is going to be much worse. Why cannot these people be allowed to sell their grapes? They have a separate market, they are not supplied with grapes from here. The lorries take their grapes away and they are not concerned with the local market. The hon. member opposite spoke about 4s. 6d. for a box of peaches. I bought eight large peaches for Is. Each of those peaches is worth as much as a glass of beer, and the hon. member pays 1s. for a glass of beer. He could have got eight peaches for Is. The great point is that those people who are criticising and looking for trouble will get all the trouble they look for. I should like the Minister to tell me this: We have 40,000 tons of table grapes. If those grapes are to be treated as food then the hon. member opposite will find that places like Queenstown will be able to secure grapes at a reasonable price.

I don’t know whether I understood the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) correctly. I understood him to say that the criticism of the Board is probably inspired by small traders. Well, I had a conversation today with a motor mechanic, and from what I heard from him and also from others I did not get that impression. The impression I have is this, that the public have no objection to paying the subsidy to the Board provided the Board delivers the goods and lets us have the fruit, and good fruit at that. This man I spoke to said this: “This money for the subsidy comes out of my pocket, and if this subsidy is granted then the producer must give us fruit, good fruit, at a reasonable price.” Now, the hon. member over there said that the hawker bought fruit at a reasonable price and sold it to the public at a much higher price. I was under the impression also that the price to the buyer was fixed by the Board. If that is not so then I shall try to get, some more information. If the instance given by the hon. member over there is correct, then the transaction to which he refers lays the individual concerned open to prosecution. Now there is another aspect; the Board has practically concluded disposing of the pear and plum crops and good prices have been realised, and it is felt that there is no need for this subsidy on the grape crop. Now the question is raised whether the Board will so utilise this subsidy as to make it a consumers’ subsidy; seeing the pear crop has been disposed of so advantageously the Board can be in no need of money, and it is suggested that the subsidy should be paid on condition that it be passed on to the consumer so that the consumer will reap some benefit, also in getting better and cheaper fruit.

To me the trouble appears to be that the Board has not got the right people to distribute their goods. If I am sick I call in a doctor, I do not call in a motor mechanic. And when I want to distribute fruit I want people who know something about distribution. Here in South Africa a large number of people do not even get a balanced diet. They are short of fruit and yet fruit is allowed to rot on the trees. I would not mind if the subsidy were increased but I hate to see fruit wasted on the trees. I say give us people who know something about distribution and get rid of these people who bring in ridiculous regulations, for instance that a man is not even allowed to give away the stuff. It is absolutely essential for us to pay the original producer a reasonable price for his goods. It is no use going back to pre-war days when the markets were often flooded with fruit, and it is no use saying that the pre-war prices were good prices for the producer How many of us would like to produce at pre-war prices? The farmer must get a reasonable price for his products, but he must have people to distribute his products who know something about distribution. By all means let us have our control board but let the people on it know something about production. Let us for goodness sake have people handling distribution who know what distribution means.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No 21.—“Agriculture (General),” £752,500,

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 28th January.