I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

I second.

Agreed to

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

The words “social security” have become a word to conjure with in South Africa and not only in South Africa, but all over the world. Motions are introduced from practically every side of the House, and every economist and all kinds of people come along With proposals to create a happier world. We find that happening in our country, and it is happening over the length and breadth of the world. A scheme was introduced in England recently, and it found an echo here in South Africa. One hears so much about it that one begins to wonder whether people are really in earnest. We have had four and a half years of experience of control now. For many years we have been urging the introduction of control boards in South Africa, and in the end we were successful in getting control boards established under the Marketing Act. Those Boards brought about a certain degree of relief to the producers and also to the consumers, but then the war came, and we got a different kind of control. We got control over the sub-controllers, and the control became such that it created an unpleasant taste in the mouth of every man and woman outside. That is why in my motion I speak of a chaotic state of affairs.

The Wheat Control Board, too?

The Wheat. Control Board has done good work but it could have done much better work if it had not kept its eyes so much on the big mills, if it had not to all intents and purposes become the agent of the big mills. I look upon this as a matter of great importance. The burdens in this country are not being evenly distributed. The whole system of control should be put under the microscope, and with the assistance of this House I Should like, by means of my motion, to try and see whether we cannot do away with the blunders that have been committed, because control has come to stay. That is a definite fact. Of course, there are people who exploit the public. I just want to mention a few of them. Before doing so let me say that this motion of mine is a practical motion which affects everyone, every household, every man, woman and child in South Africa. What I am urging is that we should so rectify the control system as to make it effective for everyone. We are dealing here With three big bodies which have control throughout the world today; the first body consists of the big tradesmen and industrialists—the men who supply the world with its requirements on a big scale. Proposals are being made nowadays for tremendous sums of money to be spent on social security. If one looks at the amounts which are mentioned they are almost unbelievable. They amount to millions and millions, running over a long period of years. Fantastic amounts are proposed to achieve the object people have in view. I want to tell this House that that will be of no use; it is no use waiting until the enemy is across the doorstep and then to start fighting. The wholesalers, the big traders, and the big industrialists, are power No. 1. They know what they want, and they know what they can get. The big trader knows how to get his goods, where he can get them, and at what price. The commercial people have definite fixed supplies at their disposal, and they know where to get them and how much to pay for them. The industrialist knows how to get the raw materials for his factories, he knows what it is going to cost him, what his labour is going to cost, and he can fix his price accordingly. He knows beforehand that he can make a profit, and he fixes his price with that object in view. Practically everything has been arranged for him; he runs no risks. In some instances he may perhaps have to struggle a bit to get supplies, but he gets his supplies and he fixes his prices. He can put his house in order. Everything has been arranged. Then we come to the second great power—big labour. The manufacturer has to make profits to keep going and to keep his business going, and he needs labour. He has to take his labourers into account—the labourers, the workers, who are represented by hon. members on my left. They sit close to me now, and it seems that eventually they will come over to us entirely and co-operate with us, because the hungry man knows no party, and the man who is in need of bread feels that he must look after himself and get it for himself and his children, and he does not worry about parties. Now, does the system of control satisfy the demands of labour? The Government has to take account of the labour requirements. The primary producer also employs labour on a big scale, on his farms, but the Government, by the attitude it has adopted, has drawn a great proportion of our labour away from us. Large numbers of natives have been taken into the army and for every native who is taken into the army and who is paid a grant or an allowance, there are ten or twelve lying about the locations doing nothing. So long as the native gets food he does not work. I want to point out that generally speaking big labour is not satisfied. The little I know about the workers in Johannesburg, East London, Port Elizabeth, Durban and even on the farms, convinces me that they are not satisfied. They demand an immediate improvement in their position. They feel this particularly today when they have to pay for everything through the neck. The price they have to pay for everything they need is too high. One has to take account of the fact that the workers are not satisfied. The third big group in our country is agriculture. I first mentioned commerce and industries, secondly labour—the workers—and thirdly, I mention big agriculture, and as a small agriculturist I include myself in the term of “big labour”. What is the position today? Today we are producing under a certain degree of control. The Minister may perhaps say to me: “What do you want, you are asking for control but we have control; what is your difficulty?” My difficulty is that the application of control has proved a hopeless failure. Control has not been placed in the hands of people who have the necessary practical experience. Mistakes which are made are repeated over and over again. Anyone can make a mistake and they can even make a second mistake, but here we find that the mistakes are repeated again and again. That is my criticism of the control boards. Hon. members may ask what we should do. I want to point out that agriculture, the third big group, cannot depend on any fixed income. Prices have been fixed for certain primary products, but the farmer today does not know whether he is going to get fertilisers and what he will have to pay for them. And when it comes to agricultural implements, the prices are so high that they have become almost beyond one’s means. There is uncertainty so far as the primary producer is concerned. I know that the prices of agricultural implements have been fixed to a certain extent, but those prices are out of all proportion. Furthermore, the farmer is faced with fluctuating weather conditions, rain, snow, hail and fine weather.

And the blow-fly.

Yes, and sometimes we also have Oom Louw up against us.

Order! The hon. member must refer to another hon. member in the usual manner.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, one is sometimes apt to forget. The price of the farmer’s products and the farmer’s income are dependent on all sorts of circumstances. He cannot, say today: “I am going to sow so much, and my crop will amount to so much”. Sometimes one sows a lot but when it comes to reaping the crop one gets nothing. We have just had these terrible floods in the northern parts of the country. These unfortunate people there were looking forward to a good crop and they were looking forward to being able to buy something for themselves, but suddenly everything has been destroyed and wiped out. There is no security for the farmer. Last Saturday potatoes in Cape Town went up to £2 per bag. Whenever there is a surplus no minimum price is fixed,, and the product goes down to nothing, but when there is a shortage, prices go up again. Now, how do the three big groups compare? Commerce and Industry are secured. They demand the price they require in order to make a profit and very often the small trader is exploited. In that connection, too, the middle man will also have to be cut out to a large extent. But so far as the primary producer is concerned there is a tremendous gap between the producer and consumer, that is to say the worker. I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but we see what has happened to our Deciduous fruit. In certain parts of the country there are people who do not even know what fruit tastes like; there are people who never get any oranges. They would be only too pleased to get an orange or a bunch of grapes but they never see these things. Meanwhile our fruit is rotting on the trees and is cast away into the sea. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is ill but I hope the Minister of Lands will tell him that the people of South Africa are no longer satisfied with the manner in which the control system is operating. We do not want to do away with control, but we feel we must bear the burdens jointly and we must divide them equally. We don’t want to exploit anyone; we want justice and fair play. It is no use playing about with these things, we have to tackle them, and we cannot put them off any longer. This is the time once and for all to get the matter on a proper basis, and get it going along the right course. I don’t want to repeat what has been said over and over again. Unfortunately this question of control was discussed very fully this session, on the Part Appropriation, and practically every item was fully gone into so that there is nothing new in what I want to say, but the position is still serious and I want to tell the Government that if it does not take action in regard to these matters it will not remain in power very long. Now, how can we supply the far distant parts of the country with fruit? That is where the question of distribution comes in. Our distribution system is rotten. Surely the Government has clever people at its disposal; cannot they do anything? I am afraid we are only doing things on paper and that in practice nothing is done. Let hon. members look at conditions on the markets. In Cape Town one will find only ten bags of potatoes arriving on one day, and then the Government comes and says that it is due to the floods, but two days afterwards there is again a surplus of potatoes and the market is over stocked once more. Surely those floods have not receded as quickly as all that. The whole system of distribution is wrong. Parts of the country cannot get any products at all, and other parts are flooded. Is there nobody who has the brain to regulate these matters? That is why I have moved this motion—let us discuss these matters and advise the Government what to do. I must say that I am disappointed with all these learned people. My experience is that they get too big for their boots and that they are only theorists. But the people want to see action. I don’t want to criticise unduly, but the Cabinet has asked the primary producers to produce more. Haven’t we done so? I told this House that the farmers were going to do it, but we should be given a reasonable price for our products. We do not want to make any usurious profits, we want to make a decent living and be able to live a respectable life. My experience is that there is a certain element—and with all due respect I have to say that most of that element belongs to the other side of the House—whose patriotism does not aim at primarily winning the war, but at filling their pockets. They don’t care so long as they can exploit people, take as much as they can and give as little as they can. That is the position today. That is why I have introduced this discussion. Let us discuss this matter dispassionately and try and find some means so to regulate the control that it will really be in the interest of the producers and the consumers. May I be allowed to mention just one other point—I want to mention the meat industry. We shall never be able to solve that under existing conditions. Members of the Labour Party have said that as long as vested interests have a say we shall never make any progress. I say that until such time as we set up our own cold storages and provide storage accommodation for our products we will not go ahead. The Bible tells us of the man who in years of plenty put aside something for the lean years. That is what we must do, but we shall never be able to make any progress so long as the cold storages and the storage accommodation are in the hands of private enterprise. So long as that condition of affairs prevails all these documents which are being drafted, all the schemes which we are devising, all the commissions which are appointed, and all the select committees, are not going to lead to anything. The Government must get the cold storages under its control, as well as storage accommodation for fruit and other products, so that we shall have supplies available which can be distributed in times of distress without the products being in the hands of the exploiter. Only then shall we be able to build up a happy and contented South Africa.

I rise to second the motion. We on this side of the House are naturally not opposed to control. The people who are opposed to control sit on the benches opposite. I do not say that all the hon. members on the other side are opposed to control, but those who are against control are on the benches opposite. I also appreciate that we are living in a time of war, in a time of dislocation, and I also feel that it is easy to criticise, and that it is especially easy for hon. members opposite who really know nothing about the matter. They stand up here on behalf of certain interests to offer objections, and sometimes also to raise objections on behalf of dissatisfied people who are not au fait with the subject. This is a very delicate problem and criticism may be dangerous and react against us. I want to criticise in a constructive way. Without doubt there is dissatisfaction over the manner in which control is applied. Whether it is fresh fruit or meat or imports, there is dissatisfaction. Just take the case of the importers. You hear it said that it is only the Jews who can import goods; others again say that it is only Stuttafords who can obtain permits. It is alleged that discrimination exists. Then let us take the other side, the consumer. He cannot understand why a farmer only gets 1d. for his grapes, while the consumers must pay 8d. and 9d. I must say that I also cannot understand this. There is dissatisfaction and the Government must pull up its socks and try to investigate the matter. We have now been in the war for four years, and for four years we have had control. I realise it is a difficult problem, and that mistakes are almost unavoidable. But what I cannot understand is that now in the fourth year of control there is more dissatisfaction than ever before. I thoroughly appreciate that if you begin with price fixation and the breaking of any economic laws, those laws will not leave you immune. Control is good, just as bread and jams is good, but if you eat too much bread and jam you fall ill, and if you apply control along wrong lines you will land in difficulties. Now we ask the Government to investigate these matters and to enquire why all these difficulties and this dissatisfaction should exist. Why has the Government neglected for so long to take this step? One Minister says that the control boards have no intelligence; the other says that they are too weak, and that the wrong people are sitting on them. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) maintained here that the Wheat Control Board did good work. I can understand why he says that, and I can also understand that he is proud over the progress of Sasko, because the hon. member is now a miller and they have bought out many mills.

The hon. member may not refer to what has been said in a previous debate.

No, I am not referring to that debate. I am only mentioning the example of Sasko.

The hon. member said that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) “has said”.

I did not say that he said that in this House, but it is said generally that big millers are now making money, and that they are buying out the smaller mills in order to eliminate the smaller mills and to get the quotas. The big millers adopt the standpoint that it is a good thing that the small millers are limited, and this puts them in a position to eliminate the small millers. This serves as just another illustration of the fact that once you begin to meddle with economic principles, then you must be careful and you have to be thorough with your control. If you begin with control, with restrictions, and with fixed prices, then you must go through with this to the end, otherwise you are looking for trouble. If you fix prices then you must have people, for example in the case of the millers, who know what a mill can do, what a big mill can do and what a small mill can do. The same applies to meat. Today quotas are alloted to the butchers. They are told that they can kill so many sheep and so many cattle per week. Then perhaps you have a young fellow who is rather enterprising, and who can do better business than the other people. He wants to go ahead, but he is simply held back because he can only slaughter so many animals. These people have come to me and said that they can sell much more meat, that this or that hotel wants to buy it from them, but they cannot get the quota to supply these people. The result is that the hotels are obliged to remain with the old butchers. If one accepts a system such as this control system, then one must try to avoid difficulties. The Government has now been busy for four years with this system of control, and it is high time that some of these difficulties were removed, but instead of that we find that the difficulties and the dissatisfaction are becoming worse and worse. The thing that scares me is that the middleman who does not want to have control it not only upsetting the farmers, but is definitely busy making propaganda against control; and if control should come to grief then the farming community will also range itself against control; and they will return to the days when the farming community were the hewers of wood and the drawers of water in the social system. As I have said before, if we have a control board for the meat industry, then we must have cattle farmers represented on it. Don’t select a man because he has done something for his party, or because he is a supporter of the Government, but put a man on the board because he has brains. Does not the Government understand that all the best brains in the country are not in the Nationalist Party. In any case we do not get Nationalists on the control boards. I only know of one who is on a control board, and he is a member of the Dried Fruit Board. I have only touched on this matter in passing. I should like to discuss certain matters which I am acquainted with. The Dried Fruit Board fixed the price of raisins the first year at 3½d. We were accustomed to getting from 5d. and 6d. and 7d. It took us three years to get the price fixed at 6d. They always had the story that there might be a surplus, and if we were unable to export then there would be a loss. The raisin growers have now said that they want 8d. a lb., and that 5d. or 6d. could be paid out immediately, and if there was a surplus then they themselves would carry the surplus. But do you think we can get an answer to that? All sorts of excuses are made. If the war lasts long enough we shall no doubt eventually get it. If we have on such boards people who have not the intelligence to conduct such business, let them go and gain advice from business men who have the knowledge. We are simply told that the price is too high. The farmer realises that today control is keeping down his prices. We had experience of the last war, and we know that today where we get 3½d. for raisins in the last war we got 1s. We got 1s. 6d. for prunes and now we get 6d. All the prices are fixed in order to keep the price down as far as the farmer is concerned. It is said that if this was not done then the cost of living would rise and if we are not careful to see that the consumer gets the produce at a reasonable price then everything will go up; and that prices will soar so high that after the war the drop will be so severe that it will injure everyone. There is not an hon. member sitting in this House who does not expect that after the war there will be a reaction. I am beginning to think that the farmers who have to produce the food today for the consumers at low prices, will not now be able to enjoy the good time they should have, and once the war is over they will have to share in all the disadvantages to the full. We are afraid of that position that may arise. The farming section is reasonable. They want control but they want the control to be applied in such a way that the sacrifice in prices that they have reconciled themselves to, will really be passed on to the consumers. I know that the marketing of produce is a difficult matter, especially if the market is controlled by certain people. But I feel this, that if the Government undertakes control, then they must see that the sacrifices made by the farmers on account of the times and the war, will be passed on to the consumers and not to the middleman, and so long as the control boards are concerned about the poor middleman, and want to protect him, so long will the system of distribution be a failure. The farmer knows today what he must sacrifice. It is true that he is getting a reasonable price, but it is not what he could get without control. He makes a reasonable living today, because money is plentiful, but he does not get the prices that he could obtain without control. It has been said that the farmers are getting subsidies. The farmer is not anxious to have subsidies from the Government, nor should it be necessary for the Government to pay subsidies. The farmer deserves for his produce a price compatible with his making a living. We hear all sorts of stories about subsidies, but the truth is that all the subsidies that are paid are simply paid to enable the consumers to live more cheaply. The subsidies are paid to help the consumers, and not to help the farmers. And when this is done it makes the farmer really angry if the middleman runs away with the profits, and the consumer does not derive the advantage. We have a control board in connection with deciduous fruit. In this connection we have said that they should begin with depots, and this is presumably now being done. We should have thought that they would have done this from the first year, and that the system by this time would have been so improved that all the consumers would be able to obtain fruit. They are only making a start with that now. The Minister admitted that this Deciduous Fruit Board has not managed things well and that its organisation is imperfect. He says that the personnel have not sufficient knowledge of their subject, but that he is going to give them the opportunity for another year. I have nothing against the people who are on the Board, but if we appoint men to a control board to exercise control, then they must be fit for the job and have the necessary ability for the work. It does not really matter whether such a person belongs to the Nationalist Party, the United Party, the Dominion Party or the Labour Party. If he is the most capable then give him the opportunity to work on those boards, and if he does not make a success of the work, let him make way for someone else. Up to the present absolutely nothing new has been brought to the fore by the Board. They are all just busy working in the old rut. There is no one with the gift of imagination to draft a scheme under which the control can be exercised so efficiently that the farmer will know that the sacrifies he is making will not be passed to the middleman, but will reach the consumers. I do not grudge the middleman a fair living if he gives service, and is compensated for it. But you must see that if we fix prices then they must be fixed so that there is still a degree of competition. If we stabilise prices and do that for long enough then we will move in the direction of over-production. Our wine farmers experienced this. When we got control over our industry we stabilised the price, and this was immediately followed by enhanced production. It increased from 97,000 to 400,000 and this year we expect about 500,000 leaguers of wine. That was the result of stabilisation; a measure of control was granted to save the wine farmer from going under. The same thing applied in the case of tobacco, in which we obtained compulsory co-operation and sale through one channel. It is quite true that these two products are not perishable products but even if they were we would have made a success of it. If we have merchants and farmers on such a Control Board, then we will not be able to make a success of it. The farmer is often cleverer than the business man. There are also rogues amongst the farmers but most of them are honest, and they are not able to compete with the merchant. We have not the special knowledge for that. I will assume that the Government’s experts are also not up to all the tricks of the millers. They cannot state how the millers can use their machinery, and what they are able to mill. The small millers cannot compete with the big millers, because they cannot get the maximum efficiency in milling the wheat. Seeing that that is the position, we ask in our motion that the Government should make a thorough enquiry. We can sit here all day long and offer objections and point out where mistakes have been made, but the most of those mistakes, and the most of those -objections, have already been brought to the notice of the Government. What we ask is that there should not be discrimination in respect of commodities imported into this country, and that are distributed to the country. A farmer may come to us and ask how it is that his neighbour can obtain 500 bags of fertiliser whereas he can only get 200 bags, although he sows twice as much. What principle is applied? Cut out the discrimination and give the people what they are entitled to. Be fair to all, and when the goods are imported and distributed, do not give the one man more than the other. We realise that there is a shortage of commodities. On the other hand, we believe that the Government could have secured sufficient fertiliser; if they can get boats for whisky and such things, then they ought to be in such a position to get shipping space for some fertiliser from North Africa. They have not done what they should have done, but we do feel this that what they have been able to get they should share out on a fair basis. There must not be a feeling amongst the Nationalists that they are going short because they are Nationalists. It is not the Government’s property, it belongs to the country, and when the Government apportions it then they should do it in a just and honest manner. Control is also applied to the shopkeepers, and we have shopkeepers coming and telling us that they must employ a clerk to check up on the regulations. Hardly is the ink dry on one regulation before the other comes out, and the result is that you never know whether you are under the regulation or not. The people are dissatisfied, and this sort of thing is quite unnecessary. If sound business principles are employed it would be a different story. The Dairy Control Board controls butter and cheese. We have always had enough cheese at Robertson, but in Cape Town you cannot get butter or cheese. Take rice. There is plenty of rice in Cape Town, and everyone can get a pound daily, but at Swellendam and Robertson the people cannot get it. What principle is followed? The suspicion exists that a number of people are kept short in order that friends may benefit. There is a feeling amongst the Afrikaner shopkeepers that the Jews are able to get permits to import and that only Jewish merchants are provided with commodities, and not the Christian merchants.

I should like you to furnish proof of that.

It is a difficult matter to prove, nor have I said that that is the case. It is what the shopkeepers tell us.

The proof is there, because you have only to look at all the goods in the Jewish shops.

There is a feeling of unrest over this business. The public feel that there is discrimination, and that the Board which issues permits—I shall not refer to petrol and rubber—discriminates between people. We have only to take a drive through the country or talk with a magistrate to realise how dissatisfied the people are. The magistrates have my sympathy for they have really no say in the matter. The Controller is in Pretoria and he simply says to them: “Look, this month you have issued so much petrol and next month you must cut in by 25 per cent. When the magistrate reduces a man’s petrol, the man is annoyed, and he wants to know why his brother, who is at some other place, can get just as much petrol as he did before. I recently went for a drive to Ladismith and Calitzdorp, and everywhere I found the people dissatisfied and lodging complaints. One man might say he had enough, but the other was discontented. The magistrate at my town came and asked me for protection. They are placed in an ambiguous position. Control of petrol and rubber is instituted. The magistrates are appointed. They have to issue instructions, and this creates local prejudice against them. We should rather place this task on the postmasters, or people in a similar position. Sometimes people come along and insult a magistrate. A farmer must have transport for his crop; he cannot use his lorry. The magistrate is told that he cannot give him a permit, but that he should apply to Pretoria. The farmer answers that he must move his crop at once, because it may rain. He becomes a bit heated, and tells the magistrate that he must not talk to him like that, because the magistrate is not his master but his servant. It is not right that the magistrates should be treated in this way and be made to feel insulted. We must give these jobs to other officials, not to the magistrates, for they have to be impartial when they sit on the bench. When a litigant is already discontented and feels that he has been unjustly treated by the magistrate, how can we expect that he will be satisfied when the magistrate is sitting on the bench? So it does not appear proper to me that the issue of petrol and tyres should be entrusted to the magistrates. The postmaster or one of the other officials, who do not come into contact with the public in the sense that the magistratecomes into contact with them, should be employed for the purpose. In any case, as I understand it these people merely act as rubber stamps. The regulations define in great detail how much can be issued, and the procedure to be followed. The magistrate who follows the regulations faithfully and does his duty, may then land himself in difficulties with the public. One magistrate may say that he is not going to see his people suffer and he gives them petrol. Then he finds himself in hot water with the controller in Pretoria. The other magistrate finds he is in difficulties with the local people. These discriminations and differentiations should not exist, though we have them today in connection with control. I should like to say, in conclusion that there is a feeling throughout the country that there is not only discrimination but there is a certain measure of dishonesty, and that some sections of the community are not accorded their due by the Control Boards. That is why I urge that we should have the right persons appointed to sit on these Control Boards, the type of person who understands how to carry out this function of control, and we should not just give these posts to people for services rendered to their party. That should not have anything to do with the matter at all. It is a public matter, interest in which is shared by all political parties, and if the Government choose the best people and try to do the right thing, there will not be so many difficulties. I want to repeat that I am worried that there should exist such dissatisfaction with the Control Boards. We know that the majority of the middlemen, whatever they may say, are hostile to control. The exploitation that they would like to practise is now not possible for them, because there is control. They are antagonistic to control, and they are making propaganda amongst the farmers against Control Boards, and one result is that we are even getting farmers’ associations who say that we must put an end to the Control Boards. Those people do not know what the real position is, and therefore I feel concerned about this dissatisfaction. It is the duty of the Government to take steps to remove this friction and irritation where it now exists amongst the people.

The question of control has been fairly fully discussed in this House during the past few days, but in spite of that there is a motion before the House which, to my mind, deserves the serious consideration of the Minister of Agriculture. I have not got up this morning to criticise either the Boards or their methods, but there are a few points which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. I agree with the mover and the seconder that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in this country, and I feel that in dealing with this question we should try and get at the root of the evil which is causing this dissatisfaction. We have to go into the whole question and see if we can bring about some improvement. The system of Control Boards has been accepted in principle by us as farmers. We have made propaganda for it. We have originated the system and we must stand by it, and we are prepared to stand by it, for this reason—I want to make a few suggestions which aim at improving our methods. I am sure there is not a single hon. member in this House who will deny that the main object of primary production is first of all to get as close to the consumer as possible. We have heard hon. members speak of ineffective distribution. Now, I want to deal with the question of distribution as briefly as possible. It is impossible for a Board to step in and to take a specific commodity under its control and distribute it properly unless the Board has the hearty co-operation of the distributors. But what is actually happening? We are dealing here with a serious matter which the Minister should enquire into—and this is the point, in how many instances has distribution in this country been bottlenecked by dissatisfied distributors in the trade? It is not the Boards of Control which do this, it is those people who are not satisfied with the return the Boards allow them for the purpose of undertaking an effective distribution. The Deciduous Fruit Board has been referred to. We have been told that grapes are bought from the producer for 1d. per lb. and that the consumer has to pay 8d. and 9d. for those grapes, and that even at that price the consumer is unable to get the fruit. Who bottlenecks that distribution? It is those people who are not satisfied with the profits laid down by the various Boards. I have said that the main object is to bring the producer and the consumer together. Is the Minister prepared to consider giving the Control Boards in such cases full powers so that they are able to create channels through which they can make the distribution take place smoothly at a minimum cost to the consumer? No, we cannot get that power, and we have been fighting for it for years. We need that power but we cannot get it. In view of the fact that people are bottlenecking the distribution because they are not satisfied with the profits allowed them, it makes the position impossible for us if we have not got the power to undertake that distribution ourselves. I want to ask the Minister to have an investigation made into what these people whom I have been speaking about are doing. We have heard hon. members speak of the big millers. What is the position in which the Wheat Control Board and the Mealie Control Board find themselves today? They have to see to it that the small millers are also able to make a living, and the price is fixed on that basis. The big millers and the big companies make big profits on that basis, and they also take advantage of the position of the small miller. What is happening now? The Minister, of course, is aware of the fact that those people are intent on forming themselves into groups of two or three. What they aim at is this; if any Board has the courage to fix a price all along the line right down to the consumer, they want to turn themselves into wholesalers, millers and distributors, and they want to compete all along the line right down to the small distributor. We find that this happens repeatedly and we cannot get away from it. It is not only the Control Boards which make blunders. These Boards are meeting with a good deal of obstruction. There is another matter which deeply affects our industry, and it is this, reference has been made to cases and to the methods used in connection with the permit system and the control exercised under that system, and here I want to associate myself with what previous speakers have said. I want to support very strongly what previous speakers have said. It is essential today that we should have price control, but where we have price control I want to ask whether it is still necessary for certain articles to be controlled by means of a permit system? The permit system which has been brought into being makes the position practically impossible in some respects. If we are in business, and if we are in our offices on a Saturday morning we see the farmers coming in, each of them with a whole heap of papers in his hand. Those are licences and application forms to obtain implements or something. When one sees all these things one realises the position in which we are today. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider at this stage withdrawing and doing away with the permit system in regard to agricultural implements. Is a farmer today likely to buy unnecessary farming implements, and is he likely to store these away on his farm? The system is unnecessary. I am in favour of control, but if a commodity is controlled the regulations should be so drafted that it will be possible for the public to move. As soon as one draws up regulations and provisions which make the position impossible for the public, one creates a black market. We have had experience of that during the past few years. I want to ask the Minister most earnestly to consider abolishing the permit system for agricultural requirements. If a farmer wants to buy plough shears, a harrow, or a plough, maximum price regulations are necessary, but there is no need for the maintenance of the permit system. Other members have already said that one is forced now-a-days to employ additional staff to keep pace with all the publications and regulations and emergency measures which have to be observed. There is one matter in particular which deeply affects us, and that is the returns which we as co-operative societies have to supply to the various controllers. We have to keep the controllers informed from time to time, and we not only have to employ people to read all the publications, but also to keep the controllers informed regarding the various commodities. It’s a big job, and it requires extra staff and it imposes additional responsibility on the manager and the whole staff. Where one has to deal with a small isolated business the objections are perhaps not too great, but where one has to deal with a big co-operative society with a tremendous turnover one feels that it has a curtailing effect on the organisation work, on the farmers and on everything. I therefore want to ask the Minister to abolish the permit system in regard to agricultural implements, or at least to make it more elastic, and to restrict the amount of information required as much as possible, and not to be so severe when certain returns are not made strictly on due date. In any case the Minister should see to it that the amount of time allowed for the making of returns is extended, or if possible, especially in view of the fact that considerable supplies are being produced in this country now, the system should be abolished as far as possible. The Minister should not have unnecessary work imposed on business people and on farmers by threatening them that if they do not supply the necessary information by a certain date they will be guilty of a criminal offence.

While supporting the policy of the Government which is control, members of the Opposition come along with this and that motion objecting to that policy of control, and then they tell us that all the people that are against control are sitting on this side of the House. To me it seems rather curious and inconsistent. The policy of control has done a tremendous lot for our country. If we had not instituted control very early on in this war, today the cost of living would have reached astronomical heights, but thanks to control we are still able to live at a reasonable figure. It is impossible for control to prevent rising costs. It is impossible for us still to be able to buy goods at pre-war figures when the cost of production has gone up all over the world. I do feel, however, that in carrying out that policy we have frequently made mistakes, and therefore I am glad that this motion has been brought here. Take, for example, our price controller. Everybody will admit our price control has been an excellent thing for the country. It has kept down the prices. I think it was the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) who said that industries were protected by having a fixed price. Thank goodness they were protected that way. Otherwise we would be paying miles more for our commodities today. Price control has done excellent work, but I think the price controller could have done better work. I recommended previously in this House that prices should be fixed at the source of manufacture in respect of goods that are manufactured in South Africa and that the retail selling price should be fixed at the factory, and where possible and feasible those prices should be put down on the commodities at the time those commodities leave the factory. With regard to imported goods, I have recommended previously that the fixed retail maximum selling price should be fixed in conjunction with the profit controller, or price controller as we call him, at the warehouse of the original importer. Last year we adopted that system as regards tea. If you go into a shop today and buy a packet of tea, you will find the price marked—Durban 1s. 2d., elsewhere 1s. 3d. and 1s. 3½d., and the other teas are marked proportionately. That method would have been very much better. But we learn through experience, and I put it now to the price controller that his experience ought to show him which is the better method to adopt. There are people who did come along with a percentage-based profit. That percentage-based profit was unfair, because a man with an interest in A, B, C and D could have an article in his warehouse and sell it at a profit of 10s. from the factory to B, invoice the goods from B to C and then from C to D and have a fourth invoice from D to A; and in that way the article to A, which never left his warehouse, can be put up by 40 per cent. Fortunately that has been stopped. The price controller saw that that was wrong. After all, it was a new job when he was doing it. I take off my hat to the work that the price controller has done, and I feel thankful that we have a price controller. But that is not the only control we have. I have a letter before me here in connection with the control of oranges. You will remember that we have a special scheme whereby oranges can be supplied to farmers so that they may give their natives oranges at a cheap rate. One of my farmer friends applied for these oranges. The reply he got was this—

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the oranges at 1s. per pocket are supplied to the large farmer only; the man must employ about 35 natives. We are therefore encouraging the supply of cheap food to the farmer who can best pay for it, namely, the farmer who employs a large number of labourers; but the farmer who employs only six or seven natives has to pay the full price for his oranges. And that is one of the objections I have to many of our controls, that they have been carelessly thought out in parts; that they have helped out the big interests as against the small interests. Take, for example, importing. Many of the small traders who imported goods in small quantities before the war, spread over a large number of lines, now have to get import permits. May I read a portion of a letter sent to one of these small traders—

That may be a very fine thing for the wholesale merchant. It may give him another 15 per cent. profit, but it certainly does not bring down the cost of living to the individual. We must definitely adopt a policy of distribution with as few intermediary links as are necessary. The same applies to our farmers. Our farmers’ products must be brought to the kitchens and pantries of the consumers by the most direct route possible, and in that way we will find that the consumers of our farmers’ products and the producers of our farmers’ products will become friends. I shall look forward to the time when there will be absolute trust between those who produce and those who consume. It is a most curious state of affairs that in the history of the world shortly before the war, the man who produced the article got so much less for it than the people in between who handled that article. That has definitely got to cease. We have got to have a direct and efficient system of distribution. But we have to pay for that intermediate handling. We have to pay for services rendered. It is the duty of every man in trade to render service, and he should render service that is worth while; for that service he should be paid a fair and just wage. Our farmers should get the correct price for their produce. They should get a price which will pay them for the capital invested, which will pay them for the labour expended, and which will enable them to pay a fair and just wage to those who are working for them and are helping them to produce these articles.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When we adjourned for lunch I was busy discussing the marketing of our farm products, and I had just stated that we wanted the shortest possible route between the producer and the consumer, and that we were prepared to pay for the necessary services to the middleman. The middleman has been rather unfairly blamed in that he has been accused of unjust profiteering at everybody else’s expense. He has been unfairly blamed because he has been accused, more or less, of being dishonest, of working up antagonism between the producer and the consumer. But there definitely is a fault with the middleman, and that fault is that there are too many middlemen. There are too many channels at present existing through which our farmers’ products have to go, and it is the duty of our Government to see that these channels are as short and as direct as possible. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) has requested the Government to do away with all permits for agricultural implements. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if in a time of shortage we do away with permits, we will have nothing at all. It is unfortunate that we are short of things, but when you are short of things you definitely have to have a system of controlling the distribution. The ideal system, of course, would be to have the coupon system for everything, but unfortunately the coupon ration system requires an enormous personnel to carry it out effectively, and here in our country with our enormous native population, it is practically impossible for us to work out a coupon ration system which can be effectively employed here. Therefore we have to adopt other methods of controlling products. It is unfortunate that when products are short in supply and prices are fixed that then that enemy to mankind, the black market, makes his head seen there. The black market will always appear while the members of the public are not prepared to support the necessary control that has been introduced, and that is being introduced. That black market is the responsibility of every man and woman in the country more or less. Every man that buys in the black market is helping the growth of the black market. Unfortunately people are so selfish that at almost any price they are prepared to pay for their own needs; hence our black market. I put it to everybody in this House, to everybody in this country, that until the people themselves are prepared freely and of their own accord to do away with the black market, it is an impossible job for any government to do away with it. We come now to the number of Government regulations, and here I want to plead with the Minister. It is quite impossible for the small man today to keep in touch with the numerous regulations that appear each week. It is quite impossible, and I would ask that these regulations when they are published, are published in ordinary simple language so that people like myself can understand them. Very often I have read regulations and I have wondered what they mean; and there are crowds of other people that have done the same. But it seems to me that those regulations, so numerous and so frequent and so bewildering, are put out as a sort of smokescreen when the controller does not quite know what he wants to do. It is unfortunate that we are making criminals of many people who do not mean to be criminal. It is most unfortunate. A man who is honestly trying to do his best, a man who is trying to be honest and who is trying to conform to the law, very often finds that in consequence of regulations—which he is supposed to have seen, I admit, but which he can miss—and regulations which he fails to understand, he is convicted as a criminal. We do not want unnecessarily to make criminals of people; people who are intrinsically honest we want to keep honest. I do not want to say very much more, Mr. Speaker, but I would like an explanation of one or two very curious regulations that have been promulgated. Here is one example. After cups and saucers had been imported into this country and the country storekeeper had purchased them at prices varying from 3s. to 4s. for a cup and saucer, a regulation appeared saying that this country storekeeper was a profiteer if he sold the cup and saucer at above a price of 2s. 6d. The selling price was fixed at 2s. 6d. as a maximum. There was a conviction at Ladysmith where a man who could produce evidence that a cup and saucer that had cost him a fraction under 4s. 1d. had been sold above 2s. 6d. That appears to me to be absurd. Secondly, I should like us to have fewer of these returns each month. The returns are simply colossal. The small man finds it impossible to render all the necessary returns. Take, for example, a builder and contractor who handles wood. He has to give details of the exact amount of wood he has in stock, worked out to cubic feet. Surely it is absurd. He is accustomed to dealing with 10 x 2 ft. and 10 x 4 ft. He has to furnish, when he makes window frames for example, the exact number of cubic feet used in the job. He has to do all these calculations that take time, and this extra time has to be provided now at a time when most of these people have their staff serving up North—that is the larger men. They have not got their pre-war staff left. The very small man finds that the carrying out of these regulations, the rendering of these returns, takes more of his time than rendering the essential service that he should be rendering to his country. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish once more to point out that we are fully in agreement with the Government’s policy of control. All that we ask from the Government is that the control should be simplified, that the control be carried out in such a way that the smaller man has an equal right with the bigger man, and that we all get a square deal out of control.

Whatever one may think of the merits of the case which the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) put forward one must at least admit that he does not believe in doing things by halves, because the resolution which he proposed is one of the most sweeping I have ever seen introduced into this House. He condemns the Government—that, of course, is inevitable—he condemns the Price Controller, he condemns the Food Controller, he condemns all the Marketing Control Boards, and the whole general system of supply organisation of the country. Well, that is a very sweeping charge to make and it needs a very full and detailed case to be put up if it is to be substantiated. I can only think that the hon. member went on the principle that if he made his target big enough he was bound to hit something—and I am afraid I cannot congratulate him on his markmanship.

I don’t want to be congratulated.

If the hon. member proposed to substantiate the charges in this resolution, surely he had to do three things. First of all he had to show that the policy of the Government had failed.

We all know it has. It is obvious.

The more obvious it is, the easier it should have been for him to show that it is the case. But he did not attempt to do so. Secondly, he should have shown that the present conditions are chaotic—to quote the terms of his own resolution.

We know that they are chaotic, very much so.

And that the exploitation of all sections of the people to which he refers is actually taking place, and thirdly, having made those points and substantiated his charges it was up to him to show how the present system can be modified, and reorganised to do away with the present chaotic condition and to remedy the complete failure which he alleges. But the hon. member did none of these things. He told us he was against control, he told us that the whole system of marketing boards had been a hopeless failure.

You did not understand what I said—you are not bilingual.

Perhaps in translating “hopelose mislukking.” I am wrong in saying that he alleged that it was a hopeless failure. He told us he had no faith in clever people, that he had no faith in the marketing boards and that he had no faith in the commercial community.

What stupidity!

He told us he had no faith in business men; indeed, by the time he had finished I wondered who was left in the country apart from the hon. member himself perhaps who could possibly be relied upon to do anything right in the business of this country. No, the claims by the hon. member that the system of price control, and that the systems of marketing and distribution are chaotic, are I submit, not substantiated by anything the hon. member has said.

You did not understand what I said, so you do not know what you are talking about.

I understood quite enough. I also understood the seconder of the motion. He started off by disagreeing with the proposer because he approves of controls. He went out of his way to say that he believed in the control system but he realised that they were difficult to administer and that mistakes had been made, but his point was that there had been too many mistakes and he called for a thorough enquiry into the whole system.

Oh, come on, Waterson, talk sense now.

Order! Order!

He calls for a thorough enquiry into the system at present operating with a view to putting it right. But there is a great discrepancy between the two. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) made a speech which in some ways in my opinion was a mischievous speech, because he made various references and he started off by saying: “They say—I don’t know whether it is true, but they say this or that”. And he cast reflections on various sections of the community which I don’t think he should have done unless he was prepared to come forward and bring evidence to support what he said. He suggested incidentally that there were dishonourable methods being applied on some of the Control Boards by the controllers. Well, that is an unwarrantable statement to make unless the hon. member has evidence to that effect. But broadly speaking the hon. member for Swellendam overlooks the fact that the enquiry he is asking for is in fact going on all the time. I find myself in sympathy with him when he says that these mistakes which have occurred should not be repeated, and that there is need for the greatest vigilance being exercised by this House and the Government to make sure that these mistakes shall not recur. But that enquiry is going on all the time and constant improvements are made to the system all the time. I find myself really without any specific charges to refute, but I think we shall do well at this stage to look at and consider the actual facts in regard to these organisations against which these charges are made this afternoon. In the first place may I say something about Price Control? The Price Control Organisation has two objects—first of all to control profit margins and to prevent undue profiteering and to fix maximum prices, and secondly, to try and prevent inflation, that is to say, to help to prevent the purchasing value of the £ going down. Those are the two main functions of Price Control. The Price Controller collaborates with the Agricultural Department in the matter of producers’ prices, and with the Food Controller in the matter of food prices, and gradually not over four years as the hon. member for Swellendam repeatedly said, but over two years—two years and a bit—a very comprehensive and increasingly efficient system has been built up dealing with Price Control, having in view the two objects to which I have referred. Up to the end of this year the number of Price Control Notices in force is 224, and Price Control covers such things as groceries, pharmaceutical lines, metals, iron and steel goods, fertilisers, repair charges, glassware, liquor, oil, leather goods, furniture, salt, paper, and various other articles.

Have you got wearing apparel there too?

Yes, soft goods I think, covers that. The Price Control of clothing is not yet complete because it is one of the most complicated things to deal with.

And it will never be complete.

That shows a wide range over which Price Control is extended, and it shows the difficulties under which the work has to be undertaken—work which has to be undertaken with a short staff, and the difficulty of obtaining the requisite assistance. And there is another point, which is overlooked sometimes in regard to Price Control, and that is the very great difficulties with which it was faced from its inception. In the first place South Africa does not like control. I think that is fairly obvious. One of the few really accurate remarks which the hon. member for Aliwal made today was when he pointed out that South Africa does not like control. In don’t suggest that it does—nor do other countries. But nevertheless there was a considerable amount of what in commercial terms is known as sales resistance, to the establishment of price control. Secondly, price control was handicapped by the fact that industrialists on the whole kept very inadequate records, and the cost accounting system in very many industrial concerns in the Union was hopelessly inadequate, making it impossible for the Price Controller to get proper figures on which to base selling prices. As a matter of fact that is one of the great services which the Price Controller has rendered—he has made proper costing and proper records compulsory, and as a result in the post-war period, our industrialists will find themselves with a very much better costing system than before, a thing which is very essential if they want to prosper. There is another difficulty in connection with the extension which has taken place in our own Union industries since the war, because the sudden extension due to the war in South Africa necessarily made production costs higher than the cost of the imported article. There was a need for improvising things—there was a lack of machinery, we had to train large numbers of new operatives, and we could not go in for mass production on a large scale, and that meant that our own goods which we produced in increasing quantities were not only difficult to cost, but they were higher in cost than they were in peace time, when we could import them from overseas, and lastly the Price Controller was faced with this difficulty, that there has been a large increase in the purchasing power of the public since the outbreak of the war. The increase in the note issue and of the money lying on call in the banks is evidence of that, amounting to about two-thirds over the amount before the war. This greatly increased purchasing power was brought to bear against the reduced supply of goods, and I agree with the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) that had it not been for the price control prices in the Union would have soared to undreamed of heights, with a consequent suffering to all concerned. As it is, price levels have been kept under control. Of course there has been a rise, but all things considered price levels in the Union have to an increasing extent been kept within bounds. The wholesale price index from August, 1939, to December, 1943, increased in the Union by 56 per cent. In the United Kingdom it increased by about. 61 per cent. So the increase here is not as great as it is in Great Britain. Of the 56 per cent. increase, the increase in South African produced goods was 46 per cent. and in imported goods it was 73 per cent. That indicates that, the cost of South African produced goods has been kept down well proportionately to the cost of imported goods, over which we have no control, because as far as price control is concerned imported goods only come within the purview of the Price Controller when they come into the country. But the interesting point about the increase is this, that of that 56 per cent. increase only 8 per cent. occurred in 1943, and similarly your retail index, which is up by 27 per cent., for the same period, shows approximately the same increase as in the United Kingdom—and of that 27 per cent. only 1.4 per cent. occurred during the past seven months. Those figures show that price control has during the two years it has been in force established its machinery and has now established a state of affairs whereby the rise in the prices is well under control, and is almost imperceptible, and we hope it will be kept stationary.

Four years after the war.

It ill becomes hon. members opposite to complain of how long it took us to establish control. I know there has been criticism of these figures. But statistical work is highly scientific and skilled work. We have in our statistical office some of the most highly trained men in the world, and I think it will be found that some of our critics have not the necessary training to enable them to produce the figures which we need, and I am prepared to take these Government figures against anyone else’s in the country, and I think we can take it that as a result of price control we have got on top of this deadly danger of inflation which not only now would cause distress, but when the day comes and the war is over, and the inevitable settling of prices takes place, we shall have far less difficulty in adapting ourselves to a fall in prices due to better supplies of goods than at the end of the last war, and I think we shall reap the benefit then. So far from chaos, as far as price control is concerned, price control has maintained a very satisfactory condition of affairs, and as I say the useful effects will be felt not only now but long after the war is over, and I want to say that in my opinion the country owes a debt of deep gratitude to Mr. MacDonald and his successor, Mr. Crean, for the entirely voluntary and selfless efforts they have made in making this great contribution to the country’s stability. So much for price control. The hon. member also attacked in very general terms the system of marketing and distribution, and he was supported in his views to a certain extent at any rate by the hon. member for Swellendam and the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn). Well, there was a lengthy discussion in this House last week on agricultural policy, and the House was informed of the general direction which was advocated by the Agricultural Department’s Committee of Reconstruction, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into that at length again. But I would like to make this observation—that the problem of marketing and distribution is not a wartime one—it has been accentuated by war conditions, conditions under which it has had to be done, but it is like the poor—the question of marketing and of distribution has been with us for many years, and to say to us that we have failed during the war to establish a completely satisfactory system of marketing and distribution, when for years before that, when hon. members who are now sitting opposite were sitting on this side, failed to do it in peace time, seems somewhat unreasonable, because before the war, some years before the war, Parliament had already decided that the approach to orderly marketing and distribution for the protection of the producer and the consumer lay in the direction of control. And for that purpose the Marketing Act was passed and control boards—some of which were functioning when war broke out—were established. The composition of these boards is a matter for argument. The hon. member for Aliwal attacked the Boards—the hon. member for Swellendam appealed to the Government to put capable men on the Boards, and seemed to suggest—in fact he did suggest—that the reason why the boards were not functioning properly was that they were not properly constituted but the hon. member has forgotten that the majority of the members of these boards are elected by the farming community themselves, and if they are not satisfied with their members, it is quite competent for them to make a change. I do not want to enter into that argument because it is not germane at present.

You do not know what you are taking about.

I think there is general agreement that as a result of the experience which we had gained the time is approaching to consider the reconstitution of these boards on a broader basis. That, I think, is generally agreed.

What do you mean by that?

Because the functions of the Marketing Board have been considerably extended during the war, and they are taking a much more active part in the distribution of foodstuffs than they did when they were originally contemplated, and if they are really going to be representative of all the people concerned I think that the consumer should probably be given larger representation on these boards, and I think the agricultural community are at one on that point that the boards, the basis of the boards, may well be broadened to enable them to carry out their larger functions and in order to create that approach between producer and consumer which hon. members opposite are always very anxious to see greatly strengthened. If you are going to have closer co-operation between the producer and the consumer you must have some meeting point, some link in which they both have confidence and that is why I say that the constitution of the Marketing Board may well be altered.

You could do with less Nationalists on it.

I do not want to enter into the point as to who should be on the board, the point I want to make is this: That whatever the composition of the board is to be, when food control was introduced in 1942 it was a very fortunate thing for the country that these boards were in existence in respect of the main food products, and that they could be used immediately for the distribution of food because imperfect though the machinery may have been, if food control is to be effective, the largest possible measure of control of that food is necessary directly or indirectly, and when food control was introduced it did not have to start without organisation—these Marketing Boards were in existence with their staffs with the information they had and the stores they had, with their stocks they had in hand, and they could arrange for distribution under the food controller, and they did so, and they undoubtedly saved the country from very much worse difficulties, and I think it should be remembered in discussing the weaknesses of the Marketing Boards that at a time of great crisis the Marketing Boards rendered very substantial assistance to the consuming public. The position now is that today under the Marketing Council we have some eight or nine boards—we have these Wheat Control Boards, the Maize Control Board, the Dairy Products Control Board, the Tobacco Industry Control Board, the Citrus and the Deciduous and the Dried Fruit Board, and the Chicory Control Board. And I say that in respect of most of these boards the distribution methods today are fairly satisfactory. There are exceptions. One or two notable exceptions have been debated in this House, but broadly speaking the main foodstuffs of this country are under the control of these boards and they are being distributed fairly satisfactorily to the consuming public. There are exceptions to which I shall refer later. But we must remember also that many of these boards are not working under their original constitution but under extra emergency regulations—in other words, they have taken on in the national interest extra functions for which they were not trained, which were not visualised, and when we bear that in mind, while certainly mistakes have been made, it is not surprising that they have been made, having regard to the new conditions and the unexpected emergency, and we must say that these boards have rendered valuable service to the country, and for the hon. member to say that the control board system is in a state of chaos is absolutely unjustified.

On a point of order I never said so, it is a deliberate lie.

Order! Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

May I explain—I never said that. I never directly or indirectly said that the boards were washed out. The Minister misunderstood me because he could not follow me.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “deliberate lie”.

Well, I said very deliberately that the position was such. I never said that the boards were washed out.

Order! I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the words “deliberate lie”, and to ask the Minister to accept his statement.

Yes, I do so, but may I explain what I said? I said that we agreed that boards were necessary, but that the way the boards were functioning was not successful. I never said we were against the boards. The Minister with all respect got up here and the whole of his speech, all his arguments were based on my having said deliberately that the boards should not be there and that they were a washout. I am pleased you have allowed me to have said these few words. I do not want hypocrisy and the Minister’s speech was …

Order! Order!

I would be the last person to attribute words to the hon. member which he did not use.

Well, you did so.

Very well, if I did so I apologise at once.

Thank you.

But at the same time, in referring to the chaotic conditions I am only reading the terms of the hon. member’s resolution in which he calls on the Government to put a stop to the chaotic conditions and the exploitations prevailing at present with due regard to all sections of the population. He requests the Government to modify and organise the systems of price control etc., and to put a stop to certain chaotic conditions. Well, if that is not saying that the Marketing Boards are in a state of chaos, then I am very sorry.

So am I.

And I leave the House to draw its own conclusions as to who is right. So much for the Marketing Boards. The work of the Marketing Boards will certainly bear comparison with the products in respect of which there were no boards at all. Take meat. The position of meat for the last two years has been most unsatisfactory.

It still is.

There has been no control there in the past. The Meat Control Board only has a regulatory function. The Agricultural Department has been urging for some time that control should be established, and had control been applied two years ago the meat position would not have been as difficult as it has been.

It probably would have been worse.

Another thing is eggs. The food controller has done a great deal to organise the distribution of eggs, but we all know that they were not properly controlled—

Except during the elections.

And we have had great difficuty in regard to the supply of eggs from time to time. Now the Food Controller has taken over the whole supply of cold storage eggs in the country, and during the next few months, short months, cold storage eggs will be available for the people. Another thing is vegetables, to which I think reference has already been made. Vegetables are not controlled. Hon. members will appreciate the difficulty of regulating a highly perishable product like vegetables that depend upon production in local areas, causing a glut in one place and scarcity in another. But, Sir, the Government is anxious to see, as was said the other day in the House, the development of municipal markets. We would like to see more consumers’ markets being established, where people may get vegetables and fruit direct, and steps are being taken in that direction, as well as the establishment of food depots by the Department of Social Welfare. The Government is in entire agreement with the hon. members who have said that they would like to bring the consumer as close to the producer as possible. I could not agree with the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) when he said that the middleman must be cut out. Am I misquoting now?

Silence.

I don’t think you can cut the middleman out. At the present moment the middleman is being made as a class, wholesale, without discrimination, the scapegoat for a great many difficulties which have arisen and which exist. But, Sir, I am quite sure that in any system we do devise there is a place, a proper place, for the distributor, whose job it is, as an hon. member has pointed out, to render a service to the country which is essential to be done.

At a profit.

The profits are being controlled today. They are being controlled by the Price Controller, and the margin of profits are all fixed, and the profits which the retailer and distributing man today are making are by no means exorbitant on goods which are controlled.

What about the black market?

I am not speaking about the black market. There are two parties to the black market. There are the consumers as well as the distributors. I quite agree that the black market exists; whether it exists to the extent that is alleged is a matter on which I am not yet convinced. All the investigations we have made indicate that the black market exists and has existed, but it is not so widespread as some people would have us imagine; and that the general consuming public and the distributing organisations are not as completely lacking in a sense of responsibility as one would imagine if one believed all the tales of the black market which are sometimes spread about. Here, Sir, I may refer to the Distribution Costs Commission, because it is very germane to the whole question of distribution. As the House is aware, we appointed a commission to inquire into distribution costs, with a view to making recommendations for more efficient distribution methods on the lines of the hon. member’s arguments this morning. That commission, after doing a good deal of preliminary work, came to the conclusion that the task with which it had been confronted was a very great one, and that it would take some time before a completely full analysis of all the terms of reference could be made and a recommendation drafted. And therefore, Sir, since it is urgent that some of the points shall be gone into as quickly as possible, I have asked the commission to confine itself for the present to the distribution of essential foodstuffs, and to report as early as possible on this particular subject. It will be some months before we get the report, but I hope that when we do we shall be able to see our way clear to improve some of these distribution systems which, in the eyes of many people, sadly need overhauling. I have dealt with the Control Boards, the Marketing Boards themselves, and I have endeavoured to show that instead of being chaotic they are performing a very useful function despite their shortcomings. I have dealt with three major articles which have not been under Control Boards, and attempted to indicate the steps we are taking to put the matter in order. And I may also refer to three other major articles of food—sugar, which is available in ample supplies at pre-war prices, tea and coffee—completely controlled by the Government—and in all these three prices are working smoothly and well, and to the best of my knowledge supplies are available throughout the country. Where, then, are these chaotic conditions prevailing in the system of price control, marketing and distribution? No, Sir, mistakes, as the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has said, I agree, have been made. Emergencies have arisen which have caused difficulties, and they have even caused temporary hardship in certain areas. There is no doubt about it; they have. But neither I nor the Price Controller, nor the Food Controller, nor any of the Boards for one moment deny that very much remains to be done before the marketing and distribution system of this country can be regarded as anything like perfect. But we claim that these problems are steadily being tackled, that that enquiry which the hon. member for Swellendam asked for is being carried on continually by the various people concerned, and that so far from chaos existing the condition generally in regard to marketing is in many respects not unsatisfactory at the present time, and that the unsatisfactory aspects which admittedly exist are being dealt with as quickly as possible. And whilst many individual complaints can be made and may be justified and are dealt with to the best of our ability when they are brought forward, and there are weaknesses which remain to be remedied, I submit to this House that there is no justification whatever for the sweeping condemnation contained in the resolution, and I hope that the House will reject it.

I want to reply briefly to the speech of the Minister of Commerce and Industries on the motion before the House. Let me say at the outset that this is one of the best motions introduced this Session, it deals with one of the most important matters, affecting the very life of the people, affecting one of the most vital questions, namely the question of prices.

Your Government does not say so.

The question of prices is of the utmost importance. Now I just want to say this—the Minister has enumerated a list of goods which are controlled, but the Minister has not replied to the points made here in respect of certain foodstuffs which time and again.…

He cannot reply.

Let the Minister get up and tell us why it is necessary for the price of meat in South Africa to be close on 2s. per lb. Let him try and justify that. Let him tell us why it is necessary for poultry to be 3s. per lb. Let him tell the House why the consumer has to pay 3s. while the same man who sells poultry to the consumer, goes to the poultry farmer and offers him a contract for 11d. per lb. Let the Minister answer that. It is nothing new. These complaints about control have for many years been brought to the Government’s notice, and it was the Minister’s duty this afternoon to have justified the position, or to have tried to do so. The Minister did not touch on those points. I want to mention another point, and there are a few other facts I want to bring to his notice. Let the Minister try and justify why grapes are still 6d. and 7d. per lb. today in the Cape, although the farmer only gets 1d. Why does not the Minister answer the complaints which have been made in this House dozens of times. Why does he not deal with those complaints? If the Government feels that the Control Boards can be defended let it do so by justifying the system which is producing the results which we are complaining of today. But that is not what the Government does, no, it always pretends that the criticism is directed against the personnel of the Control Boards. Now, let me say at once that I do not know a single member of any Control Board in the Union, and consequently I cannot have any personal grievance against any of them. It would therefore not become me to make any personal attacks. But I am entitled to judge them by the results we see—the results of their work—2s. per lb. for meat, and 3s. per lb. for poultry! That is what I have to judge them on. Let the Minister defend the Boards on the results of their work.

Do you want them abolished?

Now listen to that. I don’t want to say, and I cannot say that these things are done deliberately, but I want to ask the hon. member who has just interrupted to mention a single instance when we have asked for the Control Boards to be abolished. But we are entitled to criticise their work. I say again that I do not know a single member on any of those Boards, but I judge them by their work, I judge by results, and judging by results I must come to the conclusion that the Control Boards have left the Government in the lurch. Now let me come to another point. It is useless for the Minister to come here with a prepared statement telling the House what the position is from the point of view of his department. I am talking of what I myself have seen. Although last season the price of oranges was fixed at 3s. 6d. per bag, in 99 per cent. of the shops in the Cape Province and the Free State people were charged 3d. and 6d. for an orange. Let the Minister justify that. That is our grievance. We are not concerned who the people are, but we judge the Boards by the results, the results the country has to put up with in consequence of their policy. We don’t base our criticism on anything else. If we did not make ourselves heard on this subject we would be failing in our duty and we would very soon be taken to task. The position is going from bad to worse. I simply cannot understand, and the country cannot understand, why there should be this tremendous gap between the price the farmer gets and the price the consumer has to pay. Why does not the Minister answer that point? We have never yet said “do away with the middleman”, but if the country has to be protected then prices have to be fixed for the producer, the farmer, and he has to be protected, but at the same time the price has to be fixed for the consumer, and he also has to be protected.

How are you going to do that?

See! The middleman comes in every time. He wants an unrestricted field, and the system of price fixation does not suit him at all. When the farmers were getting 3s. 6d. for a bag of oranges, oranges were being sold for 3d. and 6d. each. If the Boards wanted to help the public why did they not at once fix maximum prices so that consumers would also be protected? But what happened? One could not get an orange on the platteland for less than 3d. or 6d. because the price was only fixed for the producer and not for the consumer. The result is that the middleman, whom the Minister is now trying to protect, has put up his prices to 3d. and 6d. per orange. The channel of distribution has been closed, with the result that the people cannot buy these commodities. If the Control Boards had been worth their salt they would have realised immediately that if the farmer was to get 3s. 6d. to protect him, it must at once be announced that oranges were not to be retailed for more than 5s. 6d. per bag. But the middleman set about things in such a way that prices were raised to the extent that consumers had to pay from 15s. to £1 per bag. And yet the Minister has the temerity to defend the Control Boards. If we have not proved to the Government yet that the Control Boards have left it in the lurch we shall never do so. It is not a new thing, we had the same position before the war. There always was that gap between prices. Even before the war people argued that Control Boards should be established for the purpose of regulating distribution. Let me ask this now. Apart from the few oranges which have been distributed departmentally, what other provisions have the control boards made to bring about better distribution? But when we raise those points, no reply is vouchsafed. And what do we get today? A position which is almost unbelieveable. South Africa is a fruit producing country, and foreign papers tell the world that in South Africa our fruit is rotting, rotting on the trees. What must people think of us? If people in Bloemfontein have to pay as much as 22s. 6d. for a basket of grapes while at the same time we are told that fruit is rotting on the trees? Is that a good advertisement for us? What I would like the Minister to say to the boards—whoever the Minister may be—is: “Look here if you cannot do what the country expects you to do, if you are unable to fix a reasonable price for products, a reasonable price for producers and consumers, you had better make way for other people who are willing and able to do the work.” I am not going to be told that this is such a poor country that we cannot find people to do that work. I say again that I do not want to make any personal attack, but I want to say this to hon. members on this side. The Minister must not blame me, he must not take it amiss if I say that commerce is behind this whole business. Commerce has always played its part in such a way that it gets the best of the bargain. In peace time we thought that control boards established under the Marketing Act would be most helpful. But the position has gone from bad to worse, and now I want to say this to hon. members over there, the Re-United Nationalist Party, that they supported the Marketing Act under which the speculator was given the status of a producer. I objected to this at the time. I don’t want to hold it up against them, but that is where the whole thing started, and it has been getting worse all the time. I assume the Government meant to protect both sections, the consumer as well as the producer, but we have to admit at this stage that it has been a complete fiasco. To come and tell me that it has been necessary to increase prices everywhere in the way it has been done, well, it does not convince me. If it was possible to keep the price of sugar stable, then why is it not possible in respect of other products? The sugar industry would not exchange its business for any other industry in South Africa—it is a very good business, but what do we find? The prices of sugar in Cape Town and at the mill in Natal are identical. They have been properly regulated, and sugar is the only foodstuff, as far as I know, of which the price since the outbreak of war has not gone up by a single penny. In spite of the fact that they have no control boards or anything of that kind. Why are they able to do it? Why are there not similar regulations in respect of other products, why has not the same system of control been introduced in regard to other products? And let me say that at one time I used to think that we should get our sugar cheaper. But we have a product here, the price of which has been fixed at the lower end, and at the top end, and the consumer still pays the same price as he paid before the war.

They look after themselves.

Exactly; and why cannot other industries do the same? Let me reply at once to the hon. member: It is because the other farmers have allowed themselves to be misled and deceived and they have given the speculator the status of a producer. In that way the speculator has been enabled to get into the business and he has got in to such an extent that the Government is at its wits’ end today and does not know what to do. Do hon. members know what is at the back of the whole position—as it appears to me? The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) has rendered a service to this House; he has let the cat out of the bag. Do hon. members know what the new cry is?: “Gentlemen, are you now satisfied that capitalism is better than bureaucracy?” But the hon. member forgets that what we have today is bureaucracy under the capitalistic system, and now he wants to make us believe that those two systems are in conflict with each other. He forgets that the present bureaucracy is there primarily to protect the interests of capitalism—and when we talk of capitalism we do so in the broad sense of the word—but those are the people whom the Minister tried so hard to protect here this afternoon. If the farmer has to live and if the consumer has to live, then we say that the middleman must also live because he also has a function to perform, but he must not be allowed to force up prices arbitrarily, nor must he be allowed to bring down the price for the farmer to such an extent that the farmer cannot make a living—the middleman must not be allowed to act arbitrarily as he has done so far. If we do not stop the middleman from acting arbitrarily we shall never get anywhere. If we are to protect the producer and the consumer, we must put our foot down on that point. We cannot fix the price down below and leave it open up above, no more than we can fix it up above and leave it open down below. I have shown here today what happens. If one does that sort of thing prices are forced up against the consumer so that the salaried man, the worker, cannot live. And when the farmer is told: “You must have made thousands of pounds,” he asks: “How is that?” He is told what people are paying for meat in the towns, and if one enquires how much he—the farmer—is getting, there is only one conclusion to come to and that is that a situation has developed which can no longer be tolerated. Remarks have been made here about the black market. To my mind there are several reasons for the creation of a black market. The black market is one of the most dangerous things there is.

You should not buy your oranges on the black market.

The black market is one of the most dangerous things, and I believe that a black market is sometimes deliberately created for the purpose of pushing up prices so that people can be told: “Look, you can get so much more.” In that way they try to make out a prima facie case for commerce to raise its prices again. Now, I want to come back to the motion of my hon. friend. What justification did the Minister have for being so annoyed?

They attack your Leader, the Leader of your Party.

I don’t know whether the hon. member has just come in and I don’t know what his question has to do with leadership. A great many onslaughts have been made from that side of the House and I fail to see what it has to do with leadership. I am attacking a system which is leading us in the wrong direction, and I say that the system of price control must be changed. If the Minister asks me how it is to be changed my reply is that right throughout the country prices should be fixed for all products on a scale which takes proper account of the farmer’s costs of production, so that he can exist and is fully protected. And next, prices must be fixed in such a way that a proper opening is left for the man who fulfils the function of distributor. He must also be able to make a living, but he must not have the opportunity, as he has had in the past, of taking advantage of the position to drive up prices to such an extent that the consumers are exploited—as I have shown today—while on the other hand the prices which the farmers get are depressed. Commerce has had its chance of fulfilling its functions, but it has made a hopeless mess of it. So much so that it was necessary for this House in 1937 to pass a Marketing Act to restrain commerce. After that the abnormal years of war arrived and commerce again was given free rein for a certain length of time, and true to its tradition commerce again proceeded to exploit both the consumer and the producer. After that, control came in, and now commerce comes here and says: “Look at the failure control has proved to be,” and it says so in order to start a public agitation against control. I am in favour of control; control with the object of controlling the man who should be controlled, the man who has always exploited both the producer and the consumer, the man who is responsible for hundreds of farmers working on the roads today, farmers who have gone bankrupt, the man who is responsible for hundreds of people, people earning small wages, never being able to buy a piece of meat and never having the money to buy milk. Those are the results of the policy pursued by the Chamber of Commerce. They know that they have sinned, and they saw to it, when the Government tried to take steps under the Marketing Act, to restrain them, that they got a status under which they would be able to take advantage of the position, and now they cry out, “Are you satisfied now that the control boards are of no use?” They want the country to turn round and say: “Abolish the control boards”, so that they may have full rein again. The hon. member attacked bureaucracy and democracy here, but I say that bureaucracy is in our system of commerce today, and that is the position. Let me be clear on that point. I am in favour of boards of control, I am in favour of the continuation of control boards, but I am also in favour of the control boards no longer protecting the interests of commerce. The control boards must no longer look after the interests of commerce, they are there to look after the interests of the farmers and consumers, and in that respect the control boards have been an absolute failure. Let us be clear and explicit. We want to have control boards, but control boards to benefit those two sections as well, and not to benefit commerce only. I have tried to express myself clearly and I want to say this, if there are people looking for debating points, if people want to split hairs, they can, of course, tear the hon. member’s motion to pieces. But if one wants to be reasonable, one must admit that this motion is intended to bring a very serious matter to the Government’s notice. We are not asking for that machinery to be abolished. We say retain that machinery but lay down this new principle and tell your boards that the time has now come when commerce is no longer to have the main say, but that the consumer and producer are to have most of the say. Restrain commerce and give most of the say to your producer and consumer. If that is not done they will continue to do what they are doing today.

We have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) and we are in agreement with a good deal of what he said. We are glad to know with whom he is co-operating now, but I should like to put this question to the hon. member for Krugersdorp. He sits over there with a member of the Labour Party in the Cabinet. Why does he not approach that member of the Cabinet and why does he not raise his objections there? He and those he supports are responsible for the fact that that Government is in power today. He must not come and make complaints now. He had the opportunity at the time of the elections to make a fuss; he should have spoken while the elections were on and not now. Now, regarding the reply by the Hon. the Minister, he reminded me of the English saying, “Don’t shoot the man at the piano, he is doing his best”. The Minister has told us that there is not much he has to reply to. May I first of all ask the Minister why he got up so quickly to reply? Only the mover and the seconder and one member on his side has spoken. He did not wait to hear what the complaints were, but jumped up to reply before he had heard the complaints against the Control Boards. And then he says that there is nothing to reply to, there is nothing to refute. If he does not know what to reply to may I just advise the Hon. the Minister to go about among his own people, let him go to the various traders in this country, and make some enquiries among them. Let him take the trouble to read the commercial papers. How can he come here and say that there is nothing to reply to? And let me make this proposition to the Hon. the Minister. Let him appoint a Commission of Enquiry, the commission which will have the power to call witnesses—if he does so he will very soon find out what his own people think of the Control Boards. This is not a debate about control, this is a debate about mismanagement. There is no objection to Control Boards under the dislocated circumstances in which we are living today. There is no objection to control, and that is not what we are complaining about. The Minister’s whole speech was an attempt at justifying the existence of the Control Boards, and justifying the appointment of controls. That is not what we complain of. Our complaints are against the bad conditions which exist—and I say this deliberately, the malconditions which prevail in his own administration. He said this to my hon. friend who introduced this motion: “Why didn’t you make some suggestion as to how the position could be improved?” The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) is not the responsible Minister; this side of the House is not responsible. What we are concerned with here is the question of administration, and it is not for this side of the House, or for the mover of this motion, or for me or whoever it may be, to tell the Minister how he should put his administration in order. Our complaints are against the Administration and I say this to the Minister, that if he still wants to know whether there are complaints he should go to the wholesale traders and the retail traders; there he will find his complaints, and it is not as if this were a new thing. I don’t want to be unreasonable. If the control system had only been in operation for five or six months I would have said: “Give them a chance” but this system has been in operation for two years already. I put a question to the Prime Minister on this subject. I asked how many controllers and deputy controllers there were, and how much had already been spent in connection with this subject, and this is the reply he made: “There are 21 controllers, there are 17 deputy controllers, and there are 323 district controllers in respect petrol”. And then I got a further reply that an amount of about £450,000, nearly half a million pounds, had already been spent in connection with the administration of control. We have the right to say that he must not come and talk now about the difficulties there are; he has had two years; he has a whole lot of controllers and deputy controllers and an amount of £450,000 has been spent on the matter, and we are entitled to say that we want a clear explanation of the conditions prevailing in the administration. The impression we get is that we are dealing here with a top heavy administration. We are dealing here with a lack of co-ordination, and as I have said, the Minister has had the time to put these matters in order and he should not come here today with the excuse which he put up. Reference has been made to the mass of regulations which have been issued, the continuous changes in price regulations which are taking place. I want to say this to the Minister—not everyone has a big business with a large office staff to attend to these matters. Let the Minister go to the small trader on the platteland who it at his wits’ end and does not know where he is in regard to all these regulations and the constant changes in price fixation. A man was fined £10 the other day—a more honest man one could not find—but because he was unable to keep pace with the regulations and the constant changes in prices he was fined £10. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) complained this morning that differentiation was made between the towns and the platteland. I want to repeat that complaint. I want to repeat that in regard to the distribution of essential requirements there is every reason to believe that a distinction is made between the platteland and the big towns. Let me just mention one case. At one time it was impossible in my own town for a period of from four to six weeks to get a bit of cheese, yet when one comes to Cape Town and goes to Stuttafords or Cartwrights one sees a whole lot of cheese loaded on top of each other. And we can mention any number of similar instances. It has been said, also by the hon. member for Swellendam—and the Minister objected to it—that it appeared to him that certain people were being privileged, and the hon. member for Swellendam particularly referred to certain Jewish shopkeepers; I want to add Coolie shopkeepers. Now I want to assure the House that in many places the position is that although one is unable to get certain articles for months on end, in other shops, the Jewish shops and the Coolie shops there are ample stocks. It may be the black market, but if that is the way the black market operates, then it is high time the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Justice, took action. But now I want to come to another point, and that is why I am sorry that the hon. the Minister replied before this side of the House gave him further information. One of the essential requirements which we are unable to get in this country today is that ordinary commodity which is needed in every household, salt. We are told that the shortage of salt is due to the fact that a lot of rain has fallen in the areas where the saltpans are. Well, it has rained in those areas in the past, but we have never before had a condition in South Africa where we have been unable to buy 1 lb. of salt. I asked the Minister a question in this connection some time ago; I asked this: How may lbs. of salt were commandeered by the Union Government during the years 1942 and 1943? How much salt was supplied in those years to convoys and how much was exported to war areas including England? The reply was: “In 1942 the Government did not commandeer any salt; in 1943, last year the Government commandeered 8,660 tons of salt—each ton being 2,000 lbs.” That is to say 17,320,000 lbs. of salt were commandeered by the Government in one year. But the Minister went on to say this: “No salt was supplied to convoys on a large scale, but small quantities may have been bought by ships-chandlers for consumption on the voyage.” I asked how much was exported to war areas, and the Minister’s reply was “none.” It seems to me that we are dealing with a very serious matter here and that the House is entitled to a reply. No household can carry on without salt. The Minister comes here and admits that the Government last year commandeered 8,660 tons of salt. What has become of that salt?

It was used for braaivleis parties.

The producer and consumer are put under control. Is there no such thing as the Government being put under control? The hon. the Minister says that he has nothing to refute, but he jumped up so quickly that unfortunately he will not be able now to answer this point. He has taken his chance. We hope that on some other occasion he will give us an explanation and tell us what has become of those 8,660 tons of salt. The hon. the Minister shakes his head, but surely he is responsible. He is at the head of the whole of the control organisation. Now I want to come to another matter in respect of which I also asked the Minister certain questions. This is a subject which I know may perhaps affect certain members of this House, perhaps also on this side of the House. I am referring to the question of the importation of whisky. Of course, I would not like our friends to be deprived of their favourite drink; but as we are often told, “There is a war on.” At the end of last year a statement was issued by the Director of Supplies. It was not just a statement made in the course of a speech. We know that the Minister, when making a statement, sometimes does not stick to his book—sometimes he talks at random. But here we have what is known as a considered statement issued by the Director of Supplies in which he stated that whisky had come in but that that whisky had only been put on board with the object of filling space. He went further and said that the quantity of whisky which had come into the country was only 20 per cent. of the quantity imported in a normal year. I asked the Minister a question in that connection because we here in South Africa are unable to get our essential requirements. The mothers of the country cannot even get the cheapest flannelette. Things which are absolutely essential in the country do not come in, but space is found for whisky! I asked how many bottles of whisky were imported from the 1st October until the end of the year, the 31st December, and the reply was that 65,880 bottles had come in, and he further said that 4,800 cubic feet had been taken up by that consignment of whisky. I want to say that it does not appear to have been a case of just filling space, because the impression we got from the Director of Supplies was that there must have been many holes and corners which had to be filled up. Now we find that 65,880 bottles of whisky came in which occupied 4,800 cubic feet! When I put a further question to the Minister in which I asked whether his attention has been directed to a statement by the Director of Supplies, that the whisky imported in the past twelve months constituted 20 per cent. of the normal quantity, his reply was “no.” There is such a thing as a diplomatic denial, and the hon. the Minister who, like myself, has occupied diplomatic posts abroad, knows what a diplomatic denial is. Not much value is attached to a diplomatic denial. The Director of Supplies the Chief of the Control Organisation, makes a statement and the Minister says he knows nothing about it, and then he goes on to say that 65,880 bottles have come in, but according to the Director of Supplies 500,000 bottles have come into the country. Now we have this position, that we do not know whom to believe. Are we to believe the Director of Supplies who knows what he is talking about, or should know what he is talking about because surely he is the man with the figures in front of him, or are we to believe the Minister? The Director of Supplies says 20 per cent., and the Minister told us that nearly 3,000,000 bottles had come in in normal times and if one takes 20 per cent. of 3,000,000 it is approximately 500,000 bottles. Whom are we to believe, the Director of Supplies or the Minister? I have just mentioned two instances -—the one is an essential commodity, salt, and the other is a luxury article, whisky, and in both instances the ordinary citizen in South Africa has been detrimentally affected by the Government’s attitude. Now, I want to put another question to the hon. the Minister. In the course of his reply he spoke of various goods, the prices of which have been fixed. I asked him about wearing apparel and I also mentioned shirts. If there are two things which every man needs it is a shirt and a pair of trousers. A man can even manage without a jacket but he cannot manage without a shirt and trousers; these are essential articles. These are goods which are manufactured here in South Africa. They are not articles for which there was no shipping space because there was too much whisky—they are goods manufactured in South Africa. Unfortunately the Hon. the Minister has replied already, but we should like to know from him what the position is in regard to the sale of that class of goods, what the position is in regard to the fixing of prices. Perhaps the Minister can satisfy me, but what I want to draw his attention to is this, if one takes an ordinary shirt which three or four years ago was sold for 15s.—a good type of shirt with a soft collar attached—one has to pay 27s., 30s. and even more than 30s. for it today. And the question which arises in my mind is whether an excessive profit is not being made on these articles, either by the manufacturer of the shirt, the retailer or the wholesaler. I should like to have some assurance from the Minister on that point; I am only putting the question, but it seems to me that there is too much of a margin there. Wearing apparel is something which every citizen in this country requires today. I have only mentioned a few points, but I want to repeat that I am sorry the Minister jumped up so quickly because other complaints are also going to be raised by this side of the House, and he will pardon me if I express the opinion that he is like the man who went to the Front, who fired a couple of shots and ran away before he was properly under fire. And then he comes here with these vague assurances that so far as he knows everything is in order—they are doing their best and all the rest of it. We want something more than that, and if the Minister does not believe that there is dissatisfaction among his own followers, let him pay a visit to a retail dealer and he will find that there is very great dissatisfaction among his own followers. Let him go to the retailers and let him take his courage into his hands and appoint a committee with the power to take evidence.

I was somewhat surprised to hear the Hon. Minister state that in so far as his information went the Mealie Industry Control Board was a Board that was properly fulfilling its functions, its main function being to distribute mealies to consumers. I was in Pietermaritzburg on Friday last, and if the Minister could come into contact with the people who had applied in vain to the Mealie Industry Control Board for supplies, I am sure that he is able enough and honest enough to revise his opinion and to come to the conclusion that the Mealie Industry Control Board has ceased to be of any use to the people who are clamouring for food at the present moment. I speak, Sir, of the native population of Natal. The two principal suppliers of maize to natives in Pietermaritzburg informed me that they have applied in vain to the Mealie Industry Control Board for supplies. One man said: “I have applied within the last three weeks for twenty thousand bags, and the amount I have received has been two thousand.” Two thousand bags, Sir, when every day that man has to turn hundreds of natives empty away because of the failure of the Control Board to supply when called upon to do so.

Shame!

The excuse given by the Board to the man who had applied for twenty thousand bags is that they are without a labour supply. I suppose these of us who know the experience of the farmers with that board, and those who need mealies in Natal, could also go on to say that they are evidently without brains. This Board has failed utterly to show any business ability whatsoever. I was glad to find that the Manager of the Board is now obliged to sign all his documents, “By instructions of the Controller of Food Supplies”. That is one step in the right direction, showing that he is apparently responsible at least to one man, and that is the Controller of Food Supplies. Whether that is merely lip-service or rubber-stamp service one cannot say, but the rubber stamp plainly imprints itself above his signature wherever it occurs. Let me, however, draw the attention of the Minister to the kind of instructions that the Controller of Food Supplies has apparently issued to the Mealie Control Board. In reply to the very reasonable request that in view of the increased demands of the natives for further food a large dealer should be allowed to buy a bigger supply of mealies, the reply is to this effect—

That in plain English, I suppose, means one thousand bags—

Then follows—

That gives the ruling sanctity and authority, shows that the thing is issued from the proper quarter, but it does not satisfy the hungry native who comes back in a day or two and who finds this sort of reply: “The native is told to go home and starve by the instructions of the Controller of Food Supplies.” I can assure you that the situation is very serious indeed and I want to show the complete contradiction that goes on between the various communications issued by the Mealie Control Board. An Estate with which I am connected, the Baynesfield Estate, has in addition to the large number of natives it employs, a large resident native population which has relied for the best part of 60 years on the Estate for their food in time of shortage. That position was indicated to the Mealie Control Board, and they wrote back to the Baynesfield Estate—

This letter from the Mealie Control Board was written on the 7th February, 1944, and it obviously meant that the Baynesfield Estate could draw from their suppliers whatever mealies were needed by each native so long as the suppliers “furnished the natives with their requirements, rendering an invoice to each of the concerns.” When the suppliers were asked to comply with this they produced a letter dated 8th February, 1944, from the same Mealie Control Board which had the effect of rendering the arrangement sanctioned by the letter of the 7th idem completely ineffective. It said—

The firm of suppliers being afraid of a prosecution refused to supply mealies to natives as was provided in the letter of the 7th February, and so the natives living in their houses on the Estate are without their staple article of food—as are many thousands of others.

The suppliers immediately say: “We dare not do that, and we are not prepared to infringe the Act”. So you have a reply from the Mealie Control Board to the Baynesfield Estate which is contradicted by their own reply to the supplier. The Dept. of Agriculture has established the Mealie Control Board and has therefore introduced a state of affairs in which it is impossible for any farmer to get the supply of maize which his natives require for their ordinary subsistence, and yet we have the Minister of Commercetelling us complacently that he is of opinion that the Mealie Control Board is properly fulfilling its functions. I say with all the responsibility that attaches to me that if the Minister does not see to it that a sufficient quantity of maize is laid up in reserve, a very serious state of affairs will have to be faced in this country before our present crop of mealies can be reaped. You will have a sate of affairs which has never been equalled, and you have a Mealie Control Board which has only rendered itself ridiculous in the eyes of the farmers and the consumers, and it is high time that drastic remedies were applied to supply the native population with food. There is no doubt that these people have been long suffering, but the control boards and bodies like that expect them to be long-suffering to the end of the chapter. The natives have reached the stage where they have had more than enough of the treatment which has been meted out to them by the Mealie Control Board, and I hope there will be an effective and welcome change in the attitude of the Board towards its responsibilities when once they are brought under proper control.

In the little time that is left I should like to say a few words about the debate, and I am sorry that the Minister of Commerce and Industries got up so soon to reply after only four speeches had been delivered. It is generally admitted in this House that this is one of the most important motions of the session; hence it is such a pity that so little time is available for this debate, and that the Minister replied before he had listened to all the complaints. I wish to raise a few complaints in regard to the question of price control. The general public has got the impression during the past four years that if a man has enough money he can buy anything in South Africa, no matter whether there is price control or not. That is the general feeling on the part of the public regarding the black market—if one has enough money one can buy anything in this country. That is the reflection on price control, and it is also a reflection on the Government which appointed the controllers. I do not know whether anyone can deny it. I would like to ask members to mention any article which is scarce in South Africa and I am sure somebody will be able to tell them where to get it. The Minister is now trying to pour oil over troubled waters and to create the impression that all is well in regard to price control, but we want to tell him that the impression among the public outside very definitely is that the man in South Africa who has money can buy anything he wants to buy. The Minister cannot mention a single article which cannot be obtained on the black market by the man who has money. If my time were not so short I would have been able to give more details on that point. I want to talk about price control, and more particularly about price control in the motor trade, a subject about which I have the opportunity of knowing something. The Government has made friends with a company named the M.T.A., Motor Traders Association. Wherever the question of motors is discussed this company comes into the picture. It is not generally known that the Government has made an agreement with the M.T.A. the directors of which are a certain Mr. L. Leon, Mr. A. Reed, and Mr. Charles Harris.

Is it a South African company?

Yes; but perhaps only in the sense that it is registered in South Africa. Now this company has become the Government’s pet child. It is stated that the M.T.A. represents the Motor Traders, but the fact of the matter is that not all the motor traders by any means are represented by that company. Now the Government has made a friend of that company, to such an extent that it has made an agreement not to amend any regulation in regard to petrol without first consulting the chairman or secretary of this company. But why select this company alone. The fact that the Government has made this agreement can be confirmed if anybody wants to deny it. The Government has entered into a written agreement with the company, that it will consult the chairman or secretary before amending any regulation regarding the control of petrol, and I challenge the Minister to deny it. The Government has now gone to this extent, that it even consults the company regarding the appointment of the committee which has to control the sale of secondhand motor cars.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under discussion was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 3rd March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

When this debate was adjourned last evening I had made the point which I desired to make in reference to the Springbok Legion, and their request that they receive recognition by the Government. The next point I want to deal with is the matter of Press censorship in South Africa. So far as I have been led to understand in the past, the Press censorship is one voluntarily imposed upon itself by the Press, and that there is no censorship imposed by the Government on the expression of opinion by the Press in South Africa. Instead of that being the case, however, one finds that articles emanating from Cook in London to “The Forward”—a paper in Johannesburg—and to the “Guardian” in Cape Town—both of which are regarded as Labour papers—are every week cut by the censor. And when looking at the position we get the impression that the censor is something of a dictator when he dare refer to the lady editor of the Guardian as a “damned swine.” This calls for a strong protest from myself and I hope hon. members will realise the dangers which are springing up under a censorship of this kind—it may be the thin end of the wedge. One can understand that kind of thing in countries where the nation’s freedom has been curtailed. This censorship may now be directed against one section of the community. In Germany it started with a ban being imposed on the Communists, next on the Socialists, then on the Trades Union Association, and then on the German National Party. We see the possibility of the same thing growing up in South Africa unless this House of Parliament is prepared to raise its voice in protest against this interference with the freedom of the Press. Most of us while Parliament is in session, are resident in Cape Town and mostly read the Cape Town papers. In last week’s “Cape Times” there was a leading article which to my mind should be deplored, one which shows pettiness, which reflects on the “Cape Times” and on the leader writer who wrote that particular article. It shows that in this particular case the leader writer of the “Cape Times” was not prepared to learn from history and from events in other countries. All sections in Parliament and out of Parliament should raise their voice in protest if one section is interfered with, and I want to recall to the House the attitude of our late Prime Minister in regard to remarks made by members of Parliament when they were castigating Hitler in 1937 and 1938. The then Prime Minister sought to impose a censorship on the Press of South Africa, he tried to stop them from passing adverse remarks in respect of Hitler, and he even sought to restrain members of Parliament, and I remember in particular my predecessor being subjected to criticism by the Prime Minister because he said in this Parliament something which was the truth, something which was becoming more and more plain to everyone—he said that Hitler was working up for a world war. I myself am not prepared to sit in this House without making a protest when the Press censorship starts developing in the way it is doing, and I was sorry to see that in reply to a question put to him the Minister of Defence excused this censorship, because it is the first intimation that such censorship does exist for the purpose of restricting its expressions of opinion. Any cable which comes from London is a cable which has passed the censor in London, and as such it cannot convey any information or news which can be of any possible value to the enemy. [Time limit.]

I have been listening very patiently for several days to debates on this question of Part Appropriation. I have heard members stress various points concerning the farming community, likewise I have heard them stress points in connection with the commercial community, and similarly I have heard them raising questions affecting the industrial community, but there is one section of the community which has not been referred to and that is the section which I should like to bring to the notice of this House. I am referring to people living and working on the small holdings. No attention has been paid to that section. They are people who are working on behalf of us all, they are helping us all by the work they are doing. They are there today. We have asked these people to return to the land for the benefit of the community, but while they are there they are not getting the assistance or the help they should get to enable them to make a living on these holdings, and that being so I feel it my duty to draw the attention of this House to the position and ask for steps to be taken to come to the aid of these people. The majority of these individuals are working on the mines and in industries of the Rand. They are there doing some very useful work. They partly make their living out of industries and out of the mines, and they are also trying to make a living in other directions. These people are struggling to make ends meet, and I regret very much that no member of this House has seen fit to draw attention to the conditions under which these people are living. I therefore make an earnest appeal to the Government to give some consideration to that section and to assist them, not only in the work they are doing but also in bringing their products to the market. We are aware of the restrictions applying in respect of petrol and tyres. Well, under existing conditions we have to face that position, but I want to appeal to the House to do something to help these people in getting their produce to the nearest market. Now, may I just say this. I have heard some criticism here on the subject of tyres. One hon. member stated that certain people had unjustifiably been refused permits for the purchase of new tyres—and that this refusal was due to the fact that the applicant was a member of the Opposition Party. I can tell the hon. member who made that statement that I know of people very much more deserving than those the hon. member referred to, and yet they have been refused. Let me also tell the hon. member that people who are strong supporters of the Government Party have been refused permits for new tyres on exactly the same grounds as the people he spoke of were refused. I therefore want to say this, that as far as I can see and as far as I know, the control of tyres is very fair and just, and I want to add that the Government should be congratulated on the impartial way in which the control has been conducted. Now, there are other matters I want to refer to. I heard some hon. members criticise the giving of rations to schoolchildren. I want to say that everyone appreciates what the Government has done in that respect.

They have done nothing.

But the extra-ordinary thing is this, that while criticising the Government in respect of those rations, the self same people who criticised the Government immediately asked that other children should be fed in their homes as well. First they condemn the scheme and they they want the scheme to be further extended. I also want to say something about the criticism that has been levelled at the Petrol Controller for refusing to supply petrol to people who were ordered to go away for health reasons. Well, to my knowledge the very people who have been criticising the petrol control have been given permits to proceed from Johannesburg to Jeffreys Bay—and those people are members of the Opposition Party. So I say again that our Petrol Controllers have been very fair and impartial in the way they have carried out their duties. I agree that it would be most unwise to allow Petrol Controllers indiscriminately to issue permits, without the production of a certificate to warrant the issue of permits. Members have also complained about wages and salaries, and the Posts and Telegraphs Department has been specially singled out for criticism. I am strongly in favour of living wages being paid to the workers, but while saying that I want hon. members to remember what the conditions of these people whom they are now pleading for were in the past, and I want them to remember what the Government has done for them and what the Government is still prepared to do for them. I quite agree that if we can do something for the workers—in any department—we should do so, and bring their position to the notice of the Government, but we should not tell the Government that they are not doing justice to these people. By all means let us appeal to the Government, but do not let us tell the Government that it is not doing the right thing—because the Government is trying to do the right thing. I have listened most carefully to all the criticism that has come from the other side, and I feel that much of the criticism was unfair. Now, as a new member I want to make an appeal. I have listened to a number of personal attacks by members in this House on other members in the House. As a new member I want to appeal to both sides of the House to refrain from personalities and not to indulge in personal attacks and criticism. I have not come here to listen to personal attacks. I came here to listen to something constructive to the benefit of the country, and not to hear dirty linen washed across the floor of the House.

Why don’t you speak to Barlow?

Yes, I shall speak to that hon. member, but to other members as well. I am only making this appeal as a young member, and I want to say in conclusion that it is not an encouragement to a young member to hear members of long standing and of great experience come here and wash their dirty linen on the floor of the House. That is why I make my appeal in all sincerity.

I have just recently returned from the Western Transvaal and I have been in as close touch with the farmers there as I possibly could be. I must tell this House honestly that there is a certain degree of uneasiness regarding the appointment of the new Food Controller, Mr. Keegan. People feel alarmed at the fact that Mr. Keegan is going to take over the powers of the control boards. I am in favour of control boards, and in principle we on this side of the House stand for a policy of control boards yet we find an hon. member like the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) getting up and making an onslaught on the control boards. It is perfectly clear from his speech that he wants the control boards to go, and he has told us that he speaks on behalf of the consumers, but he is not concerned with the consumers primarily. I can assure hon. members of this House that he is not worried about the consumers, he is worried about the dealer, the trader, and he himself is one of these people who is greatly interested in that respect. So far as this matter is concerned I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture or his successor are not here. I want to tell him that I have also been in touch with the mealie farmers in those parts of the country and they have laid down the policy which they stand for in regard to the price of mealies this year. They have explained their views to me and it amounts to this; they want the price of mealies to be based on last year’s price, that is 16s. per bag for a normal year of 24,000,000 bags. And then they say that they want to be treated in the same way as the wheat farmers. Their costs of production have gone up by about 20 per cent. That is the increase in the cost of production of wheat—and that has been proved. That has been generally admitted, and consequently the price of wheat has been fixed, not at 30s. but at 36s. per bag. The cost of production of the mealie farmers has gone up more or less to the same extent. This year’s costs practically speaking have gone up to a greater extent than those of the wheat farmers. We have had many setbacks. Many farmers have had to clean their lands and cultivate them two or three times because insects had destroyed their mealies. We base our calculations on a normal year, of 24,000,000 bags, which was last year’s production, and the price then was 15s. 3d. in the elevator and 16s. in the bag. If we take it now that production costs have gone up by 20 per cent. it takes us more or less to 19s. per bag in the elevator. Then we say that on account of the country’s smaller production—that is, if instead of 24,000,000 bags we only get about 18,000,000 we are entitled to an increase in price because of the difference in the yield. We say we are entitled to an increase of 6d. for every 1,000,000 bags by which the yield is below 24,000,000. In other words if the yield is 18,000,000 bags, it will be 6,000,000 bags less than last year, so that we should get six 6d.’s or 3s. more. The price in the elevator will then be 19s. 3d. plus 3s., namely 22s. 3d. That is what the farmers generally feel about it, and I think in all fairness that price should be agreed to. Now it is said that the farmers want too high a price. I think everybody will admit that if we had not had control over the past three years and if prices had been allowed to go their own way, in view of the shortage we had, and in view of the fact that on account of shipping difficulties, mealies could only be imported at about 32s., our price would also have gone up to 32s.; it can therefore not be said that our demands are out of proportion. On the contrary, I think we are adopting a very fair attitude when we ask for 22s. 3d. We realise that there are people who have to live on mealies, and we do not want to be unreasonable, and that is why we only ask for 22s. 3d. which is 10s. less than the price at which mealies could be imported last year. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) got up in this House and urged the Minister that shipping facilities be made available for the importation of mealies. He is a dairy farmer and is prepared to pay the price of imported mealies. That goes to show the food value of mealies. I want to make a serious appeal to the Department and to the Boards once again and I want to ask them before fixing the price of mealies to go thoroughly into the whole question and consider these few facts which I have mentioned. We must follow some sort of policy for the future. Say for instance next year’s crop is 26,000,000 bags—we could then bring down the price again by something like 1s. per bag, provided the costs of production have not gone up by an impossible amount. And if the production costs come down then we shall also be prepared to come down 20 per cent. in our prices until we get back to normal conditions. Let us lay down a fixed policy; then it will not be necessary to come here every year and ask for a change to be introduced. A policy of that kind can be laid down for a number of years. I hope the Government will give its attention to that. Then in the interests of the farmers, as well as of the country in general, I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to the position of fertilisers. If the Government can supply us with sufficient fertilisers we, in turn, shall be able to produce our mealies more cheaply. If one compares the position of the mealie farmer with that of the wheat farmer it will be realised that what I am asking for today is not unreasonable. In some parts of the country there are farmers who produce mealies and also a little wheat, but there are large numbers who have now decided no longer to sow mealies, but to put down wheat. That shows that we as mealie farmers are entitled to the same increase as the wheat farmers. We are somewhat alarmed at the fact that the Minister has said that he is not going to lay down a minimum price for potatoes. I can assure him that if he goes to the country, especially through those parts where there have been floods and where large number of potatoes are produced, he will find that the potato farmers have suffered tremendous losses. But if the Minister does not see his way to lay down a minimum price then I ask him, when there is a rise in the price, to let the potato farmers have the benefit and not to interfere unnecessarily. The potato market fluctuates a lot. In the one season one gets 3s. for a bag of potatoes and the next season one gets £1. Now, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to another matter—the position in regard to pig farming. I asked one of the big agents in Johannesburg for some information, I asked him to let me know what was the price on the Johannesburg market for pigs on the 27th January, and I should like to read the reply which I have just received: “Prices in Johannesburg on the 27th January were as follows: Baconers grade 1, 6-½-d. to 6¾d. Second grade 4d. to 5⅜d. Porkers prime 5d. to 6⅞d. Grade 2, 3⅛d. to 5¼d.; fat pigs 3¾d. to 5¼d. and store pigs 1⅞d. to 7⅜d.” If one compares those prices with the prices for the past two or three years it will be noticed that there has been a tremendous drop in the producer’s prices but when one goes to the butcher to buy pork it is found that there is no change, on the contrary there has been an increase in the price. The price of pigs goes down but the price of pork goes up. The Minister cannot say that he is not to blame. He is in a responsible position, and it is his duty to see that justice is done. We are now having our meatless days. Until quite recently one could not get any meat at all on a Wednesday. Today, as far as breakfast is concerned, there is still a restriction, and I think it would be appreciated if the Minister were to remove that restriction and if he were to allow more meat on the breakfast table; I think that generally speaking the quantity of meat which people are allowed to buy on Wednesday should be increased. I do not know whether the Minister or the person responsible for this scheme has taken into account the fact that there are numerous members opposite who unfortunately do, not eat pork. That may perhaps have weighed with him in his decision. I don’t believe, however, that it is such a great sin for these people to eat pork and Ministers should not worry very much about it. I must ask the Minister not to curtail our market in that respect because of a few of our friends opposite. It may perhaps be said that I am going very far afield but there is another matter I want to touch upon, a matter which I think comes under the Minister of Finance. I am referring to the position of our soldiers. It will be admitted that there are many soldiers in this country who are unwilling to take the Blue Oath. As a result there are many redundant soldiers, and in view of the legislation which is already before this House in regard to provision for returned soldiers I am afraid we are going to create a very difficult position if we continue as we are doing today. In view of the fact that there are many soldiers who do not want to go overseas and who could return to civil life today, I want to ask the Minister to allow them to get their discharge from the army. A number of them have joined up thinking that the war would last three or four years. There are young men among them who have their careers to consider, young men who were on the point of taking up some vocation or other, and I want to ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Defence to give those people an opportunity of getting back to their civil lives. In conclusion, I want to say a few words about petrol rationing. There are large numbers of people in the country who work from early in the morning till late at night and who have very little opportunity of taking a holiday. They have been deprived of railway facilities now, and if those people were allowed to save their petrol coupons, say until the end of the year, many of them would be able to take a short holiday and go a distance of say four or five hundred miles. The Minister will perhaps reply that this will require a very complicated administration. I have given some attention to that and I think it will be comparatively easy. A man, when going to the post office at the end or beginning of a month could say: “I have six coupons over from last month, please make a note of it.” Then those six coupons could be noted; next month he may have four coupons over, and if a note is kept of what he has over every month he may have 50 coupons at the end of the year which would enable him to take a holiday. In any case he would otherwise use up his 200 miles and this scheme would not increase the consumption of petrol, it would only be a concession to some people. Conditions are abnormal and I think the Minister might do something on the lines I have suggested. I also want to say that we feel somewhat alarmed on the subject raised by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp): I notice in this morning’s paper that a strike ballot is to be taken among the workers in the gold mines in Johannesburg. I understand that the miners are demanding an increase of 30 per cent. and I can assure the House that it is not only the miners who are dissatisfied; if they decide to strike there is a danger that it will not stop at that. The railway workers are also most dissatisfied, and even the civil servants are shortly going to a congress to discuss their complaints. I think the Minister should consider granting the request of the mineworkers and appoint an arbitration court. That surely is not unreasonable. Our experience of the past is a warning to us to be careful. In the past these troubles have led to bloodshed. I think the war has claimed enough blood and we do not want to have any strikes where people of our own flesh and blood may have to take up arms against each other. I make an appeal to the Minister to give this matter his serious attention.

During this debate we have heard several claims put forward by our farming friends, requests for release of internees; we have heard discussions about food control and whether we should do away with controllers. But I wish to speak on a subject which I think is of greater importance, and that is the concern we all have, or should have, for our volunteers who came forward in the early part of this war, and have continued to come forward to ensure that we live in peace. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because if it had not been for the way our volunteers had come forward we should not be speaking here about our farms, for they might have been in ruins had the enemy reached our shores. The question of controllers might also not have been raised; they might have been in concentration camps. Some people may suggest that the concentration camp is the best place for controllers, but I certainly do not associate myself with that. I wish to draw attention to the very unsatisfactory position regarding soldiers’ pay. The position is creating distress and unhappiness, particularly in so far as soldiers’ dependants are concerned. These complaints, Mr. Speaker, are due to mistakes that have been and continue to be made in connection with the dependants’ allowances. In most cases these errors result in the soldier being overpaid. I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that whatever amount we pay the soldier, it can never be sufficient. I am therefore not going into the question of the actual soldiers’ pay, but of the numerous mistakes that have been made which have caused and are causing great distress to the dependants of soldiers. In order to enable the House to appreciate the number of mistakes, the amount involved and the seriousness of the whole position, I cannot do better than refer to the Auditor-General’s Report, War Expenses Account, 1942-’43. On page 5 we read—

That, Mr. Speaker, may not seem much, but now let us read on—

You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that a sum of over a quarter of a million pounds has been paid out in over-payments. I say that we cannot reward our soldiers sufficiently, but unfortunately these amounts have to be recovered. I am not attacking the Chief Paymaster in any way, for, it must be appreciated that the Pay Department has a colossal job in dealing with such a huge pay roll, particularly when they have, let us say, inexperienced men in all parts of the world where our men may be stationed, and where they are fighting. To give you some idea, Mr. Speaker, I would refer to some of the causes for these errors. Pay books are lost, sometimes following a battle, resulting in the issue of new ones. These are issued by the unit concerned and frequently do not reflet the correct allotment or civil stoppages, such as insurance, etc. Soldiers desert or are absent without leave, and the Pay Office only receives advice after a few months’ allowances has been paid. Stoppages for loss of kit are not entered up by the units while on leave, payments are made by paymasters of other forces in excess of those to which the men are entitled. Officers commanding units pay soldiers amounts to which the men are not entitled, due to a misinterpretation of the regulations. These overpayments are, I may mention, considerable in number, and it is quite possible it may be a long time before the Paymaster learns the full facts. Further, there are cases of incorrect information given by soldiers regarding dependants, such as the number and age of children, and the pay records at Pretoria have reflected incorrect information as a result of the full facts not being advised to the Pay Office in the early part of the war. Cases of this nature are many in number, and I think they are causing a great many stoppages in pay, or deductions from allowances, at the present time. These, however, Mr. Speaker, are only a few of the factors which have brought about these overpayments. I do feel that some system should be devised, and devised quickly, to reduce the enormous number of mistakes, and also to speed up the discovery of these mistakes, for some of the errors have continued over nine months, a year, two years, and in some cases three years. I have been in touch with the organisation known as the M.O.T.H.S., which has interested itself on behalf of soldiers and dependants in connection with this particular matter and I have here over 150 letters from dependants, stating their grievances, and their distress over what is going on. I would mention, Mr. Speaker, that reading some of these letters makes one’s heart bleed. Many of these letters come from parents who have three or four sons fighting. Others come from the widows of soldiers who have given their lives for this country. Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest that any consideration whatsoever should be given to the soldier who deliberately gives false information, or by some other means obtains pay to which he is not entitled. But, where the Pay Office or unit is responsible for the error, I maintain that that should be written off and not deducted from the soldier’s pay or from the allowances to his dependants. At the request of hon. members near me I will repeat what I have just said, so that it may get to the ears of the Minister of Finance. As I was saying, I do not suggest that any consideration whatsoever should be given to the soldier who deliberately gives false information, or by some other means is enabled to obtain pay in excess of that to which he is entitled, but I do maintain that where the Pay Office or the unit is responsible for the mistake, the overpayment should be written off unless it can be proved that the soldier was fully aware he was being overpaid; but even then, I feel that the deduction should not be taken off the dependants’ allowance, but piecemeal from the soldiers pay. There are many cases where the soldier is in no way to blame. I will read you a letter showing, how a mistake can occur and how the soldier was not at fault. The letter was written to the M.O.T.H.S. organisation—

You can see that the individual concerned was in no way to blame. This mistake was not detected for a period of two years, and he has to pay back the sum of £100. I have another letter which I should like to refer to briefly, and I will be pleased if the Minister of Finance will pay attention to my remarks. This letter is also addressed to the “Moths”—

She goes on to thank the “Moths.” Now I further submit that if a soldier has made the supreme sacrifice, and it should turn out that he had overdrawn his account, I do feel that, provided the amount is say less than £20, no effort should be made by the Defence Department to recover from the unfortunate widow or parent. Let me read another letter which I have here; it will be the last one. This is from a mother whose son died for his country—

I think, Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House would feel deeply distressed if such a letter were written to them shortly after the loss of their dear one. Along with several members from this side of the House I approached the Minister concerned, and we put all the facts before them. In view of the very sympathetic consideration we received I feel satisfied that the Government will, in the near future amend the regulations regarding recoveries in such cases. But, Mr. Speaker, distress is going on all the time, and I therefore sincerely trust that the Minister will set aside a sufficient sum of money in the Estimates to cover the loss through these overpayments, and not make recoveries in such cases as I have mentioned. Further, I ask the Government to take steps to prevent or reduce the number of mistakes being made in these soldiers’ accounts and quicken the method adopted in checking these.

I am glad the Minister of Commerce and Industries is in his seat because I wish to raise a few points in regard to the Industrial Development Corporation. I should like to know whether the Minister has read the Chairman’s speech at the last meeting of the Industrial Development Corporation because there are a few matters in the report which call for comment. First of all I want to say, speaking generally, that the Corporation has now been in existence for three years and has spent a tremendous amount of money, but cannot show very much for that money. Secondly, I want to say that the Corporation is pursuing a labour policy which spells trouble for this country. Regarding my first point. I want to say a few words. The Industrial Development Corporation has now been in existence for three years. It was established mainly with Government money, with the object of creating industries in South Africa. Great things were expected from the Industrial Development Corporation, but we nevertheless all at the time realised that there were certain dangers attaching to the Corporation. We on this side of the House pointed out that if six directors were placed at the head of such a big comprehensive Corporation, it meant that those people were given power over the whole of the country’s industrial life, a state of affairs which does not exist in any other country in the world. We on this side said that if those six directors were given these extensive powers which were given to the Corporation they would be given the opportunity of gradually obtaining a say over a big network of industries in this country. Such a possible ring or cartel is a very definite danger and I am glad that we on this side of the House warned the Government and also the country at the time of this danger. Now we find in this latest report of the Chairman of the Industrial Corporation that after having been in existence for three years the Corporation has only established two small industries on its own initiative—the one industry in connection with wool washing and the other in connection with the manufacture of blankets. After three years, during which the Corporation has been spending Government money as well, it can only come forward with two small industries which it has established on its own initiative. That is what the Chairman of the Corporation says in his report. Other amounts have also been spent. The report says that the Corporation has invested an amount of £430,000 in stocks and shares; on loans and advances it has expended £270,000, making a total amount of £700,000—nearly £1,000,000. Then the Corporation has undertaken conditional commitments to an amount of £1,400,000. I particularly want to draw attention to this—that as far as Parliament knows, the Corporation on its own initiative has established only two small industries, as I have already said. It is most dangerous to place public money in the hands of particular individuals, and not to be able to demand a report on the investments made—it is most unsatisfactory that the Minister is not called upon to supply information about the way the money is invested. The Minister can tell us that stocks and shares have been bought, but he cannot tell us the industries in which the money has been invested. If the Chairman of the Corporation is not prepared to tell us the industries, in which the money has been invested we, as a Parliament—the body which has provided the money—remain in the dark. I resent that. We are told that the Industrial Development Corporation recently tabled its report. It naturally does so every year and it did so this year too, but I want to say to the Minister that if he himself does not know what is going on inside the Corporation and has nothing but the report, he cannot know what this large amount has been spent on, and how the Corporation intends spending the money it has for these conditional commitments of £1,400,000. It is not fair and it is not just towards Parliament. To a large extent it is public money which this Corporation is spending yet we are not supplied with a full report on the Corporation’s investments and activities. The Corporation is not a financial institution whose business it is to invest money here and there in well established industries and concerns. It is a financial institution of that kind. The Corporation was established with the object and in the expectation that it would assist especially such industries as showed possibilities of developments—industries which had not yet been established. The object was that it should assist such industries to come into being. I think I am speaking on behalf of all parts of this House when I say that when we passed the Industrial Development Corporation Act in 1940 the understanding was that it would proceed with the establishment of industries from the very bottom. But what has the Corporation done? It has invested £700,000 in shares and it has undertaken conditional commitments to the extent of £1,400,000, but all it can show are these two small industries which have been established in the course of three years. And now a further development has taken place. A question has been put to the Minister on the subject, and the Minister has admitted that this Industrial Corporation—and it shows that our warning at the time was very necessary—is going to invest money in the big Imperial Cold Storage Company, an established business. The Minister should realise what a dangerous step this is and what an opening this step gives to abuses. Has this Industrial Corporation been established with the object of investing money in large established companies such as the Imperial Cold Storage? I have a question on the Order Paper on this point and I am awaiting the reply. Is it correct to say that the six directors are not tallowed to have any interest in companies on which the Corporation’s money is being expended? I hope the Minister will be able to say that none of these six big gentlemen have any direct or indirect interest in any of the companies in which the £700,000 has been invested, or in which the £1,400,000 is still to be invested. If this Parliament places such far-reaching powers in the hands of six individuals in South Africa we must be absolutely certain that they will not abuse those powers in the slightest degree. For the time being I am prepared to assume that they are not abusing their powers, but it is well at this stage to utter a word of warning and so say that they have enormous powers, and that those powers must be exercised most carefully because otherwise it means that one of these days we shall have a most dangerous cartel in operation. In the short time at my disposal I shall content myself with this comment on the latest report of the Industrial Development Corporation and of the chairman’s speech. But I want to put this question to the Minister: As public money is given to this Corporation, is it not possible to keep this House of Parliament informed of the Corporation’s activities and of the enterprises in which the Corporation invests its money? I hope the Minister is listening to what I am saying. I think this House should know how the Corporation invests its money, and I hope the Minister in his reply will take the House into his confidence and will lay his cards on the table regarding this Corporation’s activities, so that the Corporation will not be suspect in the eyes of the public. The Corporation itself should take the public into its confidence, and should reply and tell the public how it has invested the £700,000 and in which enterprises the other £1,400,000 are to be invested. If the Corporation cannot take Parliament into its confidence through the Minister, we cannot give any guarantee that people are not going to say—what is already being said—that those six big gentlemen are in a very dangerous and very powerful position—probably the most powerful position so far as the future is concerned. There is another part of the Report and of the Chairman’s speech which also causes us, particularly this side of the House a good deal of concern. The Chairman says that the Corporation is investigating the establishment of a cotton textile industry, and according to the indications, the scheme seems to be to establish the industry on the boundary of a native area or in a native area. Why? Because, so the Chairman says, it is considered that this industry in South Africa can be most effectively carried on if native labour is employed. This is in conflict with the policy of this side of the House. We on this side of the House say that we see signs of great danger in South Africa because men like Dr. H. J. van der Bijl are disposed to use more and more native labour in industry.

I wish to remind the hon. member of the motion of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) appearing on page 142 of the Order Paper, and I want to ask the hon. member not to anticipate that motion.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. All I want to say is that this policy of the Corporation’s is in conflict with the policy of this side of the House, and also in conflict with the policy of some hon. members opposite. I am hoping to see great industrial developments in South Africa, and big industries established here, but we can only do so if we give first consideration to the white population and if we use white labour in connection with these enterprises. When the war is over, as the hon. member who has just sat down has told us, large numbers of soldiers will be returning, and there will be large numbers of white people who will have to find a livelihood in industry. If we are going to establish big industries like the textile industry on the boundary of, or within a native area, for the purpose of employing large numbers of natives in that industry, then that policy is in conflict with the policy of giving preference to Europeans in our industries, and we regret this matter having been mentioned in the Chairman’s report in that light. Now, I want to reply to something the hon. member for North Rand (Mr. Van Onselen) said here. He said that people were highly satisfied with conditions in connection with the motor trade. I want to reply and say that to my regret I cannot tell the Minister that that is the position. The Minister himself must know better. He knows that there is great dissatisfaction and he knows why. There is dissatisfaction because many blunders have been committed which the Minister should put right. One mistake made is that the controller of motor vehicles has appointed a committee to assist him in the sale of secondhand motor cars, and it now transpires that that committee does not assist him, it consists entirely and solely of members of a certain registered company, the Motor Traders Association, and that Association, to all intents and purposes, has the final say about the issue of permits. Now that is the body one has to approach. Applications have to go to that committee. The controller sits in Pretoria, we cannot get to him. We have this committee and they turn down or approve of applications for permits. The controller is in Pretoria and he does what the committees tell him to do. Now I want to point out why there is a good deal of comment on this matter. The first reason is that the committee is composed solely of members of a certain company, secondly that that company only represents the big concerns in the motor world while the small concerns and the public are not at all represented on the committee. The third reason is that this is a mysterious committee. Nobody can approach it. They are the committee with the mysterious box number—that is how they are known by the man in the street. If anyone wants to approach the committee he has to write to that box number. He cannot approach the committee direct. He must make application to this mysterious box number. Perhaps the Minister does not know it, but it is so. And now I want to ask hon. members whether they know whose box number it is. It is the box number of the Motor Traders Association Ltd. It is that company’s box number. This sort of thing is unprecedented in this country. Is it to be wondered at that people say that if a private individual applies for a permit he only gets it in exceptional cases, but if a garage applies the garage gets the permit and the private individual is therefore compelled to buy or sell a car through a garage. Everybody knows that private individuals cannot get a permit, but that it is quite easy to get a permit through a garage, especially if the garage is a member of the Motor Traders Association.

Are not people told so in writing?

I should like to see a question put to the Minister about the number of people who have made application for the sale and purchase of cars, and how many permits have been refused, how many have been granted, and in how many cases permits have been granted to garages. And what is more, if one applies to this mysterious box number in Afrikaans one invariably gets a reply in English.

That is the new bilingualism.

This body of people who have been selected from a section of the wholesale trade are now to decide whether a farmer at a particular place needs a motor vehicle, whether a shopkeeper in another place, or an attorney or a parson in still another place needs a motor vehicle or not. These representatives of the motor trade have the sale of second-hand motor cars completely in their hands, and they have made it watertight, and what is the result? I first of all want to point out that estates have been delayed for the last five or six months owing to the fact that the Executors or the Trustees are unable to sell the cars in those estates. They cannot sell cars to private people because they cannot get permits. They are compelled to sell to garages who pay them less for the cars. This company has bound all the garages, by means of an agreement, laying it down that a certain price is to be offered for motor cars and no more. These motor cars cannot be sold to private individuals but only to the garages, and the garages offer very little. Let me give a few instances. A private individual was offered £210, then £220 and subsequently £225 by other private individuals for his motor car. The highest offer was £235. The would be purchasers applied to the mysterious committee with the box number but they could get no permit. The seller thereupon went to a garage. The garage got a permit but only gave the man £160 for his car. Thus the private seller lost £75 on his car. I have another case here—the case of Mr. X. Application was made for the sale of Mr. X’s car but the would be purchaser could not get a permit. This happened near Cape Town. Mr. X thereupon sold his car to a garage which was able to get a permit, and that garage resold the car to the man who wanted to buy it direct from Mr. X but could not get a permit to do so. I have another case of a parson who came to Cape Town. He had a Graham motor car. The back axle was broken. He bought a new axle for £1 10s. but it did not fit. Thereupon he bought a second-hand axle for £3 10s. but that did not fit either. He searched the whole of Cape Town but could not get what he wanted, probably because there was an understanding between the different garages about spare parts. Well, this parson was forced to sell his motor car. Two days later he saw his car in a garage window, the back axle had been put in, but the price was £120 higher than what he had got for it. The motor stood there, it had been polished up, but was £120 more expensive than the price at which he had been forced to sell it.

It was a poor business deal.

Yes, it was bad business due to the mismanagement of this Government which is ruining the country. I want to say this to the Minister, that in the short time at our disposal in this House we can only bring a few of these cases to his notice. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) by saying that we have not got the time to place all the complaints before the Minister. I want to add that we don’t want to say anything in this House which cannot be proved. For that reason I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Beaufort West has emphasised, namely that there should be a committee of investigation which should particularly go into the activities in respect of the trade in second-hand motor cars and spare parts, and I am convinced that if such a committee were appointed, things would come to light which would astound this House.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to draw the Government’s attention to a part of the country which is not getting its rightful share in the development taking place in the country. I am referring to the North Western parts of the Cape Province. We have an area there which is sparsely populated, the carrying capacity of which area is not very great, but with a little special support great development can take place there which will turn those areas into a great asset to this country. First of all there is a shortage of boring machines. This question has already been discussed in this House. I only want to say that many more boring machines will be required to develop those parts as they should be developed. We are grateful to the Minister of Agriculture for the promises he has made, that as soon as the war is over he will visit those parts and will see to it that the necessary boring machinery is provided; we are also grateful for the commission he has appointed to enquire into the conditions on which boring machines should be hired out here. We know that he will give effect to those promises. Another thing which is badly wanted in those parts are telephones. The telephone service is very poor in those parts of the country. Many more telephones are needed for the development of these areas. There is no need for me to elaborate on the necessity for this, but telephone connection is particularly necessary now in view of the scarcity of trucks. People experience great difficulties in marketing their cattle because it means that they often have to go three or four times to the station to find out when they will be able to load up their cattle which, of course, involves them in a considerable amount of expense. The Department’s policy is to take the first applications first. Well, these areas are less privileged than those other areas, and the people there have only now developed financially to such an extent that they are able to apply for telephones, but the result is that their applications have come a good deal later than they have come from other parts of the country. I want to express the hope that the Minister will give special consideration to those areas when he frames his budget and that he will put a special sum aside for construction work in that part of the country, and that his policy will not be first of all to grant all the old applications. Then there is another matter to which I want to draw attention and that is the great damage which has been caused by soil erosion. I have had the privilege of seeing photographs of the Vlekpoort area. I have also had the privilege in my profession as a surveyor of visiting many parts of our country. The position is really alarming, and I think that we are entitled to say that we have more soil erosion in this country than in any other part of the world. We have quite a number of schemes in operation and the Department of Agriculture has contributed considerably towards assisting in the improvement of that condition of affairs. But we have not by any means reached the stage where we can say that we have stopped soil erosion. Day after day it is increasing to a very serious extent, and we must undertake bigger schemes. I am particularly thinking of a farm such as Rooipoort in the Murraysburg District where a beautiful vlei is being washed away. The engineers have been there and their estimate it that it will cost £2,500 to save the vlei. The owner is a young man and it is more than he can afford to stop that erosion. The result is that he has to sit there and see what is going on, and after another five or ten years it will possibly cost him £4,000 if he wants to reclaim the vlei. But in the meantime the vlei may have deteriorated in value to the extent of £2,000. We have to tackle this matter very seriously. The Department of Agriculture is contributing considerably for instance by means of a film which is being shown by Dr. Van Rensburg, to make the country conscious of this danger. But we shall have to tackle the matter still more seriously. It is no use our young men and young women going to war if we allow our country to be washed away in the meantime. It is no use our talking here about social security if we allow the basis of our existence be washed away. Another point I wish to raise concerns the health of the population of this country. I particularly want to refer to the health of the non-Europeans, more especially from the point of view of infectious diseases. These diseases are spreading among the non-Europeans in this country. We not only owe it to them morally, to look after their health, but we should also look after their health for the sake of the protection of the white race. I could mention numerous instance where white families have been infected by servants suffering from infectious diseases. The hon. member for Middleburg (Dr. Eksteen) made a suggestion that we should train these people as doctors. I think it would be too expensive to do that, and I wondered whether it would not be practicable to set up a two or three years’ course where the natives could be trained, more particularly to deal with infectious diseases. After that they could go out and work in that direction among their own people. Then there is the question of the better use of the foodstuffs which are at their disposal, and we feel that in that direction we can do a good deal to improve the health of the population. This is a matter which is also linked up with the whole question of social security.

A certain matter was raised here by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) and I just want to say a few words in that connection. The hon. member for Moorreesburg raised the question of the Industrial Development Corporation and pointed out certain dangers. I want to extend the scope of the discussion somewhat, and at the same time point out the position in connection with Iscor, Escom and the newly established Fisheries Corporation. I want to point out that large sums of money of the country were invested in those corporations. I understand that in the case of Iscor it is in the neighbourhood of £17,000,000, and I want to ask whether the time has not arrived to find some means or other to enable Parliament to exercise better financial control. After all, Parliament votes the money, and I want to ask whether the time has not arrived when there should be a measure of Parliamentary control over these corporations, in this sense that we should know what is going on and what the position of the corporations is. At the moment the position is that the balance sheet is submitted—I think also to the Government—the Chairman’s address to the shareholders or his annual report is submitted to the Government. We know what a chairman’s report is, and we also know what sometimes happens in connection with a balance sheet. I want to suggest that the Government, and more particularly the Minister who is responsible, should take into serious consideration the advisability of introducing better financial control so that Parliament will be able to know precisely what the position is in connection with those corporations or companies. At the moment there is no control, and even the Minister concerned is not able to demand information. I want to ask the Minister of Finance and also the Minister of Economic Development whether they will give their attention to this matter. I do not know whether it can be arranged through the medium of the Auditor-General. These companies have their own auditors, of course, but I should like to know whether it will not be possible to have a special department of the Auditor-General’s Department, which could then also examine the accounts and affairs of those companies. It must be remembered that it is our money which is invested here, and the ordinary shareholder in the ordinary business would like to know what becomes of his money.

There is a matter which I must personally bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance, and it is one which was raised a week ago by a deputation which called on the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the price of sultanas. The Minister of Agriculture said that he would discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance. It is today the 16th of this month and in those parts which I represent, that area which produces most sultanas, almost all the fruit has been picked and the farmers still do not know what price they are going to get for their sultanas. On the 14th February I put this question: “What price has been fixed for the 1944 crop?” The reply to that was that the price for the 1944 crop had not yet been fixed, but that it would be done in the near future. It also seems that on the 20th February the annual meeting of the South African Dried Fruit Co., Ltd., will be held at Wellington, and here I have in my hands the minutes of a meeting which was held on the 20th February last year, and, inter alia, this statement appears therein—

The position today is precisely the same as it was last year. This is a very important matter. We find that before the war the farmers along the Orange River, the sultana farmers who number approximately 1,050, could make a living out of sultanas, but since the outbreak of the war these people have found that it is very difficult for them to obtain prices for the sultanas on which they can exist. Approximately 4,000 tons of sultanas are delivered along the Orange River, and, as you know, it is one of the very best products in the world. There is no other part in the world where sultanas of such high Quality are produced as along the Orange River. During the past two years the crop was disposed of by the Dried Fruit Board at a price which meant a loss to the farmers. Last year the price was 3.1815d. per lb. This price is too low. The farmers cannot make ends meet on that price. The result was that there was a loss of £20,000 on the crop, and in terms of the agreement that loss was jointly borne by the Government and the K.W.V. This year the control of the sultanas, or of the products of the vineyard, has been left to the K.W.V., and there will again be approximately 2,500 tons to be exported, and at the price which ruled last year it is totally impossible for those farmers to make a living. Now the K.W.V. has promised that this year they will guarantee 3.4d., but that is also too low. On that price too, the farmers cannot make ends meet. There are farmers in my constituency who received up to 4.5d. for their sultanas before the war; they received that price before the control over sultanas was introduced, and they were compelled to canel their contracts and had to sell at the fixed price at a loss. I asked the Minister what the price was at which last year’s crop was sold. He says that the Orange River sultanas were locally sold at 3.465d. per lb. and those of the Western Province at 3.672d. per lb., and those that were not sold locally were exported, and those sultanas went to the British Ministry of Food, and 2.40d. was paid for the Orange River sultanas, and 2.234d. per lb. for the sultanas of the Western Province. That is a price which is altogether unheard of. At that price the people cannot possibly exist. The matter has now become so serious that last week a big deputation, consisting of members of the K.W.V. and members of the Dried Fruit Board and of sultana farmers, called on the Minister of Agriculture. He said that he would give his attention to this matter and that he would speak to the Minister of Finance. I hope he has done so.

His substitute will probably do so.

They expect that the Government will subsidise the sultana crop at 6d. per lb. They say that they cannot produce sultanas at less than 4d. per lb. As the Minister will know, their costs of production have risen enormously. Only South African wood is available today at fixed prices. This wood is of poorer quality than the imported wood. Then there has been an increase in wages of at least 33 per cent. The price of artificial manure has also risen, and there are sections along the river where it is necessary for the farmers to use artificial manure. Then there is the increased expenditure for the combating of diseases. A new plague has presented itself along the Orange River, a plague which is quite unknown. Great expenditure is now being incurred by the state to combat this plague. It is something which hitherto has been altogether unknown. The prices of their farming implements and their machinery have risen, in some cases as much as 100 per cent. The price of fodder for their animals has risen. These people cultivate smallholdings of five to seven morgen. They have no lucerne to feed their animals because they do not grow it, and they have to buy it therefore. The price of lucerne today is 4s. 6d. per 100 lbs. Then there has been an enormous increase in labourers’ wages. Labourers’ wages along the Orange River have risen enormously. There is one matter which ought to influence the Minister, and and that is that 90 per cent. of the producers are small farmers. To a large extent those people live on Government smallholdings. They are settlers, and in the past they were assisted by the Department of Lands to plant sultana vineyards, and today it pays them much better to grow lucerne, but the Department of Lands will not allow them to pull out their vines and to go in for lucerne growing, because the Department of Lands is of opinion that this is only a passing phase, that when things come back to normal the farmers will again be able to make a living out of sultanas. As a result of the policy of the Government these people are therefore forced to farm at a loss, and I want to ask the Minister of Finance to take this aspect of the matter into consideration. Latterly it has become necessary for the farmers to bring about an improvement in their drying process, and the drying process which they have now adopted is much more expensive. And lastly it should be mentioned that the nearest market for these people is Worcester, and consequently they have to pay extra railage. Their goods are received at Worcester, but not at Louisvale or Kakamas or Upington or Kleinbegin. As a result of this fact they have to pay £6,000 extra in the form of railage, a burden which does not fall on other farmers. I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate, he will take these 1,050 farmers into consideration, and that he will be in a position as soon as possible to announce that the price will be at least 4d. per lb.

There is only one matter to which I want to refer this evening. Many other matters have been raised during the debate with which one would like to deal, but on this particular occasion I do want to support the matter raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) on the question of the Industrial Development. Corporation. During the last year or two it has been a matter of concern to many of us that there is never an opportunity to discuss any of these almost semi-Government. Corporations. When this Act was passed, it was intended, I think, that the House should be fully informed on the development that would take place under the Act. When the amendment was passed, I think 18 months or two years ago, extending the powers of that Corporation under Section (a)—“with the approval of the Governor General to establish and conduct any industrial undertakings”—it was brought in with the idea that the Government should take the full responsibility for sponsoring any particular new industry, apart from ordinary financing of concerns which were private enterprises. But I think the impression was also felt at the time that a full report would be made to the House to discuss these matters. That is a defect in the Act, and I think it is an Act which should be amended. This year we have heard many criticisms of the way in which some of these matters have been conducted. I have heard it myself that with regard to companies, they are being charged a matter of 7 per cent. interest on the money that is being loaned for developments required, a rate of interest right beyond that charged by the banks or other concerns. I know that in several cases where applications have been made, they have simply turned them down. It is difficult with the information contained in a report like this to get the full facts, and I do think that an opportunity should be given to the House to discuss these matters, and that a full report of the work of these companies and of the corporations which have been referred, should be laid on the table of the House, and an opportunity given to hon. members to discuss them. There is the very important question which was raised the other day, of Parliamentary control of finance. I do not want to go into that now; but it does raise the whole question of Parliamentary control over sums that have been voted to corporations acting on behalf of the States.

Very large sums too.

A sum, in this case, amounting to something like five million pounds, I think. The question of Parliamentary control has been raised and I think the Minister should consider the advisability of introducing an amendment to the Act and the other Acts to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) to see that these matters are brought within the purview of Parliament and that an opportunity is given to Parliament to discuss these matters.

I know that the hon. Minister is anxious to finish, and I am not going to detain the House very long, but there is one matter which I look upon as my duty to bring to his notice. The Government or the country contributes to the Governor-General’s War Fund. I should like to know from the hon. Minister what control he has in regard to the distribution of the fund, and if he has no control, whether the position cannot be altered. A firm in Swellendam writes to me as follows—

I will not mention his name, but I shall give it to the Minister—

Here we have a serious complaint. State money is invested in the fund, and now we find that returned soldiers are not even allowed an opportunity to choose where they want to buy. In this case it so happens that the firms whose interests this man was prepared to promote were Jewish firms. Quite possibly they know nothing about it. But here we find this discrimination, and I think that it is a serious complaint, especially since it has happened on more than one occasion, and it seems to me that it is necessary for the Minister in charge of the Treasury to see to it that the State has a certain amount of say, and that such discrimination does not take place. I did not have an opportunity to speak on the motion with reference to social security, but I want to put a proposal now to the Minister concerned. Unfortunately he is not here at the moment, and I shall be glad if my remarks can be conveyed to him. The town of Barrydale falls within the Swellendam constituency. Barrydale is a progressive little town, but it is not very big. There are many people there. There is no doctor in Barrydale. For some time there was a temporary doctor, but he has left again. Thereafter there was a mission doctor. These poor people cannot afford to get a doctor from Montagu or Swellendam. He charges £12 10s. for every visit, and the poor man simply cannot afford it. I should like to know whether the Minister is not prepared to make provision for the appointment of a Government doctor in those parts. I know that it is proposed to give free medical aid to the country. I am one of those people who do not believe that that will happen. But here we have a place where the Government could appoint a State doctor. Let them make an experiment here, and then they would be able to see what it is going to cost them to keep a doctor there. In places such as Knysna, where there are also many poor people, a similar trial appointment could be made, and then they would be in a position to know what they will require for the institution of free medical services, that is if they want to introduce it after the war. I should like to know from the hon. Minister whether he is prepared to come to the assistance of these poor people. There are many poor people in that area who are not able to pay for these services. At the moment there is a woman who goes round the district, but she is not a qualified nurse. That is the position in this area. I can tell the Minister that during the election I came to one place where a small girl had fallen out of the window and broken her arm. The poor father had to walk about searching for a motor car. He was 40 miles from the nearest telephone. That is the position in those parts. The people who live there are very respectable people, hardworking but very poor, and I think they are entitled to get these services. They are without a train service. They are far from the neighbouring towns, and they have to go a distance of nearly 40 miles in order to get a doctor, and consequently something ought to be done for them by the State. Then there is another matter in regard to which I want to say a few words. Is there no possibility of the Government making some plan to see that the people whom they appoint as clerks, receive a salary on which they can exist? The salary which they receive today is so low that the younger men are gradually leaving the service. One of my constituents specially asked me to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister. Her son is employed in the Provincial Administration in the Transvaal, but even in the civil service the salaries are so small that they cannot exist. If the Government is not able to increase the salary scales, they must try to make provision for free medical services for the civil servants. I should like to remind the Minister that one sometimes finds young men of 25 and 26 in the service who are married. When such a young man meets with illness, or his wife meets with illness, he is not able to pay his doctors’ and hostal expenses. Things have become so bad that many of the people are now planning to leave the service, and there ought to be free medical services for them. It should not be difficult, because if the railways can provide free medical services, the Civil Service should be able to do so too. If they do not do it they will eventually find that they get into difficulties, because the men who are worth anything at all will leave the service. I should like to hear from the Minister what they are prepared to do.

I do not want to take up a great deal of the House’s time, but there is one matter which is of particular importance to my constituency, and which I want to raise here. I do so because I understand that the Government proposes to promulgate a regulation in the near future to fix the price of lucerne seed. I am sorry that the Acting Minister of Agriculture is not here, because I should like to bring to his notice the position of the lucerne seed farmers. There are only a few districts where lucerne seed is produced, and Oudtshoorn and Calitzdorp in my constituency are the two most important districts concerned. I hope that when a price is fixed the Minister will take into account the fact that those very districts have suffered a severe drought and that the farmers in these districts practically have to fall back this year on lucerne as a refuge to tide them over their difficulties. For that reason the Minister must bear in mind the particular needs of these people in fixing the price. They have suffered" great damage and they have got into arrears, and I hope therefore that the Minister of Finance will explain the position to the Acting Minister of Agriculture, so that all the factors can be taken into consideration. It may be said that they can sell lucerne hay, but when the rains came along we again had a caterpillar plague, and the farmers could therefore not sell hay and had to fall back on lucerne seed. Then it must be taken into account in fixing the price that there are three types of lucerne seed, namely Chinese seed, Hunter River seed, and Province seed. If only one price is fixed it may have the effect of applying only to the most expensive type, and forcing down the price of the other types. I hope that the Government will make the fixed price applicable to the cheapest type. I again want to urge that the interests and the special circumstances of the drought stricken farmers should be taken into consideration in fixing the price of lucerne seed.

I just want to say a few words in reference to the reply that the Minister of Mines gave to my friend the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers). You will remember, Sir, that in moving that amendment he endeavoured to persuade the Minister of Mines to make a statement on the question of miners’ phthisis. It is appreciated that this has been a burning question over a good few years, and we hoped, as did also hon. members belonging to other political parties, that the Minister—after all he had received a report which he had more than six months’ time to consider—that he would have been in the position to promise this House that he would proceed to introduce miners’ phthisis legislation that the mineworkers have been waiting for so long. Unfortunately, the Minister made some remarks to the hon. member for Mayfair, which I do not think were very fair. I still maintain that the Minister of Mines owes this House a reply. I am going to conclude by saying that we are going to be very persistent. I am satisfied that members in every corner of this House are all prepared to accord consideration to miners’ phthisis legislation, that they are prepared to devote the time to it, and, Sir, I want to drive home this point, and I want Parliament to realise that if this House adjourns in May or at some later date the newspapers will again say that this House did not pass the miners’ phthisis legislation. Hon. members will again bear the brunt; we will have to carry the blame on our shoulders; and I want to register this protest, that we refuse to be just used as a registering machine. We want Parliament to have a say, and we thought this was the time to show that if Parliament is prepared to consider such legislation it was up to the Minister to get on with it and do the job.

I think I should commence my reply to this debate with a word of explanation. This has been a very lengthy debate. My reply, and this is what I want to explain, will not be correspondingly lengthy. The debate has taken all the Government’s time for the whole of a week. With the exception of one pre-election session this has been the longest second reading debate on a Part Appropriation Bill which we have had I believe since Union. There have been no fewer than 69 speeches to which I have listened during the last week with varying degrees of appreciation, and I hope with commendable patience. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that many of those speeches have been excellent speeches. Many speeches delivered in this debate in particular by new members of this House have been full of promise; and when I say that, I am thinking of their promise in relation to the maintenance of the high standards of this House, which I am sure we all have at heart. I, in my reply, cannot cover the ground of all these speeches. I trust that those members to whom I have referred, members to whose speeches I shall not be referring in detail, will not ascribe my omission to any discourtesy. This is a financial Bill which we are now discussing. Under the rules of the House the debate on this Bill ranges from Dan to Beersheba, and indeed a long way beyond. But I in my reply must confine myself to the financial aspects of the discussion. I must confine myself to the matters of general financial policy which have been raised in the debate, coupled with the matters of a departmental nature affecting the Treasury. Other Ministers have taken part in this debate. I believe there have been four Ministers who have taken such part. The Minister of Agriculture Would have taken part in the debate had it not been necessary for him to go to hospital. And may I say, Sir, how sincerely we on this side of the House appreciate the genuinely sympathetic remarks which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) as an old colleague, made with reference to the Minister of Agriculture. There are other Ministers who have not taken part in the debate, but I should like to say in their name that note has been taken of the various points which have been raised affecting their departments, and consideration will be given to those points. In some cases, no doubt, reference will be made to those points later. Only today a point of very great importance has been raised by the hon. members for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock)—the question of parliamentary control over public utility corporations. That is a matter to which I know my friend and colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, has been giving a great deal of consideration, and I have no doubt the time will arrive for a fruitful discussion in regard thereto. I said that I must limit myself to the financial aspects of this debate. Although this has been, with the one exception I have referred to, the longest debate of its kind, I think I am correct in saving it has been the debate with the least financial meat of its kind, and I find that there is very little I have to reply to. Two amendments have been moved; neither of them, however, touches the financial question. The one amendment touches the question of internments. I have nothing to add to what was said in reply by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, whose remarks, I think, were received with satisfaction by hon. members opposite. The other amendment raised the question of miners’ phthisis, to which the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) has just come back in the last speech of this debate. I would like to assure my hon. friend, and the hon. members who have raised the point, that the Government is fully conscious of the urgency and importance of this matter, and that it has been received and will continue to receive, very careful consideration. It is, however, a matter of very great difficulty, of very great technical difficulty, a matter in relation to which there are several important aspects that cannot be overlooked. My colleague, the Minister of Mines, has referred to this matter, and in view of what he has said I think that the House will have the right to expect the introduction of legislation next Session. I come then to the questions of financial policy which have been raised. There has been no question of general financial policy raised from the Opposition benches. I am not going to be rash enough to infer from that that the financial policy of the Government commands the support and goodwill of the Opposition. I note that fact with a certain amount of gratification, but I do not draw exaggerated inferences from it. I have no doubt that I shall hear their grievances later.

We are keeping our powder dry.

As my hon. friend has just said, they are keeping their powder dry. The matters of general financial policy which have been raised came from this side of the House. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) was the first to deal with questions of taxation. Let me say at once that it is a matter of some difficulty for me at this stage to go fully into questions of taxation. There is a budget shortly to be delivered, and in that budget it will be more appropriate to deal with these questions in general terms. In regard to matters such as those raised by the hon. member for Troyeville, important matters, it would not be appropriate for me, I think, to anticipate now what I will be saying quite shortly in another debate. That also applies to some extent to the remarks of the other hon. gentlemen who spoke on this question. But perhaps I can deal with their remarks in a little more detail. I would refer, for instance, to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan). He talked, in the first instance, of the necessity of a simplification of our tax system. Now, simplification may be regarded as an accepted ideal, but it must not be forgotten that simplification is a blessed word which means different things to different people. Sometimes when they talk of the lack of simplicity in our tax system, they are referring to what might be called the complexity of our taxation ordinances. In so far as hon. members are disturbed by that, I would commend their attention to what appeared in the newspapers this morning, where it was made clear that in the United States on the same statement of facts as to a particular taxpayer’s income, six tax consultants arrived at six different results in regard to what he should pay in taxation, and the revenue authorities gave a seventh result. I do not think we have vet reached that stage in South Africa. But in reality I think that what the hon. gentleman who talked of tax simplification in relation to taxation, really meant is hardly something that can be undertaken at the present time. Our first task is to win this war, and our first financial task is to provide money for the winning of the war. While then some adjustments may be possible in regard to some of our taxation measures it would be wrong to anticipate substantial concessions in that regard. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) in dealing with this question of simplification of taxes and the number of our taxing measures, made one concrete suggestion. He suggested that we should combine the personal and savings fund levy with the income tax—the normal and super income tax. That course would not mean any reduction in revenue, I agree. But there are two sides to that. There are many people who, I think, prefer to pay these two taxes at different times of the year. There are many people who would take exception to the fact if they were called on to pay them simultaneously. I myself, as a comparatively modest income taxpayer, welcome the fact that I do not need to pay them at the same time. Perhaps some other hon. members of this House, who are larger income tax payers would not mind paying them simultaneously. I merely make the point that there are two sides about paying them simultaneously. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) I think, however, let the cat out of the bag in regard to what is meant by simplification of taxation and a reduction of the number of taxation measures. He pleaded for the disappearance of the excess special duty, and the trade profits special levy. That means that he wants the relief of taxation to the extent of something like £17,000,000. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) was good enough to suggest an alternative to make good that loss. He proposed the raising of the estate duties. I would like the hon. member to have a look at the figures and to tell me how it would be possible by way of increased estate duties, to find an extra £17,000,000. No, I think we must accept the position that as far as these taxes are concerned, which people are most anxious to get rid of, namely, the excess profits special duty and the trade profits special levy, we must accept the position that they will go in time, they will go after the war. The sooner they go the better, because that means the war will be over sooner; but they will not go now. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) also suggested that the fixed property profits tax should go and should be replaced by a 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. transfer duty. He said that that tax has not stopped the increase in prices. No, Sir, it has not stopped the increase in prices, but it has certainly checked it. I venture to suggest that if that tax were to go the flood gates would be opened; there would be a tremendous increase in prices; and on top of that the hon. member would come along with his 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. transfer duty. It would not be a popular duty. The hon. member for Berea made the further suggestion that we should have two Budgets. I find it somewhat difficult to follow him, because that is in effect what we have today. We have two Budgets. He said we should have a Budget for ordinary standing expenditure, and a Budget for capital expenditure and for extraordinary expenditure and reconstruction. We have today our revenue account, which we finance out of the proceeds of taxation. We have our loan account to the credit of which we place certain specific revenue items, but for the rest financed by borrowing. I cannot see how what he advocates will involve any substantial change in the present procedure. But I think what he was trying to get at was that we should finance social security by special credits, that we should use the Reserve Bank for that purpose. I gather that he does not want us to make it a State bank, but he wants us to use it more. We do use it today. We could use it more, but the limiting factor in determining the amount the Reserve Bank could lend to the State, under present arrangements anyhow, is the amount of the bank’s assets. Unless we are prepared, therefore, to make a radical change in our system of creating credit, the Reserve Bank cannot go as far as the hon. member would like in meeting those requirements of reconstruction at a cheaper rate. I do not want to embark here on a general discussion on monetary policy. I would assure my hon. friend and the House that we intend to do what we can to keep in check deflationary tendencies after the war. But for my part, speaking quite generally, I cannot get away from the fact that the ultimate factor in determining national progress and welfare is production; that we cannot live better, we cannot be better off, if we do not produce more, and that it is the amount and the quality of the nation’s work that must determine the amount of money available for future progress. Now, Sir, I do not intend to follow in detail the remarks of the hon. member for Houghton, but I would really confine myself to the four principles which he enunciated at the end of his speech. The first was that the income tax should be on an equitable basis of income—the same income should pay the same tax. That, of course, means disapproval of the excess profits duty, but the hon. member qualified his statement by making an exception; be made an exception for war profits. As soon as he made that exception he breached the principle of equal taxation on the same amount of income, and as soon as he makes that exception he owes us a definition of what war profits are. In our excess profits duty we do not today attempt to tax war profits as such, because you cannot define them. We tax excess profits made during the war, not profits made because of the war. Let me give an instance. Take a sweet factory. It is making increased profits. That may be due in part to its better methods of production; it may be due to an increase of the population, which leads to increased sales; it may be due to the fact that the war has brought more money into circulation. To what extent are we going to ascribe these increased profits to war profits? No one can tell me. A doctor is making a larger income today; in part it is due to the fact that the public is recognising his skill; in part it is due to the fact that some of his competitors have gone on military service. To what extent are these increased profits war profits? No one can tell me. No, the only basis of excess profits taxation is that which we have adopted and which other countries have adopted, namely, the increase in the profits made during the war. And when once you accept that, I am afraid the principle that my hon. friend has enunciated is breached, as indeed he himself breached it. The second point he made was in regard to private companies. He asks the question: Why if we apportion the profits of private companies do we not opportion their losses? I can only repeat what I have said often before: The losses are carried on to the following year against the following year’s profits, and are therefore taken into account that way. He then made a third point—that taxation should be spread fairly over the shoulders of the general body of the taxpayer, a very admirable principle, we shall agree, but we shall all probably interpret it in different ways. I have heard that principle enunciated as a basis for a demand for heavier taxation on the rich. There are other people who have enunciated that principle and implied exactly the opposite, implied lighter taxation on the rich and heavier taxation on those less well-to-do. Certainly, those who are talking so much of the effect of taxation on industry really want to have the taxation to some extent taken off the shoulders of those who are wealthy, and might otherwise put up money for industrial development. And of course they want to put that taxation on other shoulders, the shoulders of those less well-to-do. Now, Mr. Speaker, anyone who takes that view, that a more equitable basis of taxation would mean lower taxation at the top and higher taxation lower down, may derive some support from comparing the incidence of our income tax with the incidence of the income tax in other countries rather like ourselves. They would find when you got to the top our rates are pretty nearly as high as they are in other countries. They would find that lower down our rates are considerably less than in other countries. It might of course also be contended that we are right and those other countries are wrong. It is true, of course, that the Social Security Committee and Economic and Planning Council in looking for the means to find money for the financing of their proposals, have looked not to the high incomes but to the moderate and the low incomes; but, let us not forget that that is complementary to proposals of social progress and social betterment, and that therefore there is no argument to be derived from that fact for the suggestion that at this stage we should make a substantial change in the incidence of taxation. We are now dealing with war expenditure. We still have war budgets, and the temper of the House and of the country, I feel sure, would be against such a shifting of the burden as my hon. friend the member for Houghton has obviously in mind. Then the hon. member Houghton enunciated a fourth principle—the principle that taxation should be in the hands of the recipients and not at the source. That raises an important issue. The hon. member for Houghton quite rightly pointed out that the result of taxation at the source, as for instance in our system of taxation of public companies today, is that the man with a large income pays at exactly the same rate on his income from the company as the man with a small income does, namely, the rate of 4s. in the £. Two people may be drawing the same amount in dividends from the same company, and one man is in receipt of an income of £10,000 while the other has an income of £500, but both pay at the rate of 4s. in the £ on that part of their income. That is perfectly true. But I think there are certain factors which work in the other direction. One factor is that people usually buy their shares in companies having regard to the system of taxation that prevails in those companies. And the other factor is this, that the man who derives part of his income from dividends in public companies, pays on that account at a lower rate of normal taxation in respect of the income he derives from other sources. I do not know if my hon. friend has ever thought of that, but that certainly is a factor which goes very definitely against that consideration which he has put forward. At the same time, I have a good deal of sympathy with this principle that taxation should, as far as possible, not be at the source. It is a system which I have inherited. It is a system from which I have tried to get away as far as the taxation of private companies is con-concerned. They are no longer taxed at the source. No doubt the hon. member for Houghton welcomes what I have done in regard to the taxation of private companies, but it has not been so generally welcomed outside. But despite the discouragement I have had in that regard, I intend to go on exploring this principle of getting away from taxation at the source. But do not make any mistake about it; it will have far-reaching effects. The abandonment of that principle will have far-reaching effects. It would need very careful investigation, and the time for such a change is not at the present moment. It is, however, a point which is receiving the consideration of myself and my Department, and it will continue to receive that consideration. And that brings me to another remark, made more or less incidentally by the hon. member for Houghton when lie referred to a statement made by me last Session which he described as critical of commerce and industry. It was a statement to which exception was taken by commerce and industry, largely because of the necessarily abbreviated press reports. In the light of the full Hansard statement it was admitted, however, that there was no ground for that exception. What I said was this: That some months before I had received a letter which gave me a good deal of satisfaction, a letter in which I was told that the representatives of commerce and industry and the accountants’ societies had put their head together and were going to come before me with constructive proposals in regard to taxation and that they would make certain criticisms in regard to existing taxation measures, but would propose other things which would take their place. I I pointed out in my further remarks that the people who had written to me had failed to implement the offer, and that they had not come forward with these constructive proposals. The position is this: Commerce and Industries and the Accountants on that occasion set themselves a task—I did not set them a task. They set themselves a very difficult task, the task of coming forword with constructive proposals in regard to war time taxation. It was subsequently thought that I had been unfair to them in having said that they had not made constructive proposals. They were unfair to themselves in having undertaken that difficult task. But that does not mean that I do not welcome co-operation. As an earnest of that, I would here and now throw out a suggestion. The difficulties of making constructive suggestions involving large scale changes in war time taxation are very great. I know it only too well. But what is definitely feasible is to make constructive proposals in regard to the transition which lies before us from war to peace time. As that transition comes about, our specific war time measures will be scrapped. That in itself will give the simplification desired by many. There will also be the necessity for the re-adaptation of the meaures which remain. I have, as I have suggested before, not been entirely happy about some of the features in the taxation system which I have inherited. I have referred to this question of taxation at source. I think sometimes it would have been better if we had done what is done in some other countries and not made a distinction between normal and super tax, and if we had one single scale which would have produced the same results. The fact that we did not take that step in the first instance has led to many of our subsequent difficulties. But that I have inherited. These and other features are receiving the consideration of my department and myself. Now the suggestion I want to make is that interested bodies—I am thinking more especially of commerce, industries and the accountants—should get together and appoint a standing committee on taxation. If they do so I shall gladly recognise it as the vehicle for making representations to the Department and myself. I would not exclude from the scope of that committee the making of representations in regard to matters of difficulty in our war time taxation, but I feel that the main scope for a committee of that kind would be in the way of making recommendations for the transition period from war time to peace time. And it is in that spirit that I make the suggestion. I have always welcomed assistance of this kind. I have had discussions with business people, both in Cape Town and Johannesburg, who have made a special study of taxation and are competent to speak about it, otherwise than in mere generalities. No doubt such people will testify to my readiness to listen to them, and to my receptivity to what they have put before me. But there are other people who are prepared to make more or less general statements about taxation of a critical character in the Press and on other public occasions. Such a statement appeared in the Press yesterday morning. I have no doubt that members of this House and the public outside will be somewhat surprised to learn that Dr. Van der Bijl who has as few people have opportunities of access to Ministers, has not taken advantage of these opportunities to discuss with me personally his difficulty in regard to taxation from the point of view of industrial development before making a public statement. There was one point of a relatively minor nature which Dr. Van der Bijl raised in a letter to my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, and which I indicated my willingness to discuss with him, but so far without result. Apart from that Dr. Van der Bijl has preferred to follow the course of making public statements which is more conducive to publicity but generally less helpful. Of course, he has the fullest right to do so but I regret that he has not taken the more helpful course. It would certainly have been advantageous to me to have the benefit of his constructive views on taxation, and it might possibly have been advantageous to him to have the other side of the case.

But why do you attack him here?

So much for the question of taxation. Now there are one or two other matters which were raised, to which I would refer now. The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) this afternoon raised the question of over payments in respect of soldiers’ pay. I would like to assure him that this matter has been receiving the consideration of those primarily concerned. It is being dealt with by my colleague, the Minister of Transport, as Chairman of the Authorities Committee and I am advised that concrete proposals to alleviate the position were put before him by the Secretary for Defence only today. Then reference was made to the question of native education. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) asked me to state the Government’s policy in that regard. I can only say that that policy is still in the course of formulation. It is not a matter which concerns us alone—it is a matter which also concerns the provinces. I would therefore merely say this, that we are fast approaching that very difficult situation where practically the whole amount of the money required for native education is found by this Parliament where increasing funds are called for from this Parliament, but where the provinces continue to control the services. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) raised a point in regard to ex gratia allowances to native pensioners. I want to promise them that I shall go into that matter, but I am not able to make any further statement on that now. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) made a suggestion which certainly attracted me in regard to housing. He put forward a scheme which would involve a considerable saving to the Government and to the Local Authorities and improve the position of the people concerned, the people to be housed. But I do not think I can quite accept his calculations in one respect. I do not think that we can assume that the fact that a man is living in his own house completely does away with the necessity of making provision for repairs and depreciation. But there is another point to which I should draw attention. He wishes sub-economic money to be made available for the building of houses for selling purposes. Now, what does that mean? It means that a particular person acquires a property with a subsidy from the State. Now, will he have the right in selling that property also to sell that subsidy. I hope my hon. friend will give his attention to that aspect of the matter. If that is to be done, then we shall be faced with very considerable difficulties indeed.

†*Then there are still a few minor points to which I should refer. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and also the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) and other hon. members have raised the question of the pensions of Oudstryders. Perhaps I should repeat what the history is in connection with this matter from the point of view of this Government, because one would sometimes think that nothing has been done by this Government. The Government took active steps as a result of the report of the Interdepartmental Committee which was appointed even before this Government came into power. That Committee recommended that we should treat the Oudstryders on the same basis as those who receive old age pensions. We gave effect to those recommendations. But thereafter, and as recently as last year, we granted the Oudstryders a special temporary concession by giving them a special allowance of 30 per cent. on the old-age pension. I describe this as a special temporary concession, because, as I indicated at the time, we could not deal separately with the question of the Oudstryders as distinct from the question of old-age pensioners. These two things must go together, and until such time as we were prepared to deal with the question of the old-age pensioners, we could not take action in connection with this matter. I said no more than this to the Oudstryders’ deputation which came to see me, and I am not in a position to say more at this stage. Various hon. members have raised the question of the lower paid civil servants. In my opinion, one must not lose sight of the fact in this connection that although there was not a general increase in the basic salary scale, an increase was granted in many cases and that fairly considerable increases were granted generally in the cost of living allowance and similar allowances. When the estimates of expenditure are laid on the Table of the House, my hon. friends will see how much money will have to be voted as a result of that increase. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has raised the question of the Governor-General’s Fund. I want to tell him that we have had representatives on the Executive Committee of the Fund since we started to pay an allowance to the Fund. Furthermore, if he will furnish me with the details of the case to which he referred, I shall be glad to go into it. In conclusion I want to touch on a point which has been raised by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. Le Roux). He spoke of the desirability of giving a higher allowance to the Provinces. The allowances to the Provinces are laid down by legislation and can only be altered by legislation. But I just want to point out to him that it was decided to have discussions during the recess between the Government and the Provinces, when the whole provincial financial system will be considered. Since the hon. member has made a plea that we should make a special allowance to permit of the teachers receiving higher salaries, I want to refer him to the good example set by the Cape Province, where they did increase the salaries of the teachers, but at their own expense. They did not expect the Union Government to take care of it.

With leave of the House, the amendment proposed by Mr. H. J. Cilliers, was withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Swart, put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 16th February.