I lay upon the Table—

This report deals with the Public Service Organisation, and I may say for the infor mation of members that the Government has decided to carry out the recommendation of the Planning Council in the report and to appoint a Commission of Enquiry into the Public Service.

I move—

I regret that the hon. member did not consult me before seeking to move this motion. Although the subject may be one of public importance I do not consider it to be sufficiently definite or urgent to be moved under Standing Order No. 33. The hon. member will have an opportunity of discussing the matter later in the Session.

I regret, Sir, that from the nature of the case I had not the opportunity of discussing this motion with you, or I should have been careful to show you that courtesy.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

I second.

Agreed to.

As I unfortunately have to leave I want to avail myself of this opportunity to bring a few matters which are of urgent importance to my constituency to the Minister’s notice. Before coming to them I just want to express the hope that the Minister will use this opportunity, as we are now dealing with his vote, to give us in this House, and also the country, some indication of what his policy is going to be in future. Perhaps it is asking a bit too much to expect the Minister at this stage to announce a considered policy in regard to all aspects of the farming industry. As he himself is not a farmer and has never been a farmer, and has not had much to do with farming matters in the past, we want to give him time and we do not want to hurry him to announce his policy prematurely, but we want to point out to the Minister that the time is very near when the farmers and the people as a whole will be looking forward to an announcement of the policy of the new Minister of Agriculture. The farming community, as the Minister will find out, and as also appears from the report of his department, constitutes the pith of the Afrikaner nation, and he will find out that it is a community which is easy to get on with—it is a section of the population which is always willing to co-operate, which is not always looking for trouble. But the farming community makes three conditions—it has three essential departments. In the first place the farming community expects the Minister of Agriculture to represent the interests of the farming community above all, and it does not want him to represent other interests as well. Secondly, the farmers expect the Minister to be a man of action, not a man who will first allow matters to develop until they have gone so far that he can do nothing to put them right again. We do not want the Minister to wait until a precarious position has arisen; we want him to act immediately—we want him to mend the dam wall before the water bursts through it. In the third place the farming community expects the Minister of Agriculture least of all to allow politics to be dragged in and interfere with farming interests. We on this side of the House want to assist the Minister, and his attitude will be a test as to whether he is going to be a successful Minister of Agriculture—we want to see whether he is going to accept the assistance offered him by this side of the House or whether he is going to turn it down. As I have already said, the interests of the farmers affect the most important part of our nation. I very briefly want to congratulate the Minister on the report produced by his Department. Unfortunately I have not the time to go into it now, or to go into all aspects of the policy in connection with agriculture. I only want to say this, that we congratulate the Department on its report, we congratulate it through the Minister of Agriculture, and we hope he will have the courage, after having carefully considered and studied the report, to give effect to the matters mentioned in that report, but in heaven’s name do not let him come along with bits and pieces because if he does so the result will be nothing but patchwork and we know what patchwork means. It means that our eventual object will be frustrated. I said that I had more particularly got up to deal with a few matters affecting my constituency. The first point may perhaps be called an old question—it is that of bone meal. The Minister will perhaps know by this time that we in South Africa only manufacture about half of what we need in this country. The other half we have not got. That is why the Department of Agriculture has initiated a permit system. I want to appeal to the Minister to call the best brains of his Department together to find a way out of the difficulty, or to ease the position in regard to this pernicious method of permits. The permit system is a source of irritation, and not only is it a source of irritation but it also causes direct loss to a very large proportion of the farming community, namely, the cattle farmer. I have any number of instances here which I could bring to the Minister’s notice where farmers for a whole period of three months have not been able to get permits despite the fact that they made application in good time. And when they do get a permit it arrives so late that they can no longer use it during that same three monthly period. But apart from that I want to know what these permits are based on. The basis on which the authorities work is that they do not allow anyone more than 2 ounces of bone meal per month The experts of the Department will tell the Minister that one must give an animal at least 5 ounces of bone meal per month, but they only give us 2 ounces. The Minister will see how ineffective that system is, and the tremendous losses our cattle farmers suffer as a result. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to introduce a more effective system. I want to suggest that instead of having a permit system a coupon system might be introduced, so that the farmer can go to a shop and get a bit of bone meal on his coupons. If the coupons are sent to the farmers in good time, so that they can always remain a little bit ahead with the quantity of bone meal they have, it would answer very much better. But besides that we have another preventive for Gallam-sickness, and that is the inoculation system. The Department wrote me a short while ago that there were many difficulties in connection with that system. I was told that they were busy testing out the cure to see whether it would be effective for all forms of lamb sickness, and they went even further and said that in view of the difficult shipping position the imports of raw materials were very much restricted, but at the end of last Session the then Minister of Agriculture, in reply to an interjection I made, admitted that the necessary raw materials for the inoculation cure did not have to be imported. If, however, those raw materials have to be imported, for heaven’s sake, let something definite be done let the Minister show that he is a man of action and let him see to it that the necessary inoculation serums are made available. The Department says that they are still testing this cure. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to read the report in the South African Veterinary Medical Journal of 1937. An article appeared there in which it was stated by three experts that the inoculation system was an absolute success. I want to ask the Minister after this Session to take a trip to Armoedsvlakte, not far from Vry heid. He will there be able to see the results of the inoculation process. It has been tried there. Even if it is not yet a hundred per cent. successful for all forms of lamb sickness it is at any rate a preventive against lamb sickness in those parts where we have it so very badly. We want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to make a definite attempt to get this inoculation cure on the market with the least possible delay. The second point I want to touch upon, and which also affects my constituency very greatly, is the fixing of the price of meat. We as a farming community have consistently been asking for this through our organisations. We want it, and we welcome it. We are also satisfied, so far as we are able to understand it, with the system of grading which is to be introduced, but the Minister and his department will find that this is a very difficult question. He can make the most of the support of this side of the House and of the support of the whole farming community of this country, but only on one condition; if he will announce that it is his policy to apply this fixing of meat prices not only for the duration of the war, but that he is prepared to make this a long term policy. [Time limit.]

We welcome the statement by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) that it is not the Opposition’s intention to overload the Minister of Agriculture with politics. We on our side of the House want to deal with every matter on its merits, and we welcome co-operation. The success or otherwise of all control schemes largely depends on the effectiveness of the grading. Take the meat scheme for instance. If control is to be a success it is absolutely essential for the graders who are entrusted with the carrying out of the scheme to take effective steps. If hon. members look at the estimates they will see that many of those graders get a very small salary. To expect a man to grade animals to the value of thousands of pounds, one can almost say to the value of hundreds of thousands of pounds, at salaries in many cases not more than £30 per month, is going too far. The Minister is going too far if he expects to get good services at a salary of £30 per month, when those men have to grade meat to a value of perhaps £100,000. Human nature being what it is, if a man knows that if he works for a private undertaking his pay will perhaps be £50 or £60, or perhaps £100 per month, one cannot expect such an official to give of his best services for £30 per month. I therefore want to say emphatically that the success of any control system depends to a large extent on the graders. Public competition has been practically cut out on the big markets because today it is no longer a question of one speculator being prepared to pay £10 for an ox while another one will perhaps bid £20; today it is more a question of grading, and the fluctuation in prices is to all intents and purposes restricted to the various prices fixed for the respective grades. That being so, it is clear that the graders are going to play an extremely important part. We therefore want to ask the Minister to secure the most efficient officials, no matter what he will have to pay them, to get the services of these men for the State. We recently paid a visit to the abattoirs in Durban, where we found an official who had been in the service of the Department for years, and who was not even getting £30 per month then. It is unfair to expect these people to give of their best and to work from early morning till late in the afternoon at such salaries. It is not reasonable for the State to expect the best from these people unless they are properly paid. If these people are not well paid the best men will be drawn away by private enterprise and the State will lose the value of their experience and their training. Now I want to say a few words about our veterinary surgeons. I should like to know how much damage the country is suffering as a result of the loss in stock from cattle diseases. Probably millions of pounds. What are we paying our veterinary surgeons? Are they paid adequately, and are they given the necessary facilities to give their best services? A farmer recently sent for a veterinary surgeon and his reply was that he would like to come out but he was only allowed a mileage of 700 miles per month and he simply could not manage, so the farmer was compelled to get a taxi and spend about £10 to bring out the veterinary surgeon. These people cannot render the services they expect to render in those circumstances. Although we may be anxious to control our national supplies, and although we may be anxious to economise we should not try to economise in that way, but should see to it that these people have ample petrol and tyres, if it is at all possible to supply them, and I do say that it is possible to give them sufficient petrol to carry out their duties. What will be the result if we do not see to it that these people are in a position to carry out their services as best they can? It will mean we will lose them. We had an instance the other day of our extension official at Ermelo. He is one of the most competent and best trained extension officers in the service but his pay was so small that the Private Cattle Breeders Association was able to offer him very much more, with the result that the State lost his services. The State is losing some of its best men and the result is that the Veterinary Service is not adequate, in the sense that the service cannot be brought within the reach of every farmer. That, of course, means that thousands of pounds are lost every year. It is false economy to try and save a few pounds on this or that vote, and then damage our herds by doing so. The Minister today appears to be the youngest man in the Cabinet, but by the time he has been looking after farmers interests for a few years he will have a lot of grey hairs. We do not want to accelerate his grey hairs, we know they will come of their own, but with the co-operation of both sides of the House we shall be able to achieve a lot, and we want to assure the Minister that he will have the support of all of us. His is a very important post, and the Minister must see to it that the people in his service on whom the success of his department depends to a very large extent, are properly paid. We must see to it that we have the best brains in the service of the Department of Agriculture. We must not lose the services of good men for the sake of a few pounds. If private concerns can afford to pay more than the State then there must be something wrong, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would regard it as one of his first duties to go into that question.

I should like the privilege of speaking for half an hour. As I want to set out the Agricultural policy of my Party. I first of all want to assure the Minister of Agriculture that this side of the House will give him all the support it can so long as he acts in the interest of agriculture. We know that a Minister of Agriculture occupies a very difficult position. We know there are various branches of agriculture and there are various problems, and consequently the Minister of Agriculture has a most difficult task. We on this side of the House want to assure him that whenever we feel he is acting in the interest of agriculture we shall give him our full support. There is no fixed agricultural policy in this country yet, but it does seem that such a policy is taking shape now, and undoubtedly in this formation process we must from time to time come into conflict with other interests. We want to express the hope and the confidence that when these inevitable clashes do take place the Minister of Agriculture will prove to be the friend and champion of the farmers. In that sense we shall stand by him. Where we have a new Minister of Agriculture and where we feel that there has to be co-operation from both sides of the House in the interest of this great cause I want very briefly this morning to set out the policy of this side of the House. We know that so far there has been no fixed policy to deal with many of our great and complicated problems, but such a policy seems now to be taking shape. In discussing this matter it is essential to keep three things in mind; (1) what is the part which agriculture plays in our national economy; (2) what is the economic position of agriculture in general, and (3) what is the general condition under which agricultural activities are carried out in this country? I need not elaborate the part which agriculture plays in our domestic economy; we know it. I think it is generally agreed that agriculture is one of the corner stones on which our whole State rests. We know that agriculture is directly responsible for the living of nearly 6,500,000 out of a total population of 10,000,000. That being so it cannot be denied that agriculture is one of the most important industries in this country. We know that agriculture is the one industry, the one vocation which has continually to be drawn upon for the stabilisation of the population of South Africa. We know that the stable section of the population is to be found in agriculture, and it is necessary from time to time to draw on that section for the general welfare of the population. But what is the economic position of agriculture generally? We find in the very excellent report published by the Department of Agriculture that no fewer than 6,500,000 of the population are directly dependent on agriculture. We find that 696,000 of our white people are directly dependent on agriculture; that is to say 30 per cent. of the white population. We find that nearly 6,000,000 or 78 per cent. of the non-European population are directly dependent on agriculture, and we also find that a huge capital of close on £500,000,000 is invested in agriculture. If we consider all these facts we must realise the importance of agriculture in South Africa. But there is another side to this picture. We find that the income of these 6,500,000 people amounts to only £44,000,000. That is without deducting rents which are paid for agricultural holdings, without deducting interest which has to be paid, and without deducting labour costs. If we take it that farm mortgages amount to about £100,000,000, which bear an interest burden of £5,000,000—practically the whole of which does not come back into the pockets of the agricultural community but goes into other pockets, and if we also remember that a large proportion of the labour costs does not go back to that section which is directly responsible for agricultural production, if we remember that the major portion of the rents does not go back into the pockets of the people directly concerned in agriculture—if we remember all these things, then we can safely say that the actual income of the agricultural community in South Africa amounts to hardly £30,000,000. If we take it that ten non-Europeans are about equal to one white man so far as income is concerned—that is income on which they can live decently—then we find that per head the income is £23 per year but if we take the total population dependent on agriculture, then we find that per head of that part of the community which is dependent on agriculture, the income is scarcely £5. Now, Mr. Chairman, here we have an impossible state of affairs. When we in South Africa think of social security for the people of this country it must be clear to us, bearing these facts in mind, that one of the great things we shall have to tackle, which we shall have to tackle immediately and effectively is to provide social security for the agricultural community. We complain all day long that the national income of South Africa is too low. Can we expect the national income of South Africa to be increased, to be raised, as it should be if we fail to see to it that the income of this huge section of our population is not also raised? We cannot allow nearly 6,500,000 people in South Africa to live on such a precarious income, and we take it that it will be the duty of the present Minister of Agriculture to envisage a policy to put an end to this evil. At the outset of this debate I want to say very clearly that we on this side of the House stand fast by the policy of control boards. On that point we are not going to make any concessions. We know that a big fight is being waged today against the system of control boards, but I want to assure hon. members that we on this side of the House are not going to give in on that question. We feel, and we believe, that the salvation of the agricultural population lies in our having a system of proper control in the Union of South Africa. We unequivocally stand for the maintenance of the control board system. Furthermore, we stand for a protective policy for those agricultural products which cannot stand up against foreign competition. We stand for central control of our marketing system, and we stand, as a party, for State aid and State encouragement to counteract the natural shortcomings which prevail, and to assist the agriculturists over those difficulties. So far as our control boards are concerned, We know that for many years agriculture has been struggling to bring about stability, to achieve stability of prices. We have established co-operative societies, and those co-operative societies have been of great value to us, and we want to express the hope that that system will be further extended. But even with that system we have not been able to achieve stability —we shall not be able to achieve it until such time as we get all our control boards set up. That is why we on this side of the House believe that the salvation of the farming population can only be achieved not only by having the control system, but by the development of that system, and by the extension of that system. We look upon the control board system, such as we have today, as the precursor of controlled distribution and controlled manufacture of food. As a party we anticipate the day when there will be proper control of distribution and when there will be proper control over the manufacture and production of food. That is the policy of this side of the House—it is the policy of this side of the House that the consumer and the producer be brought together as closely as possible. We on this side believe in social security for the farmer. We believe that the farmer must have a decent income, we believe that he must be properly compensated for his labour, that he must be properly compensated for the capital he has invested, but in addition to that we believe in the food prices in the country being kept down sufficiently so that the masses of the people can get proper and sufficient food and a healthy people can be built up. I want to assure the other sections of the community that our control boards are not their enemies. The control boards are the friends of the consumers of this country, just as they are the friends of the producers of the country. We further stand for a policy of protection for those agricultural products in South Africa which cannot compete with products from other countries. It is an undoubted fact that there are many agricultural products in the Union of South Africa which cannot compete with products from other countries, and in those cases it is essential to afford protection. In that connection we feel nervous on this side of the House. I discussed this subject some time ago. Unfortunately fate has willed it that the former Minister of Agriculture is no longer with us. He could not answer my question on that point. I therefore want to ask the same question again and I want to try and get a reply from the present Minister of Agriculture. We know, as I have said, that there are many agricultural products which cannot stand up against foreign competition. I am thinking particularly of the wheat industry. If that is not protected it will for many years to come not be able to compete on an equal basis with other countries in this world. If we take paragraph 4 of the Atlantic Charter we see what is said there—

We also read in the Report of the Social and Economic Planning Council of 1942 a paragraph reading as follows—

We know that this question of the control of agricultural products is discussed everywhere. We know that a large section of the population takes up the attitude that those products should not be protected because the food bills of the public, generally speaking, are increased as a result of protection. We know that there are people who are not concerned with the welfare of the producer—we know that these people are consistently agitating against protection for our South African products. We hear it every day. We on this side of the House want to emphasise, and we want to do so very strongly, that although it is our object, and although we know that the people of South Africa, generally speaking, must get their foodstuffs as cheaply as possible, we none the less are in favour of those agricultural products being protected. And when we read these things it looks to us that for agricultural products too free trade is going to be introduced, so that in days to come we may have to tolerate Australian wheat being dumped in this country. We are uncertain about this whole question, and that is why I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture this direct question; I know that it is a very difficult question to decide on, but I want to ask the Minister this direct question: What is the policy of the Government and what is the policy of the Minister of Agriculture? Are we in future going to have protection for those agricultural products which cannot stand up against foreign competition? This side of the House stands for central marketing. We stand for central control over the marketing system in South Africa. It is clear to us that we can never have a systematic marketing system in South Africa if the markets are not placed directly under the Central Government. We know that this question is wrapped up with many other difficulties. We know that the municipalities make huge profits by controlling the markets, but I want to say definitely that it is a disgrace that they are allowed to make those profits.

What about the agents?

The municipalities have no right to make those profits, and to send up the prices of the food of their own citizens in that way. We also know that the Provincial Governments get revenue out of the markets. I have every sympathy with the Provincial Administration. Their sources of revenue are very restricted and naturally, if the marketing system comes under the Central Government, the Provincial Administrations will have to be compensated for the losses they will suffer in consequence. But there is another difficulty as well. The middlemen use these markets as they like. The trade is what they are after.

That’s the point.

And it is our duty to cut out that evil. In order to enable us to do so, it is essential for the marketing system to come under the Central Government. That is essential if we are to have systematic marketing in this country—it will be necessary to have big markets as our big distribution centres, but in addition it is also neces sary for those big distribution points to send out the food to the smaller distribution depôts which are close to the consumers. We start out from the point of view that the producer and the consumer must be brought together as closely as possible. The agricultural policy of the Nationalist Party therefore is based on these two great broad principles—social security for the farmer, and cheap food for the consumer. I can see a smile on the faces of members opposite. I know that there are people who do not believe the farmers are keen on rendering a national service—I know these people believe that it is the farmer’s object to keep up prices, and to make ever-increasing profits. Remember that the farmer has to rely on an income made over a long period of years. He must necessarily have very lean years and fat years too. We know that the agriculturist must for a long time produce below production costs, especially in and after years of depression. The war has given him his opportunity to make big profits, but his products are controlled, yet I ask whether hon. members have heard any agitation on the part of the farming community? No, they have not. The farming community, generally speaking, has been satisfied; the farming community has played its part in South Africa—a very worthy part. Everyone must admit it, friend and foe alike. Farming in this country also has to contend with adversities. One of the difficulties with which we in this country have to contend is the uncertainty of our rainfall. We have fluctuating agricultural conditions—uncertain conditions. In one part of the country we can produce a certain product at a profit. In another part that product can only be produced at a loss. We realise that that state of affairs must end. We are in favour of a proper regional survey, and we are in favour of the farmers generally being encouraged only to undertake the production of products in areas where those products can be grown at a profit. But this matter cannot be tackled haphazardly. Once the regional survey is made gradual encouragement will have to be given through the Department of Agriculture to induce the farmers to go in for the right type of farming in particular regions or areas. I want to point out to the Minister that if he wants to make a success of a regional survey—and I feel that both sides of the House believe in it— it is essential to have co-operation between the various sections of the agricultural department. Let me give an instance. Some time ago such a regional survey was made in the South Eastern Free State and North Eastern Cape. It was found that in those parts we should farm with fewer sheep. We had to reduce our sheep units per morgen; but not only did we have to reduce our sheep units per morgen, relatively we also had to increase our cattle farming as against our sheep farming. We had to farm with more head of cattle and with better cattle. But the peculiar thing is that while that was the finding of the agricultural department in those parts where the regional survey had been made, there was not the slightest encouragement on the part of the Agricultural Department to induce the farmers to go in for the right type of farming. We know that the land in the South Eastern Free State is comparatively dear. We know that because the land is dear and because the farms are over-capitalised, the farmers have to try and get as much as possible out of the land. The man is now asked to reduce his sheep units per morgen, and to increase the relationship of cattle towards sheep. Surely we would have expected, if systematic action had been taken, that the farmers in that area would have been encouraged by the Department of Agriculture to go in for the right type of thing. But what do we find? We know that the Department of Agriculture had a scheme of granting subsidies for bulls. Those subsidies were intended to give the farmer the opportunity of securing better bulls. Unfortunately we have found in the past that there were serious shortcomings in regard to this system of subsidy for bulls. For instance, we had a man with a lot of Friesland cattle. He wanted to buy a bull and he went to the extreme and bought an Afrikaner bull. That bull was subsidised and that man, to all intents and purposes was assisted to ruin his own herd. Another man had a lot of brown Swiss cattle. He wanted to cross them and he was allowed to buy a Jersey bull and thus to harm his own herds. Surely one would have expected that where the State had indicated the course to be followed in order to bring about better and greater cattle farming in those areas, a policy would have been worked out by the Department in regard to the most profitable cattle farming in those areas. Are we going to be allowed to go in for dairy farming there? Will the Department assist and come to the assistance of those parts, to undertake such an industry on a sound basis? Is that the intention, or will the farmers have to farm with slaughter stock? What is the use of having a regional survey if there is no coordination between the various sections of the department. What happens? The farmers were told that they must take up cattle farming to a greater extent, yet this bull subsidy was abolished in almost every district. The farmers were told that they must become cattle farmers, but the dairy section did nothing at all and in my area refused to assist those farmers who wanted to become dairy farmers. That is why I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to see that the Agricultural Department undertakes this regional survey, but I want it to be done on a sound basis. We require a regional survey to put our farming on a sound economic basis, but at the same time I want to make an appeal to him to see that the agricultural department encourages the farmers in those areas, and assists them in the right way to farm with the right type of animal. Then there is one other matter I want to touch on very briefly, and that is the question of cattle diseases. We have to contend with cattle diseases in South Africa on a very large scale. We know that cattle diseases cost our farmers millions of pounds every year. Some time ago I saw a return showing that in one small area the death rate among sheep had reached 30 per cent. That means that the farmers in that area were losing round about £1,000,000 per year. That being so, and knowing that cattle diseases are causing destruction in this country, we would have thought that the Agricultural Department would have made a great effort to devise plans and to find means to fight those cattle diseases. We have Onderstepoort here in South Africa. I don’t think there is a single farmer who is not proud of Onderstepoort. We are proud of the work done there, but this is my complaint—that it appears that during the last few years onderstepoort has become moribund. I want to ask why it is so, and to what it is attributable. Is not the Department providing sufficient technical officers? Is not the Department providing sufficient funds? Or what is the cause of this state of apathy? No one not actively connected with farming can realise what it means if we cannot obtain the necessary cures and preventives for the various diseases. We know that the Southern Free State is at its wits’ end because we cannot get the necessary means to combat sheep diseases. The horse breeders have got into terrible difficulties because they cannot get the necessary serums against horse sickness. Does not the Government realise what it means to the farmers in these days? I fail to understand what is the cause, why there is this state of apathy at Onderstepoort. It is an institution of which we in South Africa, as an agricultural community, have every right to be proud. My time is nearly up. I just want to say this, if we can obtain these things, agriculture in general will be greatly assisted. But in the long run the great problem of the farming industry remains that of production costs. The great problem of the producer and the consumer is that of high production costs. If production costs go up high, the prices of food will necessarily remain high. One of the great things determining the farmers’ production costs is the capital invested in farming. [Time limit.]

I don’t want the Minister to think that my sole object is to criticise the Department of Agriculture, but if we keep quiet in this House on this occasion, as I have said before, there will be a tremendous outcry against the Agricultural Department. Ever since I have been in this House the Department of Agriculture has been a colossal failure. Before the Marketing Act was passed the Department of Agriculture said that it had no control. Before the adoption of the Marketing Act we had the old story of over-production and though we had over-production in this country in the years 1934, 1935 and 1936, there was underconsumption in South Africa. The Department of Agriculture put up its hands and said: “We can do nothing because we have no control”. Afterwards, we passed the Marketing Act in this House. I said at the time that I was in favour of control provided we control everything. On the advice of the Department of Agriculture, the Marketing Act was introduced and passed here, but only partial control was provided for in that Act. I said at the time that as a result it was again going to be a failure. It has been a failure and the law has had to be amended, but instead of improving matters, after introducing control boards and after controlling everything, they have had one failure after the other. Hon. members will recollect that last year I told the previous Minister of Agriculture that we had given the Department of Agriculture so many chances but that in spite of everything they went from one failure to another, and I added : At the end of the year you will find that the Department of Agriculture has got the country into further trouble. Whether we had over-production or under-production the Department of Agriculture has never yet succeeded in effectively carrying out its functions. The Department is a colossal failure. It follows a policy of this kind : If there are so many tons of grapes in South Africa—I take fruit as an example—the Department of Agriculture does hot go into the question whether those quantities can be consumed, but a globular amount of money is fixed for those products and that globular sum of money has to come out of the pockets of the consumers, irrespective of whether the consumers get 30 or 40 per cent. of those products. The Agricultural Department does not worry its head about that. As long as it gets that much money for the products it is satisfied. Whether the rest of the products have to be destroyed, whether they rot on the trees or have to be ploughed into the ground—that does not worry the Department of Agriculture and the Control Boards. The fact of the matter is that the Department, through the Control Boards, lays it down that so much money has to come in for oranges, and if half of those oranges are consumed and the other half not, that does not worry them, so long as the consumers are mulcted for the globular amount. That is all they want. My friends on this side of the House, and some of my friends opposite, call that a success. What is the result of that policy? We have an over-production of certain articles in this country. I am talking about oranges and other things too. Half of those oranges are ploughed back into the land, and are never made available for consumption by the public. And that sort of thing goes on while the great mass of people in South Africa simply cannot get hold of an orange. But the Department of Agriculture, and the Control Boards, get this globular sum of money and they smile. They grin when they are taken to task.

That’s not true.

Yes, that’s true. They grin when they are taken to task. During this session that question was often raised, and the previous Minister of Agriculture was in such a difficult position that he simply could not get up to explain what was going on, but the papers published an artificial argument to give the impression that members of this House were liars. We have brought up these complaints here and we have shown that products are rotting on the trees, while thousands and thousands of people in this country are badly in need of those products—but the control boards are perfectly happy because they have succeeded in getting a globular amount out of the pockets of the consumers. That is how they succeed in getting these unheard-of prices for the producers, although hundreds of tons of grapes and oranges never reach the consumers and oranges are being ploughed into the land. I am not speaking of things I have been told of, I am speaking of things I have seen with my own eyes. I myself have seen oranges ploughed into the land, and then we are told in this House that ’these things do not happen. Oranges rot on the trees and are ploughed into the land, and when we want to buy a decent orange we have to pay something like 6d. each. Yes, one has to pay 6d. per orange. In other words, each orange that is sold has to make up for 10 or 12 oranges which are ploughed back into the land.

Nonsense.

Do hon. members deny it?

Yes.

If hon. members want to deny that one sometimes has to pay 6d. for an orange they are strangers in this country and do not know what’s going on. Take grapes. Has the price of grapes ever in the history of this country been as high as it is today? Yes, now hon. members keep quiet. This artificial attempt to protect the control boards in the interests of a certain section which is only out to get a globular amount of money in and which does not care what the public gets, is pernicious. They are satisfied so long as the people who buy some of these goods pay enough to enable them to get their globular sum—and then they say to the producer: “You can be happy because you are getting your money. Why should you worry about producing so much?” That justifies me in saying that the Department of Agriculture is a colossal failure. It is killing the consumer. The one consumer they get hold of is made to pay for all the other food which is ploughed back into the land and which is allowed to rot on the trees. Yes, now hon. members keep quiet. It is one section only which benefits from this whole system. They are quite satisfied because they get their money. We have raised. this question dozens of times, but conditions do not change. Hon. members in this House who defend the control boards have never yet been able to answer this criticism. Recently, again, there was a report in the Press about large quantities of stuff which were rotting. Let me say this, that hon. members here in many instances represent both consumers and producers, and they should see the point of view of both, but they fail to do so. They are perfectly satisfied if the control boards say : “Producers, don’t worry, don’t tire yourself, we shall see to it that you get your globular amount. Mulct every consumer you can get hold of and leave the rest to us—we shall artificially manage to keep up prices.” Are we not entitled to protest as consumers, who have to pay all these high prices for our products? Have we not the right to protest against a small crowd of people having to pay high prices for these few articles while the rest of the products are rotting? It is clear that there is a strong section in the United Party, and a strong group in the Nationalist Party, who want to defend and protect the control boards. They are quite satisfied, but there are many members in this House who represent the consumers, and the time has come to put an end to this state of affairs. Every day we see people forced to pay tremendously high prices for products. It is a disgraceful condition. [Time limit.]

Let me reply at once to some of the members who have taken part in the debate. May I commence with an expression of appreciation for the spirit shown by hon. members who have spoken, more particularly in view of my position as a new Minister. Perhaps with the exception of the hon. member who has just spoken, I can say that I very much appreciate the spirit shown. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) though he said that he did not want to criticise me personally, yet launched a very strong attack against the policy of my department.

How good and joyful a thing it is, brethren, to dwell together in unity.

We will deal with that brother. The hon. member made an attack on the department, the policy of the department and therefore an attack on my hon. predecessor : I think it is regrettable that such an attack should have been made in the circumstances.

On a point of explanation, I also told the Minister’s predecessor that I did not blame him personally but that he was saddled with a hopeless department.

The hon. member does not attack the Minister but the officials. Well, then it is not so bad, but it is somewhat difficult to deal with his attack at this stage, because obviously I am not sufficiently au fait with all the matters raised to fully defend the actions of the officials, and of course they cannot defend themselves on the floor of the House.

But they have apparently free access to the Press to say what they like.

I do not want to curb the hon. member’s criticism, but I think I must leave it at that for the moment. Several hon. members have insisted that I should state what my policy is going to be as Minister of Agriculture, but at the same time I think these hon. members realise themselves that after having taken over the portfolio only recently, I cannot lay down a policy. Moreover, if I were to determine the policy now, it might be taken as proof of frivilousness in view of the fact that we are dealing with such an important industry as agriculture. I do not think anybody could acquaint himself in a few weeks’ time, in the circumstances, in the middle of a Session of Parliament, with matters so as to be able to lay down a far reaching and circumscribed policy in respect of the farming industry. I do not think any serious-minded hon. member will expect that from me, and I do not think hon. members who have taken part in the debate actually expect me to do so. They cannot expect me to compromise myself at present. Reference was made to the control system, and whilst I cannot lay down the policy for the future, I intend to go into the control system carefully and to make a thorough study of the system. But as far as the present and the near future are concerned, I can give hon. members the assurance that the policy has been laid down in the Marketing Act and the system which has grown up around that Act. As far as I am concerned, I am not going to interfere with that system for the time being. That assurance at least I can give at this stage.

What about the ploughing under of products?

The hon. member talks about the destruction of products. He knows me well enough to realise that I will go carefully into these matters and only after a thorough study and consideration will any change be brought about, should a change be necessary, but for the present my attitude is that the policy has been laid down in the Marketing Act and the Government and I stand by that. Hon. members will also have noticed that this matter of extending the control system was dealt with in the report of the Reconstruction Committee of my department.

It doesn’t refer to markets.

I am referring to control boards. That matter is dealt with in the report and undoubtedly it will be considered by the Reconstruction Committee of the Cabinet and by the Government at the proper time. Another matter which was raised, was the question of bonemeal. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) raised various objections in connection with the distribution of bonemeal. He stated that the permit system did not work satisfactorily and he also complained that we were only allowing 2 oz. per month per animal, which in his opinion is not sufficient. Obviously our difficulty since the outbreak of the war has been that there is a shortage of bonemeal, and it is difficult to import bonemeal. Therefore the only solution was the introduction of a system of rationing, and under that system the “gallamsiekte” areas get preference. All we can do is to allocate small quantities to farmers in order to enable them to protect their animals as far as possible against the disease. As far as the internal position is concerned, we are endeavouring as far as possible to obtain the maximum quantity of bonemeal. In reply to a question, I gave particulars as to what we are doing. But I repeat that the Department is making use of agricultural clubs, the provincial administrations, local boards, hospitals, the Chamber of Mines, to encourage the collection of bones. The military camps and the mine compounds are also organised and bones are collected there to be sent to the factories to be turned into bonemeal. Swaziland is also supplying us, and bones have been imported from Madagascar. In addition we have raised the price of bones from 5s. to 7s. per 100 lbs. in order to encourage people to collect bones. By those means the local production has been increased from 15,000 tons before the war to 20,000 tons today. Hon. members will see that we regard this shortage of bonemeal as a serious matter and we are taking all possible steps to lay our hands on the maximum quantity of bones. Obviously we have to distribute the available quantity of bonemeal in the best possible way, and my Department held that a system of rationing would be the best. I am not sure that the system of coupons, as suggested by the hon. member for Kuruman, would be an improvement on that, but I can give him the assurance that immediately after the termination of the Session, I intend to go into the whole system. If an improvement is feasible, it will be brought about. Then the hon. member for Kuruman also referred to the meat scheme and asked that the meat scheme should be of a permanent character that it should not be a scheme only for the present. Up to a point that is a reasonable claim which can be made on behalf of the farming community, that if it is found necessary under existing emergency conditions to introduce control, it should be made permanent after the war. I can inform the House that steps have been taken for the Meat Control Board to draw up a scheme. They are engaged in drawing up a scheme under the Marketing Act, and when they have completed their task, it will come before me and we can go into the whole matter. Of course, we will gain experience under the scheme which will be introduced within the next few weeks. As a result of that experience probably we will be in a position to effect improvements when framing a permanent post-war scheme.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

Before business was suspended, I was dealing with the marketing of meat. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) referred to the payment of meat graders. The position is that generally speaking the meat graders have to be trained by us. They are trained at Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, but mainly at Johannesburg. Though the training takes nine months, in many instances it is possible to employ these people as graders after a shorter period. I intend to go into the payment of graders. Of course I cannot make any promise in that respect. Whilst on the subject of meat, I want to inform the House what information we obtained from the Department of Census, after their census of livestock. Hon. members may be aware that a special livestock census was commenced in November, 1943. It has now been completed and I have a few figures here which may be of interest to hon. members. The figures are as follows: I give the figures in respect of 1939 and 1943. As far as stock is concerned of Europeans and natives, the figures are—

Hon. members will notice that there has been a fair increase.

Therefore in the case of sheep there has been a slight decrease.

Therefore a small increase.

As far as natives are concerned no census of pigs was taken in 1939, but in 1943 the number was 545,000.

Are you going to do away with the meatless day now?

I am coming to that. Hon. members will observe that as far as cattle is concerned, there has been an increase of 10.9 per cent.; as far as goats are concerned 1.4 per cent.; and in the case of pigs 38.2 per cent., whilst in the case of sheep there was a slight decrease of 8 per cent. The hon. member asked whether we were going to abolish the meatless day. Though the figures are encouraging and are certainly better than many of us expected, I feel that I cannot yet abolish the meatless day. I do not think the hon. member can complain too much, because pig products may be consumed on meatless days, and he will have noticed that the biggest increase was in respect of pigs. Moreover, we do not yet know how much of the stock consists of breeding stock. Those figures will be made available at a later stage. Of course, we do not want to slaughter breeding stock. Another difficulty we experience is that the available cattle is not yet put on the market and as long as there is a shortage, I think it would be rash to decide to abolish the meatless day. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché), whom I want to congratulate on the tone of his speech, dealt with a number of important subjects. He referred to the improvement of our stock. Of course, that matter was arranged before my time but I understand the position was that any kind of bull could be bought under the subsidy scheme. The department has not taken away the choice of the farmer, though it gives advice.

Can we expect an alteration in that respect?

The Reconstruction Committee in its report deals with the determining of zones which are suitable for certain types of farming, and of course then the department would have to give advice. That will be our policy as far as I can see. Then the hon. member discussed protection against foreign competition. That is a very wide question in connection with which I cannot give any undertaking at present, beyond saying that it will be carefully studied. It seems to me that a certain measure of protection will be essential after the war, but I would not like to commit myself at this stage. Then he referred to the question of central marketing, that is to say, that marketing should fall under a central government and be taken away from the bodies at present responsible. That is another big question, and if we were to grant that request of the hon. member, it would necessitate an alteration in the Act of Union. I do not say that that should be an obstacle, but the matter requires careful consideration before we take any steps. If it is in the interests of the farming industry and in the interests of the country generally such a step will be taken. It will be carefully gone into before we arrive at a decision. The hon. member for Ermelo discussed the restrictions placed upon veterinary officers in respect of their travelling facilities. The difficulty is that the Treasury has repeatedly issued instructions to curtail motor transport. As hon. members are aware motor vehicles and petrol and tyres are scarce and that should be borne in mind. But after the Session I will go into the matter and will consider what can be done, in consultation with the Treasury. Then there is another point raised by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) in regard to anti-“gallansiekte” serum. I can tell him that this serum is made on a small scale at present. It has been tested and it is not necessary for me, except as a matter of interest, to read the article in the journal referred to by the hon. member. My department has tested the serum and it is being manufactured on a small scale. We feel that it can be manufactured on a big scale. There are technical difficulties which are always experienced in connection with such a matter, but these technical dfficulties can be overcome and solved. The difficulty at present is the shortage of bottles and certain ingredients which are essential and which have to be imported. But as soon as sufficient bottles and quantities of this ingredient are available and the building at Onderstepoort is com pleted, it should not be difficult to manufacture the serum on a large scale and to assist the farmer in that respect. I think these are the points raised by hon. members. As far as the qualifications of a Minister of Agriculture are concerned, as intimated by the hon. member for Kuruman, I may say that I mainly agree with him. He says that a Minister of Agriculture should look after the interests of the farmers and nobody else. I am prepared to accept that, but I would rather put it as it was put by the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) viz. That we should not place the interests of the farmer in a separate watertight compartment, and that the farmers’ interests and the interests of the consumers need not necessarily clash. I think we should view the position from this point of view that if the farmer receives a reasonable price for his product and if the consumer pays a reasonable price for that product, and if there is not too large a margin of profit between those two, we are doing the best we can do in the interests of the country.

Why should there be profit between the two?

There may be people in between rendering services.

Then it is payment for services and not profit.

If we eliminate the middleman entirely and if he is not required then we can contemplate how to divide the advantage between the producers on the one hand and the consumers on the other hand. But we must make the consumer understand that the farmer only requires a fair profit on his product, as the hon. member for Smithfield put it. With that proviso, I accept his first proposition, and also the second one that we should be active when action is required. Wherever necessary, I intend to do that. Coming to the third point, I want to say that it is a very imporant point, viz. That we should keep the farming industry outside the political arena. There I agree with him, and I will endeavour to do that.

Is there anything in the contention that you have prevented co-operation between the farmers on both sides of the House?

Presumably the hon. appeared in this morning’s “Burger.” member refers to a statement which

They are usually correct, are they not?

No that it not correct. No request was put to me by the farming group of my party. If the secretary or the chairman of the farming group of the United Party is present, they can inform the House that so far no decision has been taken to co-operate with hon. members on the other side. I do not want to deal with that matter now. I leave it at that. I am referring to the farming industry which I would like to keep out of the political arena. As far as that is concerned, I am at one with the hon. member and I hope hon. members on the other side and on this side of the House will be in agreement on that point.

I want briefly to put a few points to the Minister. The first point has already been referred to by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) and that is the shortage of veterinary officers. Why should there be a shortage of veterinary officers? Why is it that in Middelburg where we had a veterinary officer some ten years ago, we have in vain tried to get a veterinary surgeon ever since that time? We did not succeed because there is actually a shortage, and the department tells us that that is the position.

Some of them are on active service.

If we require a veterinary officer at Middelburg, we have to get him from Pretoria, a distance of 100 miles. The sole reason is not that some of them are on active service. The reason is that the post is not made attractive enough. These people have to go through a difficult course of training, which practically is on a par with a medical course, and after completing that course, they receive a salary of £500 rising to £600 per annum, and the salary is not increased rapidly. The man finds that he has to devote a lot of time to his studies, and after the completion of his studies, he finds that he can go in for farming himself, and that he can make use of his knowledge to earn much more than the salary offered. The result is that whilst the medical school is overcrowded because of the large number of applicants, on the other hand we find that few students are anxious to become veterinary officers. The reason is that the position is not made attractive enough and I would like to ask the Minister to make the positions more attractive. After a man has qualified as a veterinary sturgeon, his commencing salary should be £1,000. Then such a man will remain in the profession and use his knowledge in the interests of the country.

I am prepared to go into that matter.

The second point is in connection with stock inspectors. They are people in a temporary position. They are in receipt of a salary of approximately £25 per month and they are not supplied with a motor car. They have to buy and use their own motor car and then they receive an allowance of some £5 or £6 per month for inspection work. If the car is worn out, they have to replace it themselves. They are efficient men. Some of them have been in the service for 20 or 25 years and yet their salary amounts to only £25 a month or thereabouts. When the day comes that they can no longer do their work, they do not receive a pension. If the Minister were to place these people on a permanent basis as civil servants, so that they can look forward to a pension and can participate in a pension fund, he will render them a great service. The third point I want to touch upon is stock diseases caused by ticks. Compulsory dipping has been done away with in our district. There are certain parts of the country where compulsory dipping is still in force. But in Middelburg the position is that when cattle come from the lowveld, the animals are covered with ticks and they are the carriers of “gallamsiekte” and “rooiwater.” They come to the highveld without having been dipped, with the result that we get “gallamsiekte” and “rooiwater” on the highveld where it was unknown before. The whole of the highveld is being contaminated. Compulsory dipping must be reintroduced in those parts where tick-borne diseases are prevalent. It is mainly due to the policy of the Veterinary Division that we have no compulsory dipping. They informed the farmers some while back that they should farm with animals which have a natural power of resistance to tick-borne diseases, because if they grow up with ticks, they develop a natural power of resistance against the disease. The result was that many farmers adopt the attitude that dipping is no longer required, provided they go in for the right class of animal, such as the Afrikaner which grows up with ticks. Therefore they do not dip any more. The result is that farmers who are farming with Imported cattle, which are not hardened, have to suffer. The Afrikaner is a hardened animal. He has a hide which can resist the heat. He can travel long distances and work hard and can do with less food than the imported animal. The imported cattle suffer as a result of the policy of the department. The farmer who has imported breeds and who farms near a farmer who has Afrikaners, has his veld contaminated with tick, and unless he dips continually he suffers stock losses. Another point is that I think the Minister told us that the subsidy in respect of bulls is still granted. It had a very beneficial effect on the improvement of cattle in South Africa. Cattle improvement areas were proclaimed and the subsidy is granted for a period of seven years. The farmers avail themselves of that opportunity, The maximum price on which the subsidy was payable, was £25 and there was a subsidy of 50 per cent., so that the farmer received £12 10s. I would like the Minister to grant the subsidy for an unlimited period. It should not be limited to seven years.

I wish to avail myself of the privilege of speaking for half an hour. I am going to speak in English so that some of my commercial friends can understand what I am saying.

That’s the only way you could make yourself understood.

There are so many of these gentlemen who do not understand what we say when we speak in our own language that I am going to try and make them realise our position by putting my case as clearly as I can in their home language. As I stand here I am a man who supported the agricultural unions right from their inception, and I am glad to see the good spirit there is in this House today. I wish to compliment the Minister on his statement today, and I want to say that if he carries on in the spirit which he displayed here this morning I am sure he will have the support of every farmer. We look to him as the Minister of Agriculture and not as the Minister of Commerce, he spoke as the Minister of Agriculture and we shall support him if he continues to follow the lines on which he spoke this afternoon. Agriculture has always tried to keep out of party politics.

Tell us another one.

Yes, I can hear the disgruntled people on the other side, but let me tell them that that has always been the attitude of agriculture. I hope that we shall continue in the spirit of keeping agricultural matters out of politics, and I hope that from now on no farmer will try to ridicule another farmer, and I hope we shall all stand together as one.

Yes, but what about the consumer?

If hon. members ask me what are the causes of our taking up this attitude I shall tell them that it is the middleman, the fleecers of the farmers, who have brought us to this position. Recently there was a congress of the middlemen here. I have a paper here ….

What paper have you got?

Well, it’s not “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly.” It is the “The Farmer” from Natal. And these are the charges which these middlemen make against the farmers. Here are some of the headlines: “Middlemen Gunning for Marketing Act.” Well, the agitation of the middlemen who met here in congress was a very timely one because it gave us enough time to muster our side of the House—it gave us time to muster the farmers outside the House on economic lines—and if in future we come together on economic lines I am sure that many of our difficulties will disappear. Well, I now challenge this wonderful group of gentlemen, these middlemen who call us the fleecers and who want to take away the Marketing Act. Let me read to the House what they say—

Is that the “War Cry” you are quoting from?

The farmers are standing by the Marketing Act and so is the Minister and there has been no swindle on the part of the farmers. What we want to deal with is the swindle which has been perpetrated by the people in between the producers on the one hand and the consumers on the other. We are not out to exploit the consumer, but the farmer has the right to live in this country. If we in this country can work out a scheme of production costs—if we can keep our production costs sufficiently low, we are also entitled to have a profit on top of these production costs.

I think many of you are making a very good profit.

I want to say this, if you ever want to achieve such a thing as social security you must see to it in this country that you have a sound community of farmers, farmers who will produce at an economic rate, plus the profits which we are entitled to.

It all depends on the profits.

I say that if the commercial people are entitled to profits then surely the farmer is also entitled to profits. The Marketing Act is the Magna Charta of the farmers, and whichever Government is in power, if it interferes with that Magna Charta, it will not remain in power for a long time. Now I challenge my commercial friends to go on with their agitation. We don’t want to have a division between town and country but let me tell the middleman this—if they want to carry on with their agitation, if they want to organise against the farmer and against the consumer, the farmers can also stand together, and we shall be forced to do so. Now, here I have another article in this paper, “The Farmer”. It is headed “The Voice of Commerce.” This also deals with that Congress to which I have been referring. Mr. Barnes, of Cape Town, said—

Now the farmers also say that never before have we stood together as we are standing together now. If these gentlemen want to make an issue of it, well it is their baby and not ours. They will find that the farmer is going to be united as never before.

Are you going to join the United Party?

What have you done about it?

We very often find that the hon. gentleman on the front benches over there (Mr. Barlow) shows his ignorance of conditions generally in this country. Let me tell hon. members that that gentleman has to be watched because you never know what his next step will be.

Hear, hear.

What about Cradock?

Whether I get in for Cradock or not does not matter but I stand here for agriculture and when I stand for agriculture my seat is as safe as any other seat in the House. Now there are a few other questions which I want to discuss but I don’t want to discuss them on a political but on an economic basis.

That will be a nice change for you.

The Minister who occupied the position before the present Minister was asked certain questions and I want to know from the present Minister whether he sticks to the same ideas as his predecessor.

They were very good ideas.

I want to know what about the position of wool. We have asked the Government more than once to give us some information as to what they are doing with the Imperial Government, whether they are negotiating for a further term of agreement with the British Government, yes or no.

I thought you did not like the wool agreement.

If not, we would like to know whether the Union Government will be prepared to take over our clip for a certain period after the war.

That’s a new story now.

Wool is one of our biggest industries, it is second only to gold. It is an industry in which a capital of £160,000,000 has been invested. About 50,000 people make their living out of wool and if the Government has not got any scheme for after the war it means that chaos will result, and that there will be poverty and depression among the farmers. The Government has adopted this scheme as part of their war policy. Well, seeing that they have adopted that scheme I want to know what they are going to do after the war, I want to know whether they will see to it that we get decent prices for our wool.

What do you suggest?

Sell to Germany.

We have said before that we are not in the same position as Australia is. The hon. member over there speaks about Germany—he has Germany where his brain ought to be. I am dealing with something of vital interest to the farmers whereas the hon. member over there sticks up for the middleman—the middleman who wants the farmer to supply cheap food so that he can sell it to the consumer at a profit. There is no doubt that Australia went into a contract with Great Britain on a basis which would safeguard them to a very much greater extent than our contract safeguards us. In their contract it is laid down that they are not held responsible for any loss, but in our contract it is laid down that if there are any losses on our side we are held responsible. Now, I want to ask this:

In the beginning you wanted no contract at all, you wanted to take your chance.

It is the lifeblood of the farmers of South Africa, and I am asking these questions on behalf of the National Woolgrowers who have asked the Minister to go into these matters. This is not a political question, and if hon. members over there want to shout, let them shout against the organised farmers of South Africa of whom I am one. This request is absolutely reasonable. Then I would like the Minister to tell us what his idea is about the meat scheme in future. Is the idea that this meat scheme should only be of a temporary nature and that it should only be carried on under war regulations. Let me tell the Minister why I ask this. If he cannot give us an assurance that it will be permanent, then it is impossible to support a scheme which will take away our profits.

I said we were getting the Meat Board to put up a scheme under the Marketing Board.

Now, will the Minister give that body statutory powers?

Do you want jam on it?

If it has no statutory power, if it is only advisory, it will have no powers at all. If the Minister will go into this and see to it that statutory powers are given to the Board, and that the Board can work under the regulations, it will enable the farmers to carry on and to know where they stand. Now there is another point I want the Minister to go into and that is this question of credits for farmers. I took it up with the Minister of Finance, and I see in the report of the Agricultural Department that they also deal with it. We farmers want to be taken out of the political area as far as we can, but there are certain things which we must have, and the first is the stabilisation of prices of products which you can get through control boards and other measures to safeguard the farmers.

But what about safeguarding the consumers?

Once you have that you will be able to work out what the price of ground is—what the correct price is. Otherwise you cannot make any sound valuation; and then we want a credit system of which the farmer himself will be part and parcel. We don’t want the Government to put up all the money.

Oh, no.

We know that the Government, with the assistance of the farmers, can establish short and long term credits. That is dealt with in the report of the Department, and we agree with that. As a matter of fact we agree with the Agricultural Department’s report as a whole. Of course, there may be a few points with which we disagree, but on the whole we support it. There is another report with which we also agree, and that is the report of the Executive of the Agricultural Unions. I, as an old member of the Union, know the lines on which the Agricultural Union has been working, and I know that the report of the Agricultural Union agrees very closely with the position put forward by the Agricultural Department. On these lines we can all agree, and build up a sound agricultural policy ….

And what about the consumer?

Then I come to a few other points which are not in the same category as those which the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) spoke about. He gave his ideas which co-ordinated very closely with the ideas of the Department, and also with the ideas of the Agricultural Union, but we want to ask the Minister to give us some idea of the policy on which he is going to work. We cannot expect that today, but never before in the history of South Africa have our ideas co-ordinated as they do today —the Agricultural Union and your political bodies in this House, largely agree on a number of most important points. Now let me tell the Minister that we want to protect him but he must give us a chance to protect him. Whenever we bring forward a scheme and discuss prices we ask him for heaven’s sake, for his own sake, and for the farmers’ sake, not to divide these various sections, but let them all work together. If they come with a joint deputation, let the Minister realise that the fact of their coming in that way will tend to safeguard him and the farmers, but I want to ask him also to give more powers to his advisory boards. Take your agricultural advisory boards. They sit now and again. They come here and in a day’s time they have to see the Minister and discuss matters with him. What can they do in a day? What you want is a Board working with the Agricultural Department—both practically and theoreti cally. That will safeguard the farmer, the Minister and the Department. That is something which we feel should happen. We feel that that board should even, if necessary, get some payment, because there are men on it who are in business. If you keep them here for about a month in the year to discuss practical matters with your Department, I am sure you will then be able to place a certain amount of responsibility on your farming departments, and the remaining part you will yourself be able to take over as Minister. It offers a solution of all our troubles. I hope the Minister will go into that matter and see whether it is possible. In the past the agricultural bodies of this country have been agricultural bodies only in name. They have passed resolutions regularly, they have sat for two or three days, but they have never really had a chance to work out schemes; it has all just been a rush matter, and most of the recommendations they have forwarded to the Department of Agriculture have merely been thrown into the waste paper basket. Where these agricultural bodies are out to support the Minister, where they can be of assistance to him, I ask him to give them a chance to show their mettle; give them a certain amount of responsibility in order to enable them to show their ability and to share their knowledge and ability with the Department. I hope that in this way without making any revolutionary change the Minister will find when he has gone into the matter, that it will be possible to improve the whole position. Then there is another point. We were talking about bonemeal. I ask you, seeing that the price of bones is 7s. a bag and the margin of profit is rather small, whether the Minister should not see if he can go into the matter. I am referring now to the costs of production; I am not talking about the distribution costs. The representatives of certain bonemeal factories have come to me and shown me figures from which it has been clear that they are working on a very small margin; and new South African factories have not got the pluck to tackle this question of bonemeal alone I would like the Minister to go into the matter from the manufacturers’ point of view with a view to ascertaining whether they cannot be given a little more scope. Then I wish to pass to another matter —lucerne. In the report of the Agricultural Department the following is stated—

I quite agree with that. I believe that lucerne has gone up about 100 per cent. on pre-war figures. I think that the lucerne farmers should be more or less satisfied with that; but another point I wish to stress is this.

The Government is giving a certain amount of subsidy in connection with the purchase of lucerne seed, though the price asked for that lucerne seed today is exorbitant. The price of lucerne seed runs into £8 and £10 a bag compared with the pre-war price of £3 and £4. I would suggest that it would be advisable for the Government to pay the subsidy to the grower of that seed, and thus make it cheaper for the buyer of that seed I think that step would help tremendously; you could then bring it down to £6 or £7 a bag; that would be the cost plus the subsidy to the man who grows that seed. The adoption of that course would lead to the extension of this remarkable fertilising crop, lucerne. There is no better fertiliser in the world. I welcome the procedure the Government has introduced to extend the growing of lucerne in those areas where it can be grown. They have done it on dry land. I hope that they will also encourage the growing of lucerne on lands held under irrigation schemes, because the crop will furnish the soil with a fertilising quality that it needs. I want to refer back to certain remarks which were made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). I must say that I consider it the most childish speech I have ever heard in this House.

Order, order!

I don’t know exactly what word to employ in describing that speech by the hon. member for Krugersdorp.

Puerile.

I do not know whether it is futile or puerile, but anyway he gave expression to a lot of wild statements. The statements were so wild that we really did not know what he meant. It was all just a wild scramble of words. One would really have thought that the hon. member belonged to the middlemen, the people who are sending up the price of food. If his views represent what the Labour Party are after, taking away the bread and butter from the poorer class of farmer, then I say God help South Africa from the Labour Party. But I think the hon. member has made a mistake; I think he has been wandering; because I have heard some speeches made by representatives of Labour and they have been moderate in their tone, indeed the farmer could welcome some of them. But when you hear this kind of wild talk such as we have had from the hon. member for Krugersdorp, the best advice I think we can give him is to join the Chamber of Commerce and to leave the Labour Party. He really belongs to the capitalist section of the country, and certainly not to the Socialist Party. We have sympathy for the poor man, and we know that many representatives of the Labour Party also have that sympathy. Unfortunately this hon. member often rises in his place, kicks up a dreadful noise, and when he has finished we do not know what he really has been driving at. I feel that the more he speaks on these subjects the more thoroughly he should study them. At great length he told us about a bunch of grapes. It seems that his whole agricultural knowledge is based on this bunch of grapes. Other people have made a study of grapes. I am not claiming that there are no weaknesses in our distributive system, but that is not because the control boards are wrong in principle; it is because the distribution system is wrong. On our side we say and the farmers say: we are prepared to pay for distributing services, but we are not prepared to be exploited by the middleman. That is the difference between us. If a man can do his work honestly as a middleman in the distribution of goods he is entitled to a certain percentage of profit, and we farmers welcome him, but when the middleman comes along and wants to buy the farmer’s produce at a very low price and then sell this produce to the consumer at a very high price, we say that his activities must be curtailed. That is our attitude. We are the friends of the consumer. The farmer is not as I said before, out to exploit. We are out to make a decent living; that is all we want. We are prepared to pay the distributor fairly for his services; but when he comes along and doubles and trebles the price that he has given the farmer before the produce reaches the consumer, then I say he is a parasite. I maintain that our distribution system must be extended. I agree with the statements that have been made that quantities of grapes and of peaches have been rotting on the farms. That is because the system is wrong. We should adopt a new system, a better system of distribution. The necessary improvement can be effected under the system of control boards, and it will be done under the control boards. I will tell you, Sir, why it is not done; it is because we have too many middlemen on these control boards. [Interruptions.] If we have a control board consisting of producers on the one side and consumers on the other and paying the middleman reasonably for his services, you will have an ideal system. That system, Mr. Chairman, has been tried in other parts of the world.

Where?

I knew that the hon. member did not know anything.

Where has it been tried out?

In Australia you have these producers’ boards and consumers’ boards. But there are no middlemen on those boards because you cannot trust them anywhere.

Where are these boards?

I have already stated they are in Australia. “Where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly to be wise.”

You have the boards in Russia.

My hon. friend can go to Russia, but I will not. I want to tell you this, however, that it is no good trying to suppress the farmer. The farmer has to come into his own. The commercial community is annoyed because the farmers have got together, and are claiming a decent living the same way as everybody else. They see that the farmer is gradually demanding his pound of flesh, as they have always had their pound of flesh in the commercial community in South Africa. That is why you hear all this shouting, because it is a development that has touched their pockets and is tapping their ill-gotten riches. They will not be able to revert to the old order of things. The farmer wants fairplay in this country; that is why you hear these protests. The farmer is going to organise, he is going to have his control boards, and he is going to have his cold storage the same way as is done in other countries. The farmer is entitled in this country to live like a white man, as in other parts of the world, and whatever the criticism that is directed at us, we today as farmers will see to it that we are not going to slang each other in this House, but we are going to work together.

Mr. Chairman, I want to offer a few remarks of a constructive nature. I think, Sir, that we all want to do something to assist in improving matters in this country, and we all admit that there are many directions in which matters can be improved. With regard to the marketing of agricultural products, I do not wish to start casting aspersions on anybody. I feel that if we all pull together and genuinely co-operate we can build up something better than we have had before. I should like to suggest to the Minister that in connection with this question of fixing prices under the various control boards more use should be made of machinery which I feel sure, is not very well-known to many members of this House. When a control board makes recommendations to the Minister with regard to the fixation of prices they have an expert body to furnish them with the requisite information, namely, the National Marketing Council, the members of which are men of knowledge and experience and include some eminent economists. We have further bodies that are of assistance. We have had many people advocating that the consumers should have more representation. We have now, as part of the Marketing Act, a consumer’s advisory board and a producer’s advisory board. These two bodies are supposed to assist the Minister and the Marketing Council in the fixing of these prices. I would suggest that the Minister could make more use of these bodies. They are thoroughly representative bodies. Many people want to claim that they are representing consumers and want to speak as consumers. We are all consumers in one way or another. But these are two bodies representing respectively the views of the consumers and of the producers, who are accepted by the Government. I think that the Minister would receive sound advice if he called these bodies together to assist him in the work of price fixation. There is one danger in connection with the question of price fixation. I think that hon. members are all rather inclined to be stampeded and to try and play up to their constituents by endeavouring to get the best possible price on behalf of the producers, or alternatively, the lowest possible price on the consumers’ side. I think that if we look at this question as a broader issue we shall realise that it is not in the national interest to force prices unnecessarily low or to force them unnecessarily high. One way or the other there is a reaction, and instead of getting a plentiful supply of produce at a fair price, there is either a feast or a famine. I think the constant endeavour should be to fix the prices of produce in fair relation to each other. That would be very much better than having these extremes. We know that one of the dangers we have to face is the danger of inflation. The prices of all products are driving prices up all round. I have had experience in this connection after the last war, when many liabilities that were incurred at a period when high prices ruled had to be paid for later when prices had dropped considerably, and the farmer was beaten by the high prices at which he had bought. High prices are not necessarily good for anybody. One subject I would like to touch upon is the provision of education for young men who are going to take up agriculture as a career. There is a very real demand for university education, not only on behalf of farmers, but it is absolutely necessary to have a science degree in agriculture for entrance to the Agricultural Department. In South Africa that degree can only be obtained at Pretoria University or Stellenbosch University, and I feel, Sir, that these universities even if they are full and catering for as many people as possible, cannot serve fully the total needs of South Africa. There is a very considerable number of farmers in Natal and the Eastern Province where farming is on a different basis and where the methods employed are somewhat different to those practised at the two university centres, and I should like to make a strong plea on their behalf for the establishment of a Faculty of Agriculture in Natal. There is a real need for that. This question has been taken up over a very long period by representative bodies in Natal, and I know that if such facilities could be provided they would be of tremendous assistance to South Africa. We have a number of young men who will be coming back from military service—very soon we hope—and I do appeal to the Minister to take up this question in order to try to provide facilities for these men, who have missed an opportunity, the best opportunity of their lives, so that they may be able to take up this university education. I hope that a lot will be done in the way of bursaries and grants for these purposes. Then with regard to the improvement of marketing in South Africa, I should like to say that a great deal of marketing is going to be done on a grade basis· Our products are being graded, and townspeople believe that they should be afforded the protection of a grade in the purchase of eggs, meat, cheese and other produce. They want to know that if they are paying first grade prices they will get the first grade article. A point to be borne in mind is this, that men cannot be trained as graders at a moment’s notice. When trained they should be well paid, because the temptations placed in the way of these men are very great indeed. We have many unscrupulous people in South Africa who are out to try to beat the grade in all sorts of ways, and if a man is not adequately paid he is easily tempted. I think these men should be placed in a position where they are independent, and they should be well trained, and I think if we work along these lines we shall secure much greater satisfaction both for the producer and the consumer of our produce. We have often been told that it is the farmer’s business to produce, and that he should leave to someone else the marketing of his produce, but following that course has not greatly helped the farmer in the past, and the farmer is becoming increasingly interested in the distribution and marketing of his produce. That need not necessarily be a bad thing for anybody, except possibly the unnecessary interests—if there are unnecessary interests—who are taking a slice of the distribution costs. I maintain it is in the national interest to eliminate these unnecessary people. I do not wish to say who they are; but I feel a great deal could be done by efficient marketing, and the farmers are particularly interested in this. The farmers welcome co-operation from anyone. I feel that a lot of the criticism of the mistakes that have been made by the various boards will be very helpful. After all, if we keep quiet about mistakes there will be no chance of our setting matters right; whereas if we draw attention to them in a helpful manner, I think it will be to the benefit of the whole country. I should like to deal now with the meat scheme. This is a question I have had a great deal to do with in the past, and I feel that in the near future we are going to have a scheme in South Africa. I should like to appeal to all sections of the community to give this scheme a fair trial. We have in the country many people who are very apprehensive about what is going to happen. We hear reports of stock sales throughout the country that have been almost panicky, and reports have been spread that it is advisable for people to sell their stock now, that it is better for them to sell it while they have some say in the price. I can assure farmers throughout the country that they have nothing to fear from the new meat scheme. I think they would be very foolish indeed to off-load their stock during the few weeks before the scheme starts, and in so doing help those people who are trying to wreck the scheme by depressing prices at the country stock sales. I know that many of these people are hoping to come in on the depressed prices and to take advantage of the good prices that will be obtainable under the scheme. I was interested to notice from the figures mentioned by the hon. the Minister that there are more cattle in the country today than there were four years ago As a census did not show the proportion of slaughter and other stock it is very difficult to know what the true position is. I can only say that if we have a surplus of cattle in the country I hope that the Government will not continue the restrictions on the sale of slaughter stock that have been imposed up to the present. I do not think that it will be wise to remove these restrictions immediately, but I do feel that later on, when winter is approaching, it would be very foolish indeed to restrict people from slaughtering animals if there is a possibility of a surplus. Those animals should be slaughtered and placed in storage. I hope that the Minister is not going to be afraid of the cold storage companies. If we have cold storage facilities under the emergency regulations, I hope that the Minister will insist on that cold storage being made available at a reasonable price.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) represented to the House that he felt that if the farmers could make a case on an economic basis for their being able to get a decent livelihood out of their farming, no objection could reasonably be raised. That is a proposition with which I entirely agree. I think it should be the function of the Government in these days of planned economy to set out to ensure that the members of any industry should secure a living. But I think the weakness of the proposition of the hon. member for Cradock was shown when he talked about farmers establishing their claims on the basis of costs. That is a claim which, I maintain, has not been established. I think that is the weakness of his argument. Prices have been fixed for farmers in this country over a number of years. Since the war these prices have taken what those of us who have to pay can only regard as a phenomenal rise. And there is little doubt today that on that rise the farming community is better off than it has ever been in this country; indeed the extent to which it is better off is, I think, reflected in the bland attitude of the farming representatives to any criticisms that are directed at them. Now it is clear that on this issue there is a rising danger of conflict between town and country which I think the Government should watch very carefully. I do not believe that conflict is essential; I trust it is not. But I am going to suggest to the Government that it will inevitably develop unless the whole question of price fixation is approached in a more scientific spirit than has been the case in the past; and incidentally I believe that when that takes place, it will be difficult to persuade the rest of the country that the prices that the farmers are today obtaining for their produce are in fact justified. I am quite prepared to support the policy of securing for the farmers a price which will represent an adequate return for their labour and investment, and even of subsidising the difference between that price and what the consumer is able to pay. But that is a policy that can be pursued too far. It is a policy which is dependent on the national income of the country and it must be watched carefully. There is a limit to the distance we can go in raising the prices of the farmers, and that limit is the productive capacity of the country and our ability to go on producing with rising prices to the farmers without unbalancing our economy. We have to balance rising costs by greater efficiency among both employers and workers if we are to be able to achieve and maintain the standards at which we aim in this country. Now I am going to quote a case in which I personally find it difficult to believe that the farmers have established their claims to the prices they are receiving, or that the Government is in a position to justify the prices they have established for the farmers at the present time. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) early in the Session, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry gave the farmers’ prices of maize over a number of years. I am taking maize since it involves the price of the food of the poorest people in the country. During the year 1939-’40 the price of maize per bag was 7s. 2d. For the year 1940-’41 the price was 8s. a bag, with a subsidy.

Not a subsidy, an extra payment.

It was 8s. a bag with an extra payment of 1s. 6d. per bag on the first 500 bags. That was to increase the price to the smaller producer. That was in 1940-’41. In 1941-’42 the fixed price of maize was 8s. 6d. a bag, plus again the extra amount of 1s. 6d. to assist the small producer, or at least it was given on the first 500 bags. For the year 1942-’43 the price jumped from 8s. 6d. a bag plus 1s. 6d. extra payment to 15s. a bag.

Was that the price to the natives?

That was the general price of maize to everybody; it was 15s. a bag. Before the end of the 1942-’43 season the price had been raised to 16s. a bag. Then on the strength of this information I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I asked him what the costs of production were that were taken into consideration by the Maize Control Board in fixing the price of maize to the producer. I was encouraged to do this by the statement of the Secretary for Agriculture in this report which reached us quite recently. That statement is that in the 1942-’43 season the maize crop showed a considerable improvement over the previous year. Yet the Board had given the farmers an extra 1s. to encourage them to send their maize to the market. But the farmers, it appeared, held their maize hoping for a greater increase in price in the following year. That is, the Maize Control Board gave the farmers that extra 1s. in the hope of getting them to bring out their stores of maize at that time to meet the shortage in the country. But it did not achieve any success in this regard. The farmers took the 1s. but did not bring out the extra maize. They kept that maize because they hoped that the next rise would be 2s. or 3s. Now I repeat the Secretary for Agriculture in this report says that the 1942-’43 maize crop showed a considerable improvement on that of the previous year and adds “in pursuance of the policy of compensating the farmer for increased costs, the price was fixed at 16s. a bag.” Now I ask the Department to tell me what the costs were that the Maize Control Board took into consideration in fixing the prices of any crop, including the 1942-’43 crop, and knowing that we are facing a rising producer’s price in 1944, I asked what was the estimated level for 1944. I admit these look like large questions, but they should not have been difficult for the Department to meet. The Maize Control Board has been in operation for quite a number of years. It has had years of experience in fixing prices. If it had fixed its price on the basis of costs and if it had really known its market, it should not have taken the Department of Agriculture so long to produce a reply to these questions. It should have been able to put that reply on paper at once. Actually the Department took from the 21st March to the 31st March to produce the reply, and then it produced what I can only describe as a most extraordinary reply, the reply which the Minister read to me today. I trust the hon. Minister realises that like other speakers in this debate, I am not not blaming him for the policy which has been followed in the past, but we are concerned here with the policy to be followed in the future, which we hope will be more effective than that of his predecessors. The Department tells me here that all direct costs incurred in connection with the crop such as fertilisers, labour, fuel and draught power, threshing cost, bags and twine, seed and transport, depreciation and repairs of implements, machinery and farm buildings, interest on capital and remuneration to the farmer for his own labour and management, are taken into consideration in fixing the price of maize to the producer. Our next question was—

Here is where the Department begins to have a headache, and puts up a reply which I may say quite frankly, in case I do not get an opportunity to say so later on, I consider an absolute scandal and disgrace to a Department which has been fixing the prices of agricultural products for the last 10 years. It says—

[Time limit.]

The subject which I have been wanting to discuss has now finally been introduced by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). She spoke of the cost of production of mealies. I listened this morning to the Minister’s statement in connection with production costs, and I want to congratulate the Minister on the statement he made here this morning in connection with this matter. The people, generally speaking, do not realise what the position is. They speak of the 1939-’40 and the 1940-’41 prices. They do not realise that at that time the farmer worked for a starvation wage, and not only did he work for a starvation wage, but the mealie farmer was engaged and is still engaged today in liquidating his assets. He is engaged in exhausting the fertility of his soil for the sake of the consuming section of the community. I challenge any member in this House to rise and to tell the House that the mealie farmer does not represent that section of the population which has supported the native all these years. The mealie farmer cannot go in this way. He cannot exist if he has to liquidate his assets, if he has to sacrifice the fertility of his soil for a price which does not pay him. What is the mealie farmer faced with in the immediate future? Those hon. members represent the very people who live on the product which is produced by the mealie farmer, and then they come to this House and make a plea such as that made by the hon. member who has just sat down. Do they realise what faces the mealie farmer in the immediate future? A reduction of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. in the yield of his crop. Last year there was a crop of 24,000,000 bags. We know that 10,000,000 bags remain on the farms. Fourteen million bags were therefore marketed, and that gave thé farmers an income of £11,200,000. Then there is another matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. As far as my information goes we are scarcely going to reap 18,000,000 bags this year. My information is that while this hair splitting is going on in the House, the caterpillars are engaged in destroying the younger portion of the crop. Let me take 18,000,000 as a basis of discussion. If we reap 18,000,000 bags, only 8,000,000 bags will be available for marketing. Those 8,000,000 bags which can be marketed at this price, can yield £6,400,000. The farmers are therefore faced in the immediate future with a loss of £4,800,000, or a reduction in their income by that amount. Are we not entitled then as mealie farmers to get up in this House and to ask the Minister of Agriculture what he proposes to do for the mealie farmers? The income of the mealie farmers will fall by £4,800,000. I think the mealie farmers of this country have the right to come to the Minister and to ask this. Do hon. members realise that the mealie farmer is not in the same position as the wool farmer or the meat farmer? The wool farmer has a stable income; his income does not fluctuate. The meat farmer receives a fixed price, but the mealie farmer is subject to the vicissitudes of the elements. The mealie farmers’ income will be reduced by £4,800,000 this year. What is the Government going to do? The mealie farmers have told the Minister that they will not be able to make ends meet on less than £1 per bag. If one calculates the income on the crop of 14,000,000 bags at 16s. per bag, it will be found that it will be necessary to pay 28s. per bag for this crop in order to give the mealie farmers the same income which they had last year. We are not coming here with wild ideas. The farmers are not unreasonable. We are bearing in mind the interests of the consumer. We are not intent on exploiting the consumer. There is great room for improvement in the system of distribution. I have not heard a single member on that side mention the enormous gap which exists between the price which the producer gets and the price which the consumer has to pay. There is great room for improvement. When the Minister considers the case of the mealie farmer, I hope he will not allow himself to be influenced by the questions which are put in this House, by the arguments which are advanced by that side of the House, since they want to make the country believe that in the past we have not based our prices on the costs of production. The costs of production vary from 7s. 10d. to more than 14s. 6d. unless I am mistaken— I am speaking subject to correction. But the very fact that the income of the mealie producer will be reduced this year by more than 25 per cent; justifies a price of £1 per bag. The hon. member for Cape Eastern has referred to the subsidy which has been paid to the farmers. I want to take exception to that. The farmers’ product has its value, and it is not right to reproach the farmer with the fact that he received a subsidy in the past. Let me take a bag of mealies and compare it with any other item of food in this country. Take 200 pounds of mealies at 16s. That works out at approximately l⅛d. per pound or even a little less. There are practical farmers in this House. I want to put this question to them : Where does one get cheaper food than that? Two-and-a-half pounds of mealies are sufficient to feed one native for a day. Where does one get cheaper food than mealies and mealie meal? If a bag of mealies is given to a family of five—a native, his wife and two children— they can easily live on that bag of mealies for a month. Then we have certain people saying that they want to place the farmer in a position in which he was in those days when he received 7s. and 8s. per bag, when he had to sell at less than his costs of production.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to what seems to me to be the most difficult problem of all. It has been touched on by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van deh Berg), and despite the comments of members of the Opposition who have spoken on this subject, I still agree with the hon. member for Krugersdorp that it is the most vital problem of the age, this problem of the hungry mouths in the midst of overwhelming production. We in South Africa have not had that problem until just recently because until the war we had an export market, and while there was a good deal of heart-burning over the idea of dumping our stuff in other countries and selling it at a much cheaper rate than at the rate at which it was sold here, it did distract our attention and did not show up in such a glaring fashion this problem of the hungry mouths on the one side and overwhelming production on the other. My attention has been particularly directed to this question by the report yesterday in the papers which stated that 4,000,000 pockets of citrus fruit went to waste during the past citrus season, and frankly I was appalled by that statement. It was made by Mr. Alwright at Pietermaritzburg. I do feel that the fact that in a country where the children are undernourished, where children are crying for valuable food, such a state of affairs is allowed to continue, is a most serious reflection on our method of distribution. I would like to remind the hon. Minister that two years ago his Department was attacked and criticised on all sides of the House for this very failure to absorb the produce of our citrus trees, and the then Minister assured the House that such a waste would not be allowed to occur gain. Nevertheless last season we had this position that an even worse wastage than occurred before took place. According to this report of the Citrus Board only the very small quantity of 516,000 pockets were distributed amongst the poorer sections of the community. I must reiterate that I am appalled that such a state of affairs should be allowed to continue. I would like the Minister therefore to turn his first attention to this problem that the products of our country should not be allowed to be wasted at a time when the country is urging an ever greater production of foodstuffs. I do know that this is not a new problem, and it is not a problem that is peculiar to South Africa, but I do urge upon the Minister that of all the problems that are put to his Department this one should be given precedence. There is no question that it is pressing and urgent and I would like to remind him too that on this matter there is a very strong public opinion, not only amongst the consuming element who deplore this wastage but also amongst the producers. I have a vivid recollection of seeing letters of protest from citrus farmers who dislike the idea of burying their crops in spite of the fact that they are paid for it. As one farmer wrote: “I am paid to produce to feed the people of this country and not to bury my produce.” I do feel that in view of that consensus of opinion the Minister should tackle this problem first of all. There was another point in the speech of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) that struck me. He gave us certain figures, and he stated that £160,000,000 was invested in wool farming, and he added that 15,000 people were making their living from the industry, and taking those figures it would appear that £10,666 capital is apparently spread out per capita over the 15,000 people. If that is the case—I am no authority on wool farming, but I am taking the figures which were given to the House by the hon. member for Cradock—then I cannot understand how it is that such a flourishing wool industry should want the Wool Agreement altered. I have a feeling that if the figures he has given us are correct, if the wool industry is in such a flourishing state, that those wool farmers will not thank him for suggesting an alteration.

The figure is 50,000.

I am dealing with the figure given by the hon. member for Cradock. I can only take the figures that he gave. If those figures are wrong, I am sure the expert on this side can deal with them more adequately than I could. But to revert. I do want to remind the Minister that when I speak of this question of wastage of citrus, there is also the question that has been thrashed out in this House ad nauseam, the question of other foodstuffs. An hon. member on the other side did make this suggestion in the course of his speech—I think it was the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché)—that one of the means of improving the marketing conditions and getting the products into the hands of the consumer at a more reasonable level, is to have a number of small markets spread throughout the urban areas instead of a centralised market. That seems to be a sound idea but I do disagree with his suggestions that the markets should be run by the Marketing Board. I think those markets should be run by the municipalities. They may take the hint that has been given to decentralise their markets so that instead of having only one central market in the town, they should have various smaller dépôts in the bigger towns where the house-wife can go and get produce at a reasonable price. That is another point that I would like to put from the point of view of the practical housewife. Despite the increase in cost of living allowances which incidentally many people do not get, they are unable to buy these products. These products are steadily rising out of the reach of the ordinary urban consumer, and I would like the hon. Minister to address his attention first of all to those points, because they do seem to me to be of first-class importance.

†*Mr. H. C. DE WET : I am sorry that a few weeks after assuming this post, the hon. Minister should come under the fire of criticism on this vote, because I feel that it is impossible to expect even the most sagacious and the most ingenious person to become acquainted within a few weeks with such an important vote as agriculture, and that he will be in a position to give satisfaction to all the critics who may raise objections under this vote; but I know that the Minister is serious in his determination to equip himself well for this post, and I also want to express the hope that with the earnestness with which he is inspired he will do great things in the interests of agriculture. Perhaps this very debate, better than anything else, will serve to acquaint the Minister with the task with which he is charged. I am certain that the criticism will be reasonable, as it has been up to the present, and I can only come to one conclusion on the criticism to which I have listened so far, and that is that everyone is inspired with one desire, and that is to assist the Minister to promote the interests of his department. Before I deal on a later occasion with the policy of Agriculture, I just want to deal briefly with the fixation of the price of wheat. Of recent years it has been customary to inform the farmers, before the commencement of the sowing season, what prices they will get during the coming year for the wheat which they produce. We met the Agricultural Department every year and the matter was fully discussed, and a decision was arrived at in regard to the price at which the farmers would produce for the coming year. I know that unfortunately through the sudden death of the previous Minister of Agriculture, which we all regret very deeply, that became impossible, but the sowing season is at hand and at this juncture we have no definite statement. Since the Board of Control will meet in the near future to discuss this matter and to advise the Minister, I would like the Minister to bear in mind the following aspects of the matter which I intend to raise. I just want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) when she said that she did not know on what basis the figures were based. Let me give her the assurance that the price which was fixed for wheat, the price which was so strongly criticised and condemned here, was worked out very carefully, not by an impartial commission but by the Department of Agriculture itself. I mention that in passing, because the price of wheat is being criticised so strongly, since hon. members adopt the attitude that the wheat farmers are making enormous profits, and that the price is simply fixed haphazardly. I want to give that hon. member the assurance that that is not the case. The price was worked out by the Department of Agriculture as well as the farmers’ representatives. They met and carefully compared the prices and the costs of production, and on that the price was fixed. Let us understand clearly that the criticism which is levelled against the present fixed price of wheat is absolutely unfounded. One cannot criticise that price without throwing out of gear the whole economic system, and this price leaves only a small margin of profit for the wheat farmer. It does not give him an opportunity of making large profits. Let us remember that the wheat farmers want to know at which price they are going to produce this year, and if a clear statement is not made on this point the result will be that much less wheat will be produced in this country than is expected. There are many other forms of farming for which the farmers can go in instead of wheat, and in the course of my remarks I just want to mention a few of the commodities which can be produced instead of wheat—and produced better and at more remunerative rates than those at which wheat itself can be produced. Reference has been made here to wool. The wheat farmer could simply leave his wheat lands and let his sheep graze on them. Then there is stock farming—pigs and even slaughter sheep. Apart from that dairy products can be produced to a great extent on the lands on which wheat has been sown in the past. Then we must not lose sight of the fact that it does not only apply to wheat, but also to barley. There is very great need today for barley to be produced in sufficient quantities, and if we do not give the farmers the necessary facilities to be able to grow these two products successfully, we will in the future experience a hopeless shortage with regard to these two essential products. Last year we had a good normal year, and notwithstanding the fact that we had an outstanding wheat production of over 6,000,000 bags, we had a surplus of approximately 200,000 bags to carry forward to the following year, and if we take into consideration the increased consumption in connection with wheat, we must come to the conclusion that instead of having a surplus of a few hundred thousand bags, we may at the end of this year be faced with a shortage. In spite of the good year we had, we only just met the demand, and that ought to prove to us that with the slightest set-back in the production of wheat, we may experience a hopeless shortage in the course of the next year, as we have already had in the past. We had this experience after the last war when we had to resort to the use of Burton bread. We know that there are great developments pending in Europe. Shipping space is limited today and it is difficult to get the necessary commodities imported. We car barely get shipping space to import essential commodities, and in view of the developments which are pending in Europe and in the East, if we are cut off from our overseas market, there is a probability that we may be faced with a shortage next year. If that happens, many people who are today criticising the Government will condemn the Government most strongly for not taking the necessary precautionary measures to see that the price of wheat is increased, as has been done in recent years. In a poor year we might easily find ourselves in an unenviable position in our country as far as wheat production is concerned. In that event the Government would, of course, have to bear much criticism, and not only will the Government have to bear much criticism but our whole economic system will be affected if we have a shortage of that staple food, because in the present circumstances we are practically cut off from overseas markets and we shall not be able to import.

What do you regard as a reasonable price?

I am coming to that, if my hon. friend will give me a chance. Then we have the restricted grant of artificial manure this year, a factor which will play a tremendous part in the production of wheat. It is stated that we are getting as much as we got last year, and that statement is based on the fact that the phosphate is of a higher quality than it was during the past few years. Let me tell the Minister and the Department of Agriculture that that is not the case, as far as my own experience is concerned, nor in those parts which I represent, because in those parts mixtures are used the greater part and not pure phosphate. Where the position is that the quality of phosphate has been increased from 15/16 per cent. to 19 per cent. we can take it that that statement is correct in the case of phosphate. But when the C mixture is used, which is generally used in those parts, the grant of artificial manure is not equivalent in cultivation ingredients to the grant which was made last year, because the division of the mixture means that there was actually a smaller grant this year. [Time limit.]

In discussing agriculture, we are dealing with one of the most important matters affecting the existence of the nation and the country. We on this side of the House have laid down a definite policy on which we want to conduct the agricultural industry. A question was put to the Minister of Agriculture by the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) as to what his policy was going to be. I am glad that the Minister told us in all honesty, that he could not definitely say at this stage what that policy is, but that he will do so in the near future. According to the statements of the Minister, we take it that he is sympathetically disposed towards agriculture, and that he will follow the policy which has been laid down hitherto and endeavour to effect improvements. In the second place, I want to make a few suggestions with a view to assisting him to improve the system. A great deal has been said in regard to the future. We are not going to go into that. There is one matter on which we feel strongly as representatives of the grain areas, and that is what the future prices will be on which the farmer will be able to carry on with his production. We feel that in these circumstances the mealie farmers should be encouraged to produce, that we should afford them an opportunity of carrying on with their mealie production, and we hope and trust that in this connection the Minister will give us some clue on which the farmers can work. A great deal has been said about our right to demand higher prices for mealies. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) said that figures had never been produced to show what our expenditure was, and what our yield per morgen was. I would like to see her farming for a while and contending with the vicissitudes of the elements and the circumstances with which the farmer is faced, and she would soon realise that it is no easy task to farm. There are various factors which increase the costs of production. There is, for example, the high cost of labour. It is often said by the native representatives that the farmers do not pay their labourers well, that the native has to work for a meagre wage, and that he is practically a slave on the farm. Have those hon. members ever made a calculation as to the true wage which the farmer pays to the native on the farm? For the sake of argument, I just want to suggest a few figures. Every farmer has the right to keep five native householders on his farm. There are five natives on his farm. Everyone of them has more or less five head of cattle. With the increased price of land per morgen, and the higher rents, we cannot in the best of circumstances get cheaper grazing than at 2s. 6d. per head per month. That means that these five natives have a large number of cattle on their farm and that one native alone enjoys grazing rights to the value of £13 10s. per annum. Every native has at least two horses, and we cannot give a horse grazing at less than 5s. per month. That is very cheap in the present circumstances. That is another £6 per annum. Every farmer gives the native five acres of land which he ploughs with the farmer’s oxen and which he cultivates with the farmer’s implements. The yield from that land represents another £50 per annum approximately. Then he has to pay those natives £1 per month, which means another £12 per annum. The farmer has to give the natives food, and he does not get that food free of charge. The native consumes approximately twelve bags of mealies per annum. That means another £9 approximately. They receive water, fuel and also a house. All this costs money, and taken at a conservative figure it cannot be done at a lower figure than £26 per annum. That means that every one of these natives cost the farmer £105 per annum. That means more than £500 for the five natives. With five natives he cannot get his work done. He has to hire other natives, and recently he has had to pay them £3 per month. Previous speakers have pointed out that the cost of production to the farmer have risen, and as a result of that we want to ask the Minister in all civility to take those factors into consideration when he fixes the price of mealies in the future. If the Minister fixes the price of mealies at £1 per bag, it will not be one penny too much for the farmer. I am speaking from experience. I am vice-chairman of a co-operative society, and in Senekal we have one of the best parts of the Free State. Let me give you the assurance that the yield of the crop will be very small as the result of the rains which we have had. The mealies of the people who ploughed early were attacked by caterpillars, and that meant that many of them had to cultivate their land no less than three times. You can imagine the costs that were involved in doing so. I am convinced that in those parts we are not going to have more than half the normal crop, and the mealie farmers are therefore entitled to ask the Minister to take that into serious consideration in fixing the price. As far as my constituency, Heilbron, is concerned, I want to tell the Minister that the farmers there go in for kaffir corn on a large scale. I have a letter here in which they ask me that the price of kaffir corn should also be fixed. The farmers’ association has asked me that the price be fixed at £1 5s. per bag. I would prefer to have the same arrangement as last year, when they had a free hand and when some of them got £2 per bag. This is an important matter as far as they are concerned. They plant kaffir corn on a large scale, and I should like to know what their future is going to be. For that reason I mention the matter here, and I want to ask the Minister to consider it, There are many other matters in connection with the agricultural industry which we would like to discuss here, but our time is limited, and we can only touch upon those matters which affect the active farmers. Reference has been made here to the large capital invested in farming. A large sum of money is involved, more than £500,000,000 has been invested in the agricultural industry as against the other industries in our country. When we bear that in mind we can realise the enormous value of this industry to our country, and how necessary it is to make it a paying industry. It is certainly the most important industry we have in the country, and I hope, therefore that hon. members on the other side who represent those interests will not drag this matter into party politics, because it is a matter which affects the bread and butter of a nation. If you drag this matter into politics it will simply mean that we are going to waste our time here and accomplish nothing. The representatives of the farmers all have the same views in regard to this matter, because it is one of national importance. It is a matter which affects all of us, and not only this party or that party. There are many other matters which I should have liked to touch on, but in the short time we have we can only raise certain points here and there. On a previous occasion I pointed out the masses of food which were wasted because there were no proper storage facilities. We could occupy the time of the House for hours in discussing this matter. This is something on which I feel very strongly, that the national food of the people must be conserved. We pleaded for sheds and buildings to enable us to conserve our grain supply in the future.

I was amazed to hear the speech which came from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) this afternoon; amazed at two of the points he made. He started off in the first place and said he was so pleased that the farmers on both sides of the House were organised.

Don’t you want them to be organised?

He said that they were going to fight as a combined bloc. I read into that that the hon. member is deliberately trying to sow seeds of discord between the townsman and the farming community. That is what I read into it and I want to tell the hon. member this, that there is more co-operation today between the townsfolk and the farmers than ever before.

What about the Chamber of Commerce?

And that is developing because he must not think that the townsfolk want to live at the expense of the farmer. The townsman is standing up for his rights and he expects the farmer to stand up for his, and as the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has said, possibly the Government will have to step in when it becomes impossible for the townsman to pay the farmer’s costs of production —that will be the time for the Government to step in and subsidise. But let me tell the hon. member this—what the townsman expects is efficiency as far as the farmers are concerned.

Tell the Chamber of Commerce

The townsman objects most strongly to the inefficiency of the farmer. If the farming community expect to grow mealies on soil which is unsuitable for mealies and then expect the townsman to pay high prices for it, well, the position becomes impossible, and that is where I feel the Department should step in and make a survey, examine the farm land, give a report and say which land is suitable for mealies and other products to be grown on. That is where the Department can help to remedy some of the inefficiency—and let me remind hon. members that there is a great deal of inefficiency today so far as many of our farmers are concerned. Now, the other amazing point which I noticed from the hon. member opposite, was that he seemed to be advocating that the British Government should buy all our wool and should give us a guarantee to that effect. I wondered whether I had heard him correctly—did he really say that?

Yes, he did.

Well, well, the hon. member must have a very short memory. I think it was only last year that he was advocating that the British Government were doing the farmers down over the wool agreement, and that that agreement was all wrong so far as South Africa was concerned, and yet he stood up here today, and in order to make sure that the English-speaking members on this side of the House would hear what he was saying, he spoke in English and he pleaded that the British Government should continue to guarantee to buy our South African wool. What a somersault! And I am wondering whether that really is not the policy of the Nationalist Party—whether that is not the first shot fired, and that the Nationalist Party now want to co-operate with the British Government in everything, and that this proposition in regard to wool is the first move in that direction. Those were the two points in the hon. member’s speech which amazed me. They amazed me to such an extent that I wondered whether I had really understood him correctly. I have been on my feet in this House before on behalf of the pig breeders. I have been to the Department concerned to plead the cause of the pig breeders more than once, but I have not been able to get any further at all. I am always put off—they are always investigating the position. Now I want to know this: When the officials fixed the price of mutton and the price of beef, why did they leave the price of pork out? The only thing they did in that respect was to fix the price of bacon at between 2s. 2d. and 2s. 6d. Now, pig breeding in this country is very different from sheep or cattle rearing. If a man has to put a baconer on the market, it has to go on at a certain weight—I understand that the average weight is about 190 lbs.

The hon. member for Cradock will just about make it.

Yes, I hope the hon. member does not credit me with that remark. These animals have to be put on the market at that weight, and there is just a margin of a few pounds. A pig puts on weight very rapidly at that stage. I have been at the Department for the last five or six weeks and I am sure that before they make up their minds some of the new-born pigs of today will be reaching the weight of a baconer and that is in about seven or eight months’ time. One reply I got was that they were waiting for the Meat Commission’s Report. Well, why do they have to wait? Why not help the pig breeders as well as the others? It is the Government’s responsibility. The Government, when the convoys were coming round, asked all breeders to produce more and the pig breeders produced more, and now they are saddled with the baby.

The baby pig.

The costs of production have gone up; the cost to the breeder has gone up, but you find today that the price of pork has gone down. A statement was made the other day by a prominent breeder, Mr. Callaghen, I think, and he said that it was quite impossible for the breeders of pigs to produce under 8½d. per lb. And in fact, so far as some of the smaller breeds are concerned, the price had to go up to 10d. and he further made this statement, that when he interviewed the Price Controller about trying to get a higher price for pigs per lb. the Price Controller said he had fixed the price of bacon at between 2s. 2d. and 2s. 6d. with the idea that the breeder would get at least 9d. per lb. live weight. But that has never happened. I am told there is a ring. The hon. member behind me advocated cold storage stuff. Well, I am told that some of the large breeders are also interested in these cold storages. [Time limit.]

In my previous speech I was busy making certain points, and the Press report which the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) read here, confirmed 100 per cent. what I stated in this House, namely, that the Fruit Control Boards are only concerned about getting a globular sum of money, and once they have it they are prepared simply to throw on the market, as is done under the system of dumping, the balance of the crop which was not sold, in order to obtain that globular sum. There you have the proof. As soon as they are assured of the globular sum they adopt the attitude that the balance of the product can be disposed of in any manner; they offer it to the Government to dispose of as it deems fit, and if necessary, to give it away free of charge. They are assured of the globular sum. After that section of the consumers who are able to buy have been overcharged, after they have been milked in order to obtain that globular sum, the balance of the product is simply thrown on the market, irrespective of what happens to it and what price is obtained for it. If we want to be faithful and represent the interests of the consumer faithfully, we ought to point out that the man who paid for the products is entitled to get value for his money, and that it is not fair to expect him to provide this globular amount; it is not right that he should be milked in this way—and that the balance of the products should simply be dumped. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) made a speech here which can only be described as a biting speech. I have never for a single moment attacked the producers, but I have attacked the present control boards and the consequences of their policy. I have furnished evidence to prove that, but as soon as we point out the bitter fruits of the action of the control boards, and as soon as we take the part of the consumers in this House we are told that we are attacking the producers. The hon. member alleged that I had joined the Chamber of Commerce. I cannot understand where he got hold of that statement, because we on these benches have always fought for two principles and I shall continue to fight for those principles in spite of the hon. member for Cradock, namely, that there must be two fixed prices. The first fixed price must be for the producers and the other must be for the consumers. If that were done no one could attack the producers and no one would be able to attack the so-called middleman, because everyone will then pay the fixed price, and everyone will know that he is protected. But we do not get that. Instead we find that the townsman and the producer are systematically set against each other. Today we have tangible proof of that in this House in the speech of the hon. member for Cradock. He wants to suggest that the farmers should stand together, and that all of a sudden they have to defend themselves against the other sections in the country. Nothing can be more disadvantageous in any country than to attempt to divide the country into different sections. Every section has the right to get up and say that all sections should play the game. That effort on the part of the hon. member to play up one section against another section, is not in the interests of the country. He wants to make the House believe that the producer is being oppressed and that the consumer wants to oppress him. If you carry out the policy which we on these benches suggested, the interests of the farmer will not be separated from the interests of the consumer.

But you want to abolish the control boards.

I have always said that I am in favour of control. The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) was probably in this House when I pleaded for control, and when I stated, in dealing with the Marketing Act, that it would not help to control only a certain quantity. That is what happened, and today we have this position that control is exercised in such a way that a portion of our products lie and rot, while large sections in the country are crying out for those products. What right has the hon. member to defend control of that nature? My hon. friend cannot possibly approve of that, and nevertheless that system is being demanded here, while we have warned against it from the very beginning. We are in favour of control, but in heaven’s name control the product in such a way that the country and the people can get it, and not in such a way, as is the case today, that a small section has to pay for the product in order to ensure a certain sum to the control board, and that the balance of the product is then ploughed underground, or simply thrown on the market to be given away for nothing. We do not want that type of control. If the prices were fixed in that manner the people who have to pay for the products must have the benefit of those products. It is not right to let one man who draws a wage and who is able to buy, pay for one orange so that three others can be buried. That is the type control to which we object. We say that when any product is controlled it must be controlled in such a way that it will be spread over the whole country, so that the people who pay for it can get the benefit of it, and so that one half of it is not ploughed underground. When anyone attacks the control boards he is severely attacked here. But there is not one member in this House who can justify that action on the part of the control boards. We must not advance systematic arguments here. We must face the facts, and in the light of those facts attempt to justify the action of the control boards, if such action can be justified. As far as I am concerned, I shall continue to hammer on this matter until such time as we have control boards which operate in the interests of the country, and not, as is the case today, only in the interests of a certain section which wants a fixed sum of money in its own pocket, and is then prepared to allow the balance of the products to be disposed of in any way In that case the Chamber of Commerce, the honest producer, and the consumer have the right to object to that form of control. I do not think anyone expects the producers to deliver any article to the country at a price on which they cannot exist, but when they deliver their products and the other section pays for those products, the section which pays must have the benefit and should not be called upon to pay through the nose, so that the balance of the produce can be ploughed underground. I notice that a definite effort is being made to smother that voice in this House, and the time has arrived when we should get away from the idea that the country must be divided into various sections. I reject that under all circumstances. But if one section stands together and says that they declare war on the other sections, they are responsible for the fight. Because if anyone starts assaulting me he must not expect me to sit still, and I hope that neither the United Party nor the Nationalist Party—I know that our party will not do so because we are not a sectional party—will make itself guilty of declaring an economic war, as the hon. member for Cradock has done. I hope that the country and this House will reject that with one voice. Let me tell the Minister that what I am saying here, whether or not it be am saying here, whether or not it be suppressed in the Press—in the past it has been suppressed—that the feeling in this country is one of great dissatisfaction with the Department of Agriculture, which has been guilty of one fiasco after another. That remains a fact. I do not want to hold the Minister responsible personally, but for years the department has gone from one failure to another. Let me mention just one fact. Some time ago the Secretary for Agriculture made a speech in Johannesburg and said that he was in favour of the natives being taught to use butter, but, he asked, is the present the opportune time when there is a scarcity of butter? But in 1935, and during the whole time when the export of butter was subsidised and when we sold our butter on the London market at 7½d. per lb, and when there was over-production, they did nothing to teach the natives to use butter. [Time limit.]

It might be useful if I said a few words at this stage. First I want to deal with some of the points made by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). One of the matters he mentioned was the continuation of the wool purchasing scheme with Great Britain after the war. All I can say at this stage is that the matter has already been take up with the British Government, and at the proper time I may be able to say something more about it. My hon. friend also mentioned the question of the Agricultural Advisory Board, and rather suggested that it has not been given sufficient time for its deliberations. Actually the position is that there is no limitation on the time which they may take for their discussions. They are under no obligation to dispose of their agenda in one single day; they may spread it over two or three days or longer if necessary. There will not be any restrictions of time placed on them, and if necessary they can have longer than they had in the past.

Are you prepared to accept their co-operation in drawing up schemes?

I am prepared to consult them. With regard to the question of payment, I do not know that any member has asked for payment, but that matter can be looked into. I do not wish to commit myself as far as that is concerned.

†*Then in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) the position is that as the law now stands I cannot apply compulsory dipping except in East Coast Fever areas.

It has been done in Barberton.

Yes, there the law permits it but not in the part to which the hon. member referred. An amendment of the law will be necessary to enable us to do that. Compulsory dipping is a very expensive process because it requires supervision by inspectors who will have to be appointed, and I cannot therefore hold out the prospect of our introducing such an amendment to the Act in order to carry out compulsory dipping. In regard to the salary of stock inspectors their salaries and allowances have been considerably improved of late. Improvements have been effected. The inspectors we use are not permanent officers, they have been employed on a temporary basis. The question has been considered whether a certain number of them should not be permanently appointed. If that is done, of course, their position will be improved. ín regard to veterinary surgeons, as we all know, there is a shortage of these men at present. Quite a number of them are on active service, and that is one of the reasons for the shortage. In regard to their salaries, they are on the scale of £400 to £800 per year and I do not think that is such a very bad salary. As a matter of fact it is a good salary in comparison with that paid to other professional officials in the Department of Agriculture. I must say, however, that the loss of officials in our Department owing to mere attractive positions being offered to them outside the service is a serious matter, and I intend having the question thoroughly looked into to see what can be done. We are anxious to get the best available talent in the Department of Agriculture, and we don’t want to lose those people, but, of course, it is always difficult to fix a scale which will always attract and keep the best men. We always have restrictions imposed upon us from the financial side, but I promise to go into the question and see whether we cannot do anything in that direction. In regard to mealie and meat prices—that question has also been raised, but I think members on all sides of the House will appreciate the difficulty of my position after the discussions we have had here. Hon. members opposite talk of 20s. per bag for mealies.

At least.

The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) says that the price is too high, or that there is insufficient data on which to base such a high price. I think enough has been said on all sides of the House to show how difficult my position is and how difficult it will be when we have to fix the prices, both for mealies and wheat. It is a very difficult task. In regard to the request of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) asking that we should at this stage already make an announcement about the price of wheat, the position is that we are unable to do so in view of the fact that the Wheat Board is only meeting on the 12th April. They will then make a recommendation and after receiving their recommendation I shall naturally go into the question and make an announcement about the price as soon as possible.

Will the representatives of co-operative societies be consulted in regard to that question?

I shall, of course discuss the matter with the Wheat Board after they have made a recommendation.

It was done in previous years.

I have no objection to it; I am prepared to listen to everyone who can suggest anything that is sound and practicable.

I hope the Minister will fix the price while Parliament is in Session.

Yes, I hope that will be done. In regard to the fixing of the price of mealies I am not in a position yet to take a step there either. The position is somewhat different from what it is in regard to wheat, because the Mealie Control Board, as we all know, has already made a recommendation, but the difficulty in regard to mealies is that we have no official estimate of the crop as yet. I know that the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) estimates the crop at 18,000,000 bags. That is his opinion, but the very earliest we shall be able to get an official estimate will be towards the second week of next month. I have to wait for that to see how big the mealie crop is going to be before we can take steps to fix the price of mealies. The Mealie Control Board will also meet next month on the 13th April, and I hope we shall then be able to discuss the matter.

†Then, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) made some constructive suggestions about agriculture. He impressed upon me the advisability of giving consideration to having a third Faculty of Agriculture for the training of students in agriculture. I believe that that matter has been gone into previously, although I am not fully acquainted with the facts, but I am impressed with what has been said by the hon. member and I am prepared to look fully into this matter and see what can be done. That, I think, Mr. Chairman, covers the various point that have been brought forward so far.

What about lucerne seed?

I dealt with that question during a previous debate. The hon. member has again asked me to also give a subsidy for lucerne seed produced on irrigation lands.

A subsidy to the producer on the price of lucerne, so as to reduce the price to the consumer.

The hon. member wants to bring down the price but the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has urged very strongly that the price should be fixed at a higher figure than it is today. The trouble about a subsidy on lucerne seed on irrigation lands is that it will then become a commercial proposition, and the whole idea is to encourage the growing of lucerne for use as cattle feed and to make the ground fertile. On that basis we can pay the subsidy, but I am afraid we cannot pay it on irrigation lands. I am prepared, however, to go further into the matter and see whether we can arrive at some other decision.

†In concluding these few remarks, I just want to say how I appreciate very much the note of caution that has been sounded by several members in the House of the necessity of not allowing any tendency of a town versus country, and a country verses town movement to develop. I do not think that the development of such a movement would benefit either the one section or the other, and I believe it could only do the greatest possible harm to the country as a whole. I have said, earlier in the debate this morning, that my view of the matter is that the interests of the producer and the consumer are not really conflicting. All that the producer should look to is a fair profit, a fair return for his labour, and for the product he has to sell; and the consumer, I think, will be quite satisfied if he gets that product at a reasonable price, if he does not have to pay too much to the farmer. I think it is vital that the position should be arrived at that the consumer should be able to realise that nothing more than that is being attempted. I think there is a great deal to be said for letting the consumer realise exactly what the true position is. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this will be borne in mind in the further discussions that are to take place—that it cannot do any good to start any such movement, or to encourage any such movement of town versus country.

I am sorry the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) is not here. When he first spoke on this vote he referred to this side of the House and said that we were praising the control boards for the attitude they had adopted. I am afraid there is some misunderstanding. In principle we are in favour of control boards and in favour of the Marketing Act, and we are fighting for those principles, but the hon. member should not create the impression, that we have no fault to find with various matters in regard to these questions. Just let me mention one instance and I hope the Minister will take notice of it. I shall come to the question of mealies afterwards, but before dealing with that subject I want to touch on a few other points. I went to the Deciduous Fruit Board the other day—I think it was in King George’s Street —and I met the secretary personally and placed an order with him to send fruit to me every week. That was three or four weeks ago. Today I had a letter to the effect that no grapes have arrived. I am afraid the secretary is under the impression that the fruit has been despatched. To a certain extent I don’t blame him, but I do feel that they should be very careful and not take it for granted that once an order has been placed it will automatically be carried out. The mistake made lies with the farmers, or it may lie somewhere else, and possibly the fruit is not sent off. I also have a bone to pick with the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). She is a very able representative and she has a quick tongue, but she accused members on all sides of the House of being disposed to start fights between town and platteland. I think if there is anyone in this House who does start fights it is the hon. member herself. She starts a fight between the producers and the people she represents—and unfortunately the hon. member represents people who are illiterate—and I am afraid that that fight may become even more dangerous than the fight she says we want to start. I think she should be very careful. She attacked the mealie farmers especially and said that they were out for exorbitant profits. Let me explain to the hon. member what the position is in my constituency. There are a lot of mealie farmers there. The Western Transvaal and parts of the Free State, Kroonstad and so on are known as the best mealie areas. What do we find there today? We find that people try to sell their land and start stock farming in the Kalahari. If they make such exorbitant profits, is it likely that after all these years of experience with mealies they are going to sell their land and go in for stock farming somewhere esle?

It is only townspeople who have never farmed who talk like that.

I quite agree, and the hon. member for Cape Eastern is one of those. Now let me explain the position of the mealie farmers in the matter of prices. And what I am saying here, I am not saying on behalf of myself but I am saying it on bèhalf of the Transyaal Agricultural Union. The Executive Committee of the Transvaal Agricultural Union met recently and passed certain resolutions. They decided to urge the Government to agree to a further increase this year in the price of mealies. I think the way in which they put forward their suggestions is a very reasonable one. What they want is to create a basis not for one year but for a number of years. This is their scheme : They start off with last year’s crop when we produced 24,000,000 bags, and when we fixed the price at 16s. I take it that the Department and the late Minister of Agriculture had certain data and were of opinion that they were quite justified in fixing the price at 16s. Numbers of farmers were not satisfied with this, but I think that generally speaking the price was accepted as being fair. That was for a crop of 24,000,000 bags. Now, I don’t want the Minister to go back to the production for 1938 or 1939. Let us take last year as our basis—24,000,000 bags at 16s. per bag. Everybody has to admit that production costs have gone up considerably in the last twelve months. We find that grain bags which cost 1s. 1d. last year will cost 1s. 6d. or more this year.

1s. 8d.

Well, I am putting the price as fairly as possible. In any case there will be a difference of 6d. per bag. We also know that labour costs have gone up, My personal experience is that labour costs in the past twelve months have gone up more than in any previous twelve months, and I estimate the increase at 12½ per cent. Add 12½ per cent. to 16s., that will mean 16s. plus 2s., i.e. 18s. Now, take that for a crop of 24,000,000 bags. But We are not going to get 24,000,000 bags. As a result of scarcity of fertilisers, weather conditions and so on, the crop will not be 24,000,000 bags, but perhaps only 18,000,000 or let us say 20,000,000 bags. Now the Agricultural Union says this—I don’t say it but the Agricultural Union says it— that the farmer, for every million bags less than 24 million bags produced, should get 6d. per bag more. If the crop amounts to 20,000,000 bags the price should be 18s. plus four times 6d. viz. : 20s. One can calculate it on that basis. One can, of course, also calculate the price on the basis laid down by the hon. member for Kroonstad : Last year the crop was 24,000,000 bags but of that total only 14,000,000 were marketed at 16s. which gives an amount of about £11,000,000. If the crop this year is 20,000,000 bags, only 10,000,000 bags will be for sale. If one divides £11,000,000 by 10,000,000 one gets more than £1—to be correct one gets £1 2s. 4d. per bag. But now I want to be fair and I take the lower figure. Hon. members should not take up the attitude now of saying that the one man calculates things on one basis and the next on a different basis. Let hon. members calculate it as they like. The eventual result must be that the price of mealies should not be less than 20s. I want to mention a few factors. Last year at ploughing time we had to contend with fertiliser worms and they destroyed a lot of our mealies. My personal experience is that cut worms also destroy our mealies. I have just received a telegram from the Farmers Association at Klerksdorp stating that they have been told that there are rumours that the price of mealies is to be fixed at 17s. 6d. and they request me to do all in my power to get the Klerksdorp scheme accepted. In other words, the scheme adopted by the Transvaal Agricultural Union. They further telegraph—

[Time limit.]

The remarks made by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) prompted me, as a townsman and industrialist, to say something on behalf of the farming industry. I have no doubt whatever that any townsman who does not sympathise with the farming and agricultural industry must be ignorant of the vicissitudes of nature in that industry. I have a fairly intimate knowledge of what the farmer has to go through and I can quote you instances in point that have occurred this very season. In my area farmers planted their maize and it was destroyed by cut worm. They planted again and the second planting was also destroyed by the cut worm. After that it was too late for maize and they sowed teff. The heavy rains came and drowned a large percentage of their teff. No townsman can tell me that however energetic a farmer may be, unless he is very wealthy, he can go through experiences of this sort without crippling himself financially.

That is an exceptional season.

That sort of thing happens very frequently, if not in one farming area then in the other. The true test is, if farmers have the very fine time that some of my friends in the towns think they have, why is it that so many people leave the farms to work in industry? That does not indicate that. They have been flourishing as farmers. As a matter of fact, almost any farmer who is offered a position in the town at £50 or £60 a month today would be prepared to accept it. It is true that we get very wealthy farmers, like the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), but in the same way you get very wealthy business people in towns, men who have done their business successfully. But that does not mean that they are representative of farmers or business people generally. I want to say, as a townsman, that we must not forget that in the first place the business of the commercial people, of members of the Chambers of Commerce, for instance, is that of importing goods and selling to the public, including the farmers. They add the profit to the cost and run their business successfully and no one interferes with their profits except the income tax authorities. They pay their income tax, and so does the farmer.

But they don’t get subsidies.

I am coming to that. What is the difference between a direct subsidy and an indirect subsidy? There are very few industries in the country today who can exist on their own without some form of protection, and that is an indirect subsidy coming out of the pockets of the public. Take the motor tyre industry, for instance. Are they not protected 50 per cent.? True, it is only incidentally through a revenue tax, but the consumers have to pay because of that industry which is existing in two towns in the country. The farmers have to pay that higher price themselves, the same as anyone else, but those industries are in the towns where thousands of pounds are spent in wages for the benefit of the towns. It is seme form of subsidy and if the Government were to remove that remedy one can imagine what the position in regard to these tyres in industries would be—but the tyres would be much cheaper. But those industries would then have to close down. That applies fairly generally. Now what do we do further? In the towns we increase the wages of our workers—our European workers—and they are welcome to those increased wages; they have to live an economic life, they have to maintain an economic standard above that of the natives. That is the urge of our people, and that is what we do. Now, just recently we also increased the native wage, and what has been the result? The products of these factories, of these industries, became more expensive and the hon. members must realise that these products are also purchased by the farmers, and they have to pay the higher prices too as well as the higher wages. But we must not get the two sections working against each other because they are inter-dependent. You have these industries in the towns and the wages earned by the employees in these industries are spent in those towns—the farmers are dependent on these industries just as much as the industries are dependent on the farmers.

We could import these things much cheaper.

That may be, and so you can in the case of the products of protected industries, but assuming we did not subsidise the farmers in certain directions and did not protect certain local products it would mean that 90 per cent. of our farmers would be on our hands as unemployed.

Well, they are now.

How much more would not that be the case if the Government withdrew all these subsidies, direct and indirect subsidies also in the case of protected industries? The Government would have to maintain and look after these people who come off the farms. And instead of these people being only unemployed and having to receive a dole, there is no doubt they would also deteriorate in their character in which case what a catastrophe!

Yes, they always seem to forget that.

I still maintain that you would create a position in this country where a large number of people would become unemployed if that should be the Government’s policy—fortunately it is not. I maintain that your real aristocracy are your farmers.

Of course they are.

And if you introduce a policy of free trade in regard to farming products or even generally you will create a position of unemployment such as the country will never stand for. And not only will you have unemployment but you will have people starving. We know what unemployment has done in other parts of the world—it has led to revolution. We don’t want that condition of affairs here, but that condition can be created by unemployment on the platteland, and I am quite sure that nobody would tolerate conditions of that kind. The Minister’s advice is perfectly sound. We townsmen are dependent on the farmers and the farmers are dependent on the townsmen. We must establish close co-operation and understanding. Now, let me say this again. We are inter-dependent because our industries can only exist if the farmers produce food—and on the other hand the farmers largely are the consumers of our products. Take a time of war when we cannot import food. What would happen if the farmers did not produce? There are certain essential industries in every country, called key industries. You have your steel industry which is a key industry. You have your farming industry —just as much a key industry as others, because it has to provide food. You want that industry and you will always want it, and that is why I say these two sections of the country must work closely together, and you must not have friction between them.

Yes, but the farmers must look after their ground and not waste it.

If the farmers do not look after the ground if they don’t avoid soil erosion, well, the position is very difficult. If the farming industry already does not pay, as it does not, how can it undertake a matter like this—a matter of national importance? How can it attend to the prevention of soil erosion? If unemployment is created through no fault of the people themselves, then it becomes a matter of State importance, and therefore soil erosion like unemployment is a matter for the State. I say that without subsidies in certain directions, without control boards to see that the farmers get reasonable prices, and to see that the agricultural industry is carried on in the proper way—all those industries will go to the wall, with all the unfortunate consequences to which I have referred. I don’t want the House to think that my opinion is that the control boards could not be improved upon and run better than they are run. They are an experiment today very largely; they have only been running for a few years and we cannot blame the farmers for their mistakes. I was a member of the Select Committee which sat when the Dairy Control Board was established, and what I want to say in this connection is this—you want co-operation between the two communities, but the Minister must put men on these control boards—business men who understand how to achieve the objects for which these boards are there. He must not put men on these boards just because they belong to one section or another. [Time limit.]

Before saying anything on the subject I want to deal with, I want to remove a misunderstanding in regard to the report which has appeared in “Die Burger.” There is a mistake somewhere. We accept the word of the Minister of Agriculture but there have been negotiations between this side of the House and the other side, that is to say between the dairy groups of the two sides, with the intention of jointly calling on the Minister. After the negotiations had been going on for a few days the other side told us that the Minister would not meet us together. The report as such is not incorrect but I am glad the Minister has denied it and we are grateful for the fact that he does not disapprove of cooperation between the two groups. The question of mealie and wheat prices has been raised here. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) have insisted on our telling the House what the production costs of wheat and mealies are. I only want to say that the production costs of mealies and of wheat should be calculated over a period of not less than five years. We should calculate our costs in such a way that the basis is elastic because we have years of good crops and years of bad crops. In an area such as the Free State we have years of plenty and years when we have nothing. There are times when the farmer works his lands and gets practically no crop at all. In my constituency a farmer sowed 90 bags of wheat; he worked his land thoroughly and he did not even get his seed back. Conditions are such that we can depend on getting a decent crop once every five years and the losses of the previous years have to be covered out of the good years. Last year was regarded as a particularly good year for wheat, but if hon. members were to travel through the wheat areas this year they would see that there are thousands of morgen where no crop at all has been gathered. The untimely rains and the shortage of machinery are largely responsible for that fact. In spite of this the farmer has had to incur expenses, but he has got practically nothing back for all his trouble. So far as mealies are concerned I can say that on account of untimely rains farmers in very many areas are faced with crop failures. Farmers have been unable to work their lands, and in many instances they will have only one-third of their usual crop. If we calculate the production costs of these commodities, all these matters have to be taken into consideration, and if hon. members consider these facts they will see that if a farmer asks £1 for a bag of mealies and £2 for a bag of wheat, he is not asking too much. His returns will prove that he is not making undue profits. I want to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and I want to ask him when considering this question to fix the price of mealies at not less than £1 per bag and the price of wheat at £2. I want to ask him to approach the matter from this point of view, and if he investigates the position he will find that these prices will not give the farmers any exorbitant profits. I want to confine my remarks principally to the dairy industry. My constituency is in a part of the country which produces large quantities of cheese. More so than any other part of the Union. I deliberately mention the Union because there is no other part of the country which produces so much cheese. There are about 20 cheese factories in my constituency and the farmers who supply cheese milk are very dissatisfied with the price they are getting for their milk. As compared with the price of other products the price of cheese milk is too low. If we compare the price with that of other products we find that the dairy farmer does not get the increased price which he is entitled to. I don’t for a moment want to say that the other farmers get too much; that is not the case, but the dairy farmers want the price of cheese milk increased relatively to the expenses they have to incur, and also in view of the circumstances prevailing in the country today. In spite of rationing we know that there has been a shortage of dairy products. In this connection I want to quote from the report of the Secretary for Agriculture and of the Deputy Controller of Foodstuffs. In one part of the report they say this about butter—

I want those hon. members who represent the consumers to take note of the fact that control has been in the interest of the consumer. The farmers are not exactly dissatisfied but they do feel that prices should be increased. In regard to cheese the report says this—

I again want to draw the attention of consumers to the fact that control has been for the benefit of the consumers, and not in the interest of the producers. As these facts have been mentioned, I just want to say this, that the dairy farmers are tied down, so far as prices are concerned, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture when he considers this question also to take this aspect of the matter into consideration. The production of butter last year amounted to 54,500,000 lbs. The consumption was 56,600,000 lbs., a shortage of 2,100,000 lbs. In regard to cheese the production was 16,500,000 lbs., and the consumption 17,600,000 lbs., a shortage of 1,100,000 lbs. These figures go to prove that the report is correct and that what I have said is also correct. In spite of the rationing of these products there has been a shortage. Now we are faced with this fact, that if we do not encourage the dairy industry, I am afraid there is going to be a very serious shortage this winter because the fact remains that according to the figures, consumption has gone up very considerably as compared with the year before. Production has also increased, but what is going to have a restricting effect this year is the fact that in those parts which I represent there has been a serious drought, with the result that the farmers have not been able to sow their green food in time. Before coming to that point I want to make a brief comparison between the prices which we got in the last world war for dairy produce, and the prices we are getting now. [Time limit.]

I want to make my contribution to the representations made to the Minister of Agriculture. I am particularly pleased that he is conversant with both official languages, and that he can go into the rural districts and talk to both sections of the population in their own language. There is one matter I want to bring to the Minister’s notice and that is the question of East Coast Fever. About twelve months ago a Commission was appointed to gather data in regard to East Coast Fever. We have not yet had a report from that commission and I want to urge the Minister seriously to let the farmers know what has become of that report because the farmers are very much concerned about it.

I replied to a question on the subject in this House.

But the farmers know nothing about it. I further want to say this about East Coast Fever. We have been dipping now for the last 30 or 40 years. We are always dipping but we have not found any solution yet. I want to ask the Minister to be good enough to make a definite sum of money available so that Onderstepoort can make investigations to see whether no other way can be found to deal with the position—say by inoculating the cattle, just as horses are inoculated today against horse sickness, so that this terrible waste of money and time may at last be stopped. In order to emphasise the position even more strongly I want to tell the Minister that so long as there is speculation with imported cattle and with cattle smuggled into the country we shall have East Coast Fever here. I want to ask the Minister to put a stop to this importation from Portuguese East, the Rhodesias and Bechuanaland. I also want to say this to him: That we still have a lot of trouble in the Northern areas. The Minister must be very careful in regard to these matters because these are national difficulties, and they do not affect only one district. We are near the foot and mouth disease areas and if the Minister does not try to exercise control over the cattle coming in from Rhodesia and such parts, foot and mouth disease can easily be brought into the Union. In the Eastern part of my constituency we have the difficulty of the tsetse fly, and if no efforts are made to cope with that trouble, it will develop into a serious danger to cattle farming in South Africa. Now, there is one important matter in South Africa which really amazes me. We have subsidies for bulls, for dams, for houses and so on, but if we open the “Farmers Weekly” and see the advertisements for foremen and managers for farms we find that the salaries offered only amount to £5 and £6 per month. We have been told that if the mines cannot pay satisfactory wages they have to be subsidised, but the farmer who has to manage another man’s farm has to work for £6 per month. It is not to South Africa’s credit, and I want to appeal to the Minister to give his attention to this aspect of the matter. Thousands of young South Africans will ere long be applying to become farmers—don’t let us just help the rich man to get richer, but let us give these young men a chance and help them to become independent citizens of this country. The position is serious but in spite of that nothing has been done yet to remedy the situation in regard to bywoners and foremen on farms. They simply have to stay there and work for those low wages. The Minister’s effort should be in that direction, and if he does anything to improve the position his name will be honoured—he will always be remembered if he can come to the assistance of these less privileged people who have not inherited any land from their parents, but who have to work hard so that one day they may be able to get a bit of land of their own. It is our duty to help them so that they may one day become independent in this country. Now there is another difficulty I want to refer to. Inspectors are appointed for every possible thing. We have burrweed inspectors but there is not the slightest co-operation between the various departments. In our part of the country we have trust lands, locations, and farms in between, but it’s no use the farmer keeping his land clean if the Trust allows burrweed and other weeds to cover the ground and spread unchecked. There is no co-operation at all and I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to take steps immediately to bring about co-operation with the Trust and the Locations with a view to getting all these weeds eradicated. It’s no use a farmer keeping his farm free of weeds and ticks if his neighbour does not do so too. I therefore want to ask the Minister to make efforts without delay to achieve the necessary co-operation. If the Minister would come to my constituency he would see the way burrweed is spreading there. I have been told about inspectors who have been appointed to inspect the cattle. It is entirely wrong to let these people travel by motor car. We are farming with cattle in these areas and if they have to go and see the way the cattle are dipped it’s no use just going to the dipping tanks. When the dipping takes place they should go to the native kraal and see how many cattle are kept back there. In my constituency thousands of cattle are kept back when dipping takes place. We should teach our inspectors to ride horses so that they can go to the kraals on horseback and find out how many animals are kept behind. There are many young men in this country who cannot ride a horse. They should leave the motor cars alone until such time as they are able to afford a car of their own. Today they cannot buy cars. We should appoint more of them, we should pay them well and give them horses, and they will then be able to do their work properly. I also want to support the hon. member who spoke about pig farming here. If there is one thing wrong in our meat industry it is pig farming. When we paid 10s. per bag for mealies we were selling baconers at 9½d. per lb. We are now paying 18s. for mealies, to which we have to add 1s. for transport, and we get 6d. per lb. for baconers. There is something wrong there. Everything else has gone up with the exception of the price of baconers. I want to say here that if we do not extend proper protection to the pig farmers our pig market will soon be a thing of the past. A lot of these people have already disposed of their breeding pigs. This is an industry which needs assistance very badly if it is to be kept going. I paid careful attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) and I can mention instances in Letabe and Tzaneen where fruit was ploughed into the ground. On one farm 8,000 bags of oranges were buried. On another farm 10,000, and on the third farm 11,000. And I can go on like that and give the House the names of the farmers concerned. Those oranges were buried in the ground. I don’t know where the fault lies, but those farmers are being wiped out and we should take steps to remedy the position. If these farmers are compelled to bury their products it is no credit to the people of this country— it is no credit to us to bury God’s gifts after He has delivered them into our hands. There is something wrong. It is not my business to find out what is wrong, but it hurts those people to have to plough their own fruit into the land. I can mention the names of people who have done this if hon. members want me to do so. There is another point I want to raise. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) said something about mealies. I want to give her a practical instance. I myself sowed 42 bags of mealies. The locusts came and I did not gather a single bag. On one occasion I planted 50 bags and I got 500 bags back because of drought. And I can mention year after year. If hon. members come here to blame the Department of Agriculture and accuse it of having neglected its duties—my reply is that they should turn to Providence and not blame the Department of Agriculture. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) was good enough to try and put a cleft stick between the consumers, the commercial men and the producers of the country. That is the sort of thing which we in the United Party are going to oppose with all our force.

I pleaded for united action.

We know, every one of us, whether he be a producer member, a middleman who has been blackguarded, or a consumer that things have not been developing on the right lines. The hon. member for Cradock when we approached him about something going wrong with one of the Boards replied : “Well, it is the middleman— the middleman on the board is responsible”. I only want to bring to his notice that on the eight control boards there are 105 members: 72 are direct representatives of thefarming community, 8 are representatives of the agricultural department, 13 represent the processing section of the industry, millers and that type of individual, 6 represent the distributors, and 6 the consumers. I think the hon. member will appreciate that the representation of about 5 per cent. of consumers and 5 per cent. of distributors means that the consumers and the distributors have very little to say about the machinations of the control boards.

Give the consumer more; we want him to have more.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has hit the nail on the head. He says regardless of whether a man is a producer or a consumer, get men on the control boards who can run the show, get able men, economists, and so on, but don’t put a lot of people there who do not understand why they are there.

That is an insult to the board.

Well, I am sorry if it is an insult to the board but that is the position. The board is not satisfied to deal with the production side, it is not satisfied to advise on production costs and such things— it can go right to the consumer; the Wheat Board for instance tackles the production end, the distribution, the question of hygiene and so on. On that board there is one member representing the consumer.

Are you against the board?

There is no specialist, no health officer, but there is a terrific majority of farming members on that board—what do they know of hygienic matters—what do they know about bakeries—yet they control the policy of the board right throughout.

Are you against the board?

I will answer the question of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren); he cannot frighten me. The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Fawcett) has referred to the necessity of creating advisory boards of consumers. I want an advisory board of consumers that is effective. I want an advisory council that will not have Mr. So and So on it but men who are economists, able men who can advise the country as to the right way in which these things should be run. Let us approach the agricultural policy from a realistic point of view. Do not let us talk in broad terms and have one section of the population criticising the other section of the population. I want to refer to the third interim report of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission, which produced its report in 1941. The chairman of this Commission was Dr. H. J. van Eck, a South African of great ability. These were the members: Mr. Sidney H. Houghton whom I do not know; Dr. H. Pirow, also a man of ability, Mr. F. J. de Villiers, Mr. Hubert D. Leppan and Dr. Bernard Price. This is a purely impartial body of men who would be able to dissect the whole agricultural industry and tell us what is happening in this industry.

Where is the farming expert?

Let me read a few passages from this report. The Commission states—

Please do not misunderstand me; I am not decrying the amount spent; I only want to analyse the figures—

I may say that that amount has been increased to £1,500,000. Then the Commission goes on to say—

I shall not delay the House much longer. The Commission ends on this note—

This price factor is the one that I want to discuss. I mentioned in the House on a previous occasion that 93 per cent. of the wheat farmers produced 50 per cent. of the wheat. Seven per cent. of them produced the other 50 per cent I have the figures here from the Annual Report of the Maize Control Board. Eighty per cent. of the farmers producing under 500 bags of maize, produce 40 per cent. of the maize.

Do you believe that?

It is your report; you are on the Board.

That is the number who sold quantities less than 500.

They sold quantities under 500 bags.

Sold not produced.

I am sorry it was my mistake. The total amount was 17,000,000 bags. But I want to point out that there is a connection between what you sell and what you produce. You cannot get away from that. Between 500 to 1,000 bags, 14 per cent. of the farmers producing 27 per cent. of the maize of the country; that is 94 per cent. of the total number of farmers only produce 56 per cent. of the maize produced in the Union. [Time limit.]

I hope to reply in a moment to what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down. First of all, as the representative of Calvinia, I want to congratulate the hon. Minister, who is a son of Calvinia and who has even retained the accent of Calvinia. We are aware of the fact that he is a newcomer in the agricultural sphere, that he will have to allow himself to be taught, and I want to associate myself with other farmers in this House who have said that if the Minister places the interests of the farmers first and foremost, he can be sure of the support of the farming community. I want tc· ask the hon. Minister to learn by heart pages 144 to 148 of the annual report of his departmental head; he will then see what the policy is which the farmers advocate. The Secretary for Agriculture has stated here what the aims of the farming community are, and if the hon. Minister will only give effect to this policy, the farming community will be highly satisfied. As has already been said by other hon. members it is the desire of the farming community to make a decent living in South Africa. The farmers on their lonely farms are debarred from many privileges. They are doing pioneer’s work in order to feed the consumers in this country, and since the farmers are doing this pioneering work, they at least expect better conditions, and any country which does not take care of its farming community is doomed to go under. That is proved by the fact that steps have been taken by so many other countries at this time to subsidise the farming community on a large scale. Take the case of England. In view of the price increases which have taken place during the war, the control of prices has been to the detriment of the farming community. If there had been no control measures the prices would have risen considerably as in the previous World War, and we say that the introduction of price control has been to the detriment of the farming community, but it is in the interests of the country generally. The farmers made this contribution with a view to preventing an undue rise in the cost of living. But now we ask that the farming community also be taken care of, and I want to speak today more particularly as the representative of meat farmers, and I want to tell the Minister that the farmers are anxiously looking forward to the price which is going to be fixed for the different grades of meat. In fixing the price the hon. Minister will have to take into account the prices which ruled on the markets during the past six months. Particularly strong attacks have been made on the control boards. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) put all the blame on the control boards, but the hon. member forgot that a commission like the Meat Commission, on which there was a representative of the consumers, a representative of the Labour Party, recommended control boards. I want to point out that there is a Labour representative on the Wheat Board. The enemy of the hon. member for Krugersdorp and the enemy of all of us is the middleman who exploits both sections to his own advantage. Then there is another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. The young farmer requires capital. The difficulty is that large capital sums are invested in farming, and we feel that the Government will have to take steps to convert the Land Bank into a short-term as well as a long-term bank; in other words, the Land Bank must practically be the only mortgagee of the farmer. There must be a system under which the farmers can be assisted. The Minister stated here that he still does not see his way clear to abolish the meatless day. I want to point out to the Minister that especially on the platteland, far from the cities, the people who have boarding houses experience great difficulty as a result of the meatless day. The other day I addressed a letter which had been sent to me, to the Food Controller—and the Minister is the head of that organisation— in which these people say that they cannot obtain fish. When we ask that the meatless day should be abolished, the reply is that we can use pork, but surely the Minister knows that the farmers in those parts—he himself comes from those parts—only keep one pig per year which they fatten for their own consumption. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) spoke in connection with the wool scheme. Two hon. members on the other side replied to the speech. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Solomon) said that the hon. member had spoken of 15,000 farmers who make their living out of wool farming. She misunderstood him. The, hon. member said that 50,000 farmers made their living out of wool The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) made an attack on the hon. member for Cradock because he had made a plea that the Government should see to it that the farmers receive a decent price for their wool when the prices fall in the future, and he found fault with the hon. member for having condemned the wool scheme. It is the Government which is responsible for the fact that the price of wool was not much higher in those days when there was an open market. The Government, by entering into the wool scheme, deprived the farmers of millions of pounds. At first we heard that the price had been fixed at 10¾d. and later it appeared that that was not true. We say it is the duty of the Government to see that we get a proper stabilised price for our wool when the reaction sets in. But I want to ask the hon. Minister what the import tariff is in America in respect of wool. I have here a report from Washington dated Thursday, 17th February, in regard to the evidence which was given before the Agricultural Committee of the House of Representatives by Mr. Thorman Winter, Chairman of the National Woolgrowers’ Association of America. He said—

That means that Britain gets approximately 5s. for every pound of wool which she sells in America. I should like to know whether the American Government pays import duties on the wool which they buy from the British Government, and if that is not so it is scandalous that the farmers in South Africa are receiving approximately 13 pennies per pound as against 5s. which the British Government gets for that wool. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) who has just sat down, made an attack on the management of control boards. I want to ask him, if he is a consumer, what he would have paid if there had been no wheat control? Wheat was sold in Ireland even two years ago for 50 shillings. What would he have paid for his butter and cheese if there had been no control? There would have been a great increase in the cost of the necessities of life if there had been no control boards. I think if there is one section of the community which can be grateful that control boards exist, it is the consumers. We feel that our control boards should be composed of people who make their living from the product, namely the producer and the consumer. Those are the people who should have a say and not the middleman who lives like a parasite on the labour of the producer and the income of the consumer. [Time limit.]

I wish to plead with the hon. Minister for a section of the people who have no vote. I am referring to the natives in Zululand. I wish to plead for the appointment of an Advisory Board consisting of members who know the conditions of Zululand, such an Advisory Board to advise the Mealie Control Board about the distribution of mealies. Last year there were occasions when in Nqutu, one of the towns in Zululand, mealies were being sold even before they reached the stores. They were bought by natives who were waiting for the R.M.S. buses to arrive with the mealies, and crowds of natives who turned up in order to get their supply of food had to go away empty handed. Such an Advisory Board has been established in the Transkei, and I feel that if such an Advisory Board were established for Zululand, that such a Board would be able to help the Mealie Control Board in its distribution of mealies in that area. Then I want to get on to one other point. The hon. Minister told us a few minutes ago that official estimates of the mealie crop were necessary before he could fix the present season’s prices. It seems to me that it is considered that the cost of production of mealies must be worked out, only after we have found out what the crop is. That may be correct as far as the whole country is concerned, but certain areas may have a record crop, and therefore the total crop would not affect the cost of production in such areas. I would therefore appeal to the Minister to consider a State Insurance Farmers’ Crop Scheme. Farming, after all, especially in our country is a great gamble, and the business method of dealing with any great gamble like that is to have an insurance scheme. I would almost say that the farmers need an insurance scheme, because one constantly finds that most farmers, at some time or other, suffer losses due to causes beyond their control. I do feel that an insurance scheme which would enable the farmers to get the value of at least a portion of their estimated crop, would be a tremendous help to the farmers, and would also help to stabilise the price of farm products. Our farmers, it is true, can live on very little, and on occasions they have to live on very little, but they cannot live on nothing, and therefore I would suggest that the hon. Minister should consider a State insurance scheme for farm products. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) referred to the burial of citrus fruit. Other members have referred to the same thing. May I, on the other hand, just point out the sort of thing that has been done by the Citrus Board. The following orders were placed with the Citrus Board for oranges. The Dundee Government Junior School on the 14th September placed an order for 20 pockets weekly; the St. Augustine Primary School placed an order on the 16th September for 35 pockets weekly; another Government school placed an order for eight pockets weekly. Only one consignment was delivered as from the 14th September until the end of the season for No. 1; for No. 2 only one consignment was delivered, and for No. 3 only three consignments were delivered. I sought and obtained an explanation from the Citrus Board, and the explanation is this that the order for No. 1 was received by them on the 14th September, that they were requested not to make deliveries during the school holidays, i.e., from the 29th September to the 6th October, but that they placed an order with certain growers on the 20th September. Those growers with whom they placed the order were only able to make one delivery, which they did on the 30th September, and then they returned the order to the Citrus Board. This order was placed with different producers under the control of the Citrus Board, and finally the order was returned to the Citrus Board’s office again. On the 29th October the Citrus Board once more placed the order with another producer. But the excuse the Citrus Board made was that no complaints were received from the schools, with the result that it was assumed that the order was being executed. The Board assumed that this order which was in their office and which was continually being sent back to them, was being executed. That is their excuse. I feel that we really must get hold of people who know something of distribution in our control boards. We must not have the type of person, who, when he gets an unexecuted order returned to his office, and who knows it is there, assumes that the order is being executed It seems absurd to me that this sort of excuse is made to us year in and year out. We do feel that if we want to make a success of these control boards—and every one of us wants to make a success of the proper control of the products of our country—that these boards must be run on ordinary business lines. Once we have that, we can expect them to be successes and then we will not have this outcry throughout the country for control boards to be got rid of because they are a nuisance and costing us a lot of trouble. Many of our control boards suffer from the same disability. We have people there who know something of production. We have some who know a lot about production, but they have never yet learnt anything about the distribution side of their work, and in these days when there is a shortage of trucks, and when there is a shortage of R.M.S. buses we must anticipate demands. In conclusion I again want to appeal to the Minister and to ask him please to see that the distributors of mealies in the native areas receive their mealies well in advance, and that they are not called upon to wait for permits, etc. which will delay their getting the necessary food in these native areas. [Time limit.]

At the outset may I assure our new Minister of Agriculture that as far as the Zululand farmers are concerned, he will have our hearty support and co-operation. It was very pleasant today to listen to his statement as to the policy which he as Minister had in view I want to say that until we get a policy of co-operation between the producer, the distributor and the consumer we will make no progress in this country and I do not want to see a position develop whereby you will get a cleavage between town and country. The producer, the distributor and the consumer all have a right to live. We have an obligation to one another and if we work on those lines, I am certain that it is possible to work out a policy whereby the producer will get a fair deal, the distributor will get a fair deal and the consumer will get the products at a fair price. That is what I am out to do, and I am out to assist the Minister in doing so. I do not want to pursue that subject, but I want to make an appeal to the Minister in connection with the question of our veterinary services and the tightening up of our inspectorate as far as those services are concerned. I take a serious view of this for the simple reason that the conservation of our foodstuffs is at stake. I consider that inadequate inspection today is making inroads on our animal resources as far as stock diseases are concerned. All our stock diseases are tick borne, and it is necessary to tighten up that inspection as much as we can. If you look at the Estimates before the House at the present time you will see that our dipping inspectors are getting 10s. 6d. per day. Those people are working under very difficult circumstances indeed. When I say that they get 10s. 6d. per day I should add that they can eventually get 12s. 6d. per day; they can get an increase of 6d. every six months going up to 12s. 6d. eventually. These people are married men in many cases, and it is absolutely necessary that if they are going to live as reasonable people they are forced to augment their income from other sources of revenue and I am aware of the fact that in many instances these men are forced to augment their incomes by means of farming, speculating and store-keeping. It does not take any great effort of the imagination to know that they have to do that to augment their income. So far as the stock inspectorate is concerned, the country is going to suffer. Apart from low salaries they are employed on a temporary basis. In Southern Zululand alone there are four stock inspectors and thirty-five assistants, while in Northern Zululand there are three stock inspectors and nineteen assistants. Some of these men have been in the service of the Government for periods ranging from fourteen to 24 years, but they are still on a temporary basis. I think that that is altogether wrong. If you keep these men on a temporary basis it is only natural that their service will not be as efficient as it should be. Furthermore, it has to be remembered that being on a temporary basis these officials lose benefits compared with other civil servants. They get no pensions or medical benefits nor do they come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I believe that in 1935 the Government did advocate a policy whereby these men who were on a temporary basis should pay into a provident fund, and today they are paying 10s. 6d. a month into that fund. But when they come to the retiring age, between 55 and 60, what they get out of it is in no way commensurate with benefits they would have derived from the pension fund. I make an appeal to the Minister to take steps to have these men placed on a proper basis of employment not only in so far as emoluments are concerned, but to ensure that when they reach a pensionable age they Will have something to live on. I am one of those who belive that if you pay adequately for service, you will get efficiency; that is far better than paying an inadequate wage and receiving inefficient service. I say today without fear of contradiction that as far as the inspectorate is concerned their terms of engagement are totally inadequate. The mere fact that we have these recurrent outbreaks of East Coast Fever is proof of that. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) has observed that though we have been dealing with E.C.F. for 30 years we have arrived at no solution of the problem. The solution I would suggest for its eradication is the employment of an adequate inspectorate, staff paid at an adequate figure. I know what these people have to go through, and if the Minister will tighten up his veterinary service, from the veterinary officers downwards, and place them on a living basis, you will be able to get a better class of man. That will go a long way towards getting rid of East Coast Fever and conserving the stock of our country, which is a matter of national importance. We lose thousands of head of cattle every year, so it is a vitally important matter. Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, I would make the control so strict that if there was an outbreak I would make it a matter of public importance and have a thorough investigation in the same way as if there was a mining accident, or a serious accident on the railways. Everybody concerned should be put on the carpet, and the outbreak thoroughly enquired into. If that were done you would find that the outbreaks of disease would be reduced to a minimum. I appeal to the Minister to make a thorough overhaul of the veterinary service, and to see that those who are assistants in that service are paid an adequate wage and placed on the same basis as other civil servants. If we pay adequately for that service we shall in the end have an efficient service.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is present, because I want to bring briefly to his notice a matter I consider of vital interest to the farming population. I think that representatives of agriculture on whatever side of the House they sit, as well as the Minister of Agriculture himself, will feel alarmed when they realise what the policy is that is developing; it is a policy that I am con vinced will not only hamper the agricultural co-operatives, but if it is universally applied I think I can justly say it will eventually contribute to the total destruction of the agricultural co-operatives in South Africa. It is not necessary here to make a plea in regard to the importance of co-operatives. I think, however, that it will not be out of place to quote what was stated by the late Mr. John de Kock, Director of the M.K.T.W. He said―

Obstruct or break the agricultural cooperatives in this country, and you immediately destroy the whole foundation on which our agricultural economy has been built; and consequently a large section of the farming community will become immediately an intolerable burden on the State.

I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that even before Union various governments had urged on the farmers the necessity for cooperation, and in this connection we may say that today a policy is being followed by one department which subscribes to the opinion that agricultural co-operatives cannot be regarded as an inseparable part of the agricultural economy. It appears to me that the Department of Labour is under the impression that they must regard agricultural co-operatives as factories, and that being so make them come under the Factories Acts and the Wage Acts. I want to ask the Minister what his opinion is in this connection. The day before yesterday a question in this regard was put in the other place that forced me to that conclusion. The question was whether the Minister of Labour was aware that the Factories Act was being applied to the farming co-operative stores and those connected with citrus grading and packing; whether he was aware that the Act exempts farmers who carry on their farming on their own or as partners; whether his Department had laid down that the packing and grading of fruit forms no part of the grower’s work or of his farming; and under what section the Act is being applied to the Agricultural Co-operative Associations. From the answer given by the Minister it is clear that the Department of Labour no longer regards the agricultural co-operative as an inseparable feature of agricultural activity, and I want to say that that is fatal. An affirmative answer was given to the first two questions, and the third answer was in the negative. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) has stated that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry should not follow a policy of wait and see. Here he should step into the breach on behalf of the agricultural co-operatives and see to it that the agricultural co-operatives are not treated as factories but as institutions that really take care of the interests of the farmers as such. We as farming members, also expect of the Minister that he will act in this way, so that there will be no meddling in agricultural activities, but the co-operatives will be able to go ahead undisturbed on a sound basis and under the Co-operative Act. If the Minister will give that assurance we shall be grateful to him. In conclusion, I just want to say that the Minister must step into the breach on behalf of the agricultural co-operatives. If a wrong policy is followed it will undoubtedly within a short time give rise to serious difficulties, especially in regard to the wage provisions as affecting co-operatives. Accordingly, I desire that the Minister should make a clear and unequivocal pronouncement in this connection, so that when the Minister of Labour’s vote comes under discussion we shall at least have a basis for further arguing. The Minister must ensure that the agricultural co-operatives are not dealt with as if they were detached from agricultural activity. It was never the intention that they should fall under the Factories Act and the. Wages Act, and we shall be glad if the Minister of Agriculture will speak on that and tell us what his opinion is, whether his Department and he as Minister regard the agricultural co-operatives as an inseparable section of farming activities, or whether he identifies himself with the policy of the Minister of Labour, who regards the agricultural co-operatives today as factories, and allows them to fall under the Factories Act and the Wages Act.

Notwithstanding the creation of so many boards, I do feel, Sir, that the consumer is getting a very raw deal. Whilst I do not want to throw stones at the various boards, or at the Department in particular, I feel that the machinery which has been put into operation is not working in the best interests of the consumer. I speak with years of experience on the Pretoria market. I find that the various systems introduced if they are not benefiting the farmers are certainly not benefiting the consumer; then they must be benefiting the middleman or the so-called speculator. In Pretoria the Citrus Board introduced a scheme to assist the housewife. The scheme, in my humble opinion, was cock-eyed. The idea was to encourage the housewife to patronise the local market. Under the scheme introduced by the Board the housewife could buy a pocket of oranges at 3s. 3d., but when it came to the speculator he had to buy five bags or more for which he paid a fixed price 2s. 6d. This meant that the housewife had to come from the suburbs to the market, which cost her 6d. bus fare, bringing the price of her pocket of oranges to 3s. 9d., whereas the speculator—the Indian as far as Pretoria is concerned—was able to buy the oranges in wholesale quantities at 2s. 6d. and could retail them to the housewife at her door for 2s. 9d. a pocket. The result of that experiment should have clearly proved to the Department that it was on a wrong basis. In a matter of six weeks of over 60,000 pockets sold, only about 160 pockets of oranges were sold retail. What I feel is wrong is this, that the farmer is not getting a reasonable price for his commodities when they are sold through the middleman. I have heard it said so often that what we want is to try to bring the producer in direct contact with the consumer. But the law seems to be wrong. We find in Pretoria we have the market agents; and we have our marketmaster; but át least 95 per cent. of the market produce is sent direct to the market agents and not to the marketmaster, with the result that most of the produce is sold wholesale. Thus it gets into the hands of the speculator and I am afraid the farmer is not getting the price he is entitled to on account of there being these rings and no proper system whereunder there can be open competition on the market. I do appeal to the Minister to take the local authorities into his confidence, and to remember that there are throughout the Union marketmasters who have a very strong organisation and who are men with immense practical experience, and who could offer some very sound advice indeed. I have the poor man particularly in mind, when I refer to the fact that we find today that eggs are costing 3s. 5d. a dozen, which to them is like having to buy a cocktail; the result being that the poor man is practically deprived of eggs at the moment. We also find that under this iniquitous system the market might be flooded with potatoes, but due to the fact that the agent wants a certain price he will not sell, with the result that the potatoes are held for a week or two, and the farmer does not benefit by the low price that is eventually obtained. I submit that there are ways and means to ensure that the public obtains these commodities at reasonable prices. This implies that there must be a system which is properly worked. I submit in all sincerity that judging by the adverse criticism which has been levelled generally by the consumers, the Minister’s department has devoted too much time to the theory and not enough to the practical problems. The whole department, in my humble opinion, needs overhauling. I appreciate that the Minister has just taken office, but he looks like a man who is full of vitality, and I trust that he will lose no time in taking steps to deal with these matters of great urgency and importance.

It was a curious peroration that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat treated us to when he made an appeal to the Minister to take a broom and clean up his department in respect of the staff. The party to which the hon. member belongs is comprised of farmers, consumers and speculators, and it was necessary for the Minister today to make an appeal to hon. members not to provoke a division between town and country. Now the hon. member is unwittingly engaged in encouraging this strife. I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister that we have reached the cross-roads in that for years the farmers, as well as the consumers, have been exploited by the middelman. Now, owing to the exigencies of the war, price fixation has arrived for the farmer’s products, and also in respect of what the consumer must pay, while the middleman’s profits have also been pegged down, and now we are witnessing the last convulsions of the speculators and traders.

Orange Grove!

Yes, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) are now in their last throes, because they see that we have reached the transition stage. Restrictions have been placed on their profits, and now they are fighting for their very existence. They do not care a brass farthing whether the farmer gets more or less, or whether the consumer has to pay more or less. The whole fight that is taking place here comes to this, that these people are at their last gasp and are fighting for their survival. From the very nature of the case it has always been their objective that the farmer should receive the lowest possible price and that the consumer should pay the highest possible price, while the speculators in between walked off with the spoils. It does not suit them at all that the consumers and the farmers will be protected, and now they are endeavouring to set these two sections at loggerheads with each other.

No.

An hon. member says “no.” I have written down a number of names. The hon. member for Orange Grove is fighting for his own skin because he is a grain dealer. I can mention more instances. Why are they figting the control boards? The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has described how the Chamber of Commerce is fighting for all it is worth because they realise that they are now fighting in the last ditch. Let it now be understood once and for all that the consumer and the farmer are friends. The farmer has to produce what can be delivered to the consumer, and the harm that has been sown has been sown by the middleman such as the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Hospital. The hon. member for Hospital creates havoc whereever he goes, and all the time it is just for his personal benefit.

He will yet cause havoc amongst his own party.

Yes, and in the end he will destroy himself and no one will be sorry about that. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has come to the conclusion that control boards must be preserved. They also are in a transition stage. Some hon. members come along and blacken the Department of Agriculture. True, they have made mistakes, very big mistakes, but we know also that if the Department of Agriculture had had its way we would have had total control in South Africa and it would have been a success, but that party on the other side of the House represents such divergent interests that when the Department of Agriculture wanted to introduce total control and to protect the producers and the consumers, pressure was exercised on the Minister of Agriculture and he then came with semi-control; that is the reason why the consumers and the farmers have been set at each other’s throats. The Minister must set his teeth and follow the advice of the Department of Agriculture. Then eventually the farmers and the consumers will be satisfied; but there is one section that will bespatter him, and that is the Orange Grove section and the people who have to make their living as middlemen. Now I want to turn to the meat scheme. The hon. the Minister has stated that it will come into effect in a few weeks’ time. I do not know whether the Minister appreciates what the feeling is among the farmers outside, but as he must look after the interests of the farmers he should take them into account and see to it that the farmers know where they stand. It has been mentioned here today what tremendous prices farmers obtained in the last war, £5 for wheat and a much higher price for oxen than is ruling today.

But you have said that the middlemen got it.

I am not worrying about the hon. member, who is fighting for his own preservation. We are fighting for the preservation of the country and the people. What I want is that the farmers should know exactly where they stand. They are anxious to learn whether the scheme is going to be permanent and whether it is going to remain in operation after the war. The farmers are prepared to make sacrifices, to accept low prices and to allow their prices to be controlled, but then they want to be assured that after the war control will not be removed and that they will again receive only 5s. and 10s. for their sheep. If that were the case they would be fools to go in for the scheme and to support it. The Minister has stated that the Meat Board is engaged in preparing a scheme under the Marketing Act. I accept that this is the case, but if the Minister does not give the assurance that it is going to be permanent, he is going to find it very difficult to make a success of the scheme, because it cannot be expected that people will allow their control to lapse and accept price fixation, under which they can gradually come on to a good basis, if after the war they are going to be thrown to the wolves. They want to know where they stand. There are some disquieting points in the scheme. In the first place we feel that the Department of Agriculture do make big mistakes, but that they are still the friends of the farmer, although hon. members on the other side of the House stigmatise them as Nazi’s who must be swept out of the way. They have the interests of the farmers at heart, and if people from outside are to be drafted into the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Economics and Markets, who for years have fought for stabilisation of prices, it will be a big mistake. The Minister must stand his ground and allow the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Economics and Markets to receive what is their due. [Time limit.]

I have been wondering whether we might not reasonably assume that we have the particular disease East Coast Fever with us for all time. I am wondering whether we have accepted that research into this disease—and the possibility of the discovery of some serum that might be used as a preventive measure against it— has been a failure. I think we are justified in asking such a question after we have had East Coast Fever with us for a matter of plusminus 50 years. We have been endeavouring to confine it to a little strip of country along the East Coast that has been acting as a buffer to the whole of the country to prevent the spread of the disease to every other part of South Africa, while immediately outside that strip there are areas breeding as many ticks as it is possible to get, and thus maintaining the danger of the continuance of the disease for all time. May I tell you that we have got to the stage where we are tired of trying to cope with that disease. The carrying out of the various regulations that are imposed have reached a pitch where the regulations are really worse than the disease itself. I can almost state with safety that its has cost the Government, and the farmers who have acted as a buffer against the spread of East Coast Fever to the rest of the country, more than it would have cost had the disease taken its full course and we had shot out every beast in the area. So we feel we are justified now in asking if it is not possible to investigate ways and means whereby we might find some way of stamping it out by, shall I say, inviting international research to investigate this disease with the object of finding á serum that will prevent the disease from persisting in the way it has done, and thus leaving us merely the task of controlling the parasite, as we are prepared to do in these areas. Having said that about East Coast Fever, I want to say a few words in respect of control boards. I do not know of anything designed to cause greater trouble than this bickering on the floor of the House and the accusations that have been levelled as between consumer, producer and middleman. To my mind the solution is easy of approach. Firstly, I maintain that we as producers should confine ourselves to production. Let us get the farmers to divorce the commercial side from agriculture, leaving them to have a board of their own to deliberate and decide on such problems as distribution. I am not here to condemn control boards, nor am I here to champion them, because if I have any destructive criticism to make today it is this, that the control board management over the last two or three years has brought these boards into disrepute to the extent that they cannot ask us in the platteland to champion them in the way they should be. I maintain that we are entitled to protection in respect of every section of the community, and as producers, but we cannot approve of control boards behaving in the way they have done. Last year I mentioned this matter and I quoted the figure of 5,000 in respect of certain foodstuffs. I wanted to let the Minister down lightly. The actual figure in connection with the destruction of certain foodstuffs was 26,743. I was contradicted from the floor of the House. Now that state of affairs, as has again been indicated today, is even much worse than it was said to be. Can the control boards continue to carry on under those circumstances? Let me give an instance. One mant wants 10 bags of mealies and he gets four. Another one wants 100 bags included among which are 30 to feed his cows. Now the one man only gets four but the other man gets the whole of his 100. Now, while that state of affairs exists we cannot under any circumstances be expected to protect the control boards as we would like to protect them. The sooner we are able to divorce ourselves as producers from the commercial side of our production the better it will be for the producers. We can stabilise our prices and say: “That is what we want.”

What about the Food Controller?

I am not bothering about the Food Controller át the moment; I am dealing with the question of control boards for the time being. They demand our protection—but can we justly give it to them? Now, I want to ask the Minister what I have asked for before. That is to institute an investigation into the whole question of agriculture. I want him to appoint a commission to investigate all the pro’s and con’s of agriculture, to investigate production costs and everything. It is unfortunate that the Department cannot give us these costs. Many of us have had to keep these costs from the day we started farming —we would have been out of business long ago if we had not kept them. I would plead with the Minister to establish such a commission as soon as possible and then we shall be able to do whatever we can to rehabilitate agriculture, and many of our difficulties if not solved, will at any rate be placed under proper control. One should bear in mind that there is nothing more unhealthy for an industry than declining figures for the articles which that industry is producing. It is causing a state of affairs which is entirely unhealthy to agriculture. Agricultural land is going up in price, agricultural costs, costs of everything the agriculturist needs, are going up, with the result that the costs to the consumer are going up too. They are going up to an extent causing the consumers to demand an increased cost of living to meet the other costs. I do suggest that some of these figures require adjustment. We should go into the whole måtter very carefully. There are other items which I wanted to deal with, but the hour is getting late and I know the Minister wants to reply.

I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). As far as agriculture is concerned he has conveyed the impression to me that he hears the bell ringing but he does not know where it is hanging. I would just like to tell him in reference to his plea for free trade that I have here a market note in respect of a transaction that took place on the open market. A calf was sold on the market, a calf that in the ordinary course would have fetched 25s. The owner sent it here from Riversdale. It was sold in the open market, and the owner got 1s. 1d. out of the transaction. Here is the note.

I did not talk about that.

The hon. member does not appreciate what the farmer has to go through. The farmer does not always receive 2½ per cent. on what he sells.

Nor do I.

You probably get 5 per cent. He neither sows nor ploughs, but the farmer must do the work; he has to contend with the weather and everything else, not only with the market but with all these other factors, and all that he asks is a reasonable and economic price so that he also may have some butter on his bread.

There I agree with you.

I am glad to hear that. That is the first time you have said anything encouraging in this House. We have frequently stated on this side of the House that that is all we want for the farmer. We also felt that with the control that there was—it was an unusual thing—the producer did not always get the advantage. It is not in every instance the fault of the control boards. There are also cases where the Food Controller fixes the price. Take an article such as currants. The farmer receives about 7d. for the product, and the consumer pays more than 1s. Why? Because the intermediate traders receive 33⅓ per cent., almost as much in profit as what the farmer receives for his product. That is not the fault of the Control Board but of the Food Controller. If the farmer must sell his produce for the price that the middleman has to pay for it, and the consumer has then in turn to pay what the middleman demands from him, then the hon. member must not run round and stir up the consumers. The farmers are prepared to make sacrifices during this period, because they do not want to see the cost of living driven up, because when the drop does come it will be so steep that the farmer will also feel the depression. But seeing that the farmer’s prices are now controlled, he is not going to stand by and see the consumer not getting any advantage. The control board that has controlled the products of the wine farmer since 1924 has not a single consumers’ representative on it. It is purely a control board comprised of wine farmers. The wine merchants have their own association. If there is a difference discussions take place between the two organisations. But as soon as we give the middleman and the merchant the right to fix prices we land in difficulties. I am in favour of the farmer controlling the price of his product. The control boards that at present control the products, whether they have on them merchants, consumers or producers, do not fix the prices. They can only make a recommendation to the Minister. The Minister has his staff, he has the Marketing Board, the Board of Trade and Industries and so forth, and after he has taken all the circumstances into consideration he fixes the price. I do not think that he has in a single instance fixed a price in accordance with the recommendation of the control board. He always gives less. But if we could get the matter on the same lines as exist in the case of the wine farmers, then the Government will have nothing to do with it. The wine farmers determine the price every year, and if the merchants and the consumers are dissatisfied they can demand arbitration and the arbitrators fix the price. The difficulty is that the control boards have no authority. They recommend prices to the Government. The farmer is always afraid that the price will go too high, because this will mean that later there will be a drop and then there are difficulties. So long as the farmer can get a stable price he is satisfied, provided it is a price out of which he can make a decent living.

At 6;40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 3rd April.