I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to, and the Bill accordingly withdrawn.

By direction of Mr. Speaker, The Magistrates’ Courts Bill, submitted by the Select Committee, was read a first time; second reading on 17th April.

When the House adjourned I was discussing certain general matters in connection with the prices which the farmers receive for their products. I now want to deviate from that to some extent and draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that notwithstanding the fact that all the wool in this country was sold to the Imperial Government at a fixed price, wool buyers are going round the country buying up wool, and I think in the early stages the farmers were protected against these people in that they were compelled to put the wool direct on the market where it was then sorted and taken by the Imperial Government. A few months ago I was in the Riversdale district, and I found that there were wool buyers who were buying wool from the farmers. I made investigations and found that these people had been buying wool for years in that area. They cannot give the farmers a higher price for the wool than they themselves can get.

But they can give a lower price.

The wool buyer may give a lower price, and in that way make profits, but since the Government entered into this contract and since it is the Government’s duty to protect the farmers, they ought to put a stop to this practice on the part of speculators of buying this wool. The speculator can only make a profit on the transaction if he pays the farmer a lower price, or he can make money by getting the persons who fix the various grades of wool to give him certain benefits. He is not allowed to do so. The Minister knows that that was done in the case of horses. I was told that this buyer made £10,000 last year. It is said that he made £10,000 and he does not deny it. I should like the Minister to protect the wool farmers, because it may be that the speculator goes to one wool farmer, pays him a slightly higher price, and then goes to the small wool farmers and pays them a lower price. I think the farmers must get the benefit of that price; it is not reasonable that a portion of it should go to the speculator. I hope that the Minister will investigate this matter and see what he can do with a view to protecting these people. Then there is another matter. The wool scheme is now being considered. The price of meat will now be fixed, the price which the farmers will get and the price which the consumers will pay. A system is now in operation in the platteland — of course that will not be done in the large centres — but in the smaller centres a system of rationing the butchers has been introduced. I investigated this matter thoroughly. I even went to the Meat Board and the Meat Board is convinced that as far as cattle are concerned there is not a shortage of meat. As far as sheep are concerned they are not quite certain whether there is a shortage. I am convinced that it is not necessary to ration the butchers on the platteland. A butcher will not slaughter more sheep than he can sell. Under this system it means that the young man who now enters this business will find himself in an unfavourable position; he cannot carry on; his ration is too small and he is compelled to go to the large butchers for his meat. This measure restricts the business of the butchers, and I cannot see that it helps in any way. As I have said, the butcher is not unnecessarily going to slaughter sheep which he cannot sell, and it seems to me that this is merely a restriction in the trade. It keeps back the industrious businessman, and it only helps the slovenly businessman. I hope the Minister will do away with this system of rationing in the platteland. I would also like the Minister to take steps to provide certain medicines which the sheep farmers require to combat the liver slugs. This is a disease from which sheep in those parts suffer. In Natal it is a serious disease, and the medicine used for that purpose is carbon detrolide. It is not procurable in this country at all. In my constituency the people suffer serious losses as a result of this disease. Stud sheep and also goats die by the score. The farmers cannot get this medicine. Many articles are imported today which are not as necessary as this medicine, and I feel that the Government should give priority to this medicine. I believe the Medical Research Institute in Johannesburg may be able to help in this respect. The sheep farmers are suffering great losses and there are people in our parts who are so seriously threatened that they will be driven out of the industry in the near future if they cannot get this medicine. I think if the Minister devotes his attention to this matter he will be able to get the medicine. Then there is this further matter which I have been instructed to raise by the milk farmers of Robertson. The Robertson Farmers’ Association approached me in connection with this matter. They regard it as a very serious matter and asked me to submit it to the Government. Unfortunately it concerns a decision which was taken by the Dairy Control Board which may mean thousands of pounds to the farmers in the vicinity of Robertson. They have a serious complaint and I think hon. members will agree with me that they have a good case. I made investigations and the officials with whom I spoke brought me under the impression that the complaint of these people was well founded. There is a condensed milk factory in the neighbourhood. As hon. members know the Friesland cow produces a fairly good quality of butter-fat, but the position is this, that the Jersey cow gives a much better quality of milk. The quantity of butter-fat which they require has been fixed by the Dairy Control Board at three per cent. The quantity of butter-fat produced by the Jersey cow is in the neighbourhood of 6 per cent. Because the Dairy Control Board has laid down that the price is to be paid per gallon—one shilling in winter months and 10d. in the summer months— the Jersey farmers do not get anything for the extra cream. The Nestle’s factory therefore gets the extra cream. The cream is removed from the milk and sold for their own profit. The Dairy Control Board laid down that the factory can choose whether they want to pay according to volume or according to the quantity of butter-fat in the milk. The position is simply this, that the Friesland farmer who delivers only three per cent. butter-fat gets the same price as the Jersey farmer at Robertson whose cows yield 6 per cent. butter-fat. Then there is another complaint. The people say it is no use approaching the factory. They simply say that the Dairy Control Board laid down this provision, and the only director of the local Nestle’s company is also a member of the Dairy Control Board, and they feel that the Friesland farmers are benefiting as a result of this decision. What we want is this. Since the prices of all other farmer’s products have been fixed according to quality, why is it not done in the case of milk? Why must the Jersey farmers deliver this high quality of milk to the company since the company takes out the extra cream and sells it? [Time limit.]

I wish to say hat the statements made by the hon. Minister in reply to representations from all sides of the House have given general satisfaction to farming members on both sides of the House and I think to the House generally. I am pleased at the desire which has been expressed on all sides of the House to keep agriculture out of the political sphere. That is all to the good of the farming industry in this country and I hope the time may still come when both sides of the House may be able to deal with agricultural matters on a purely non-party basis. Speeches from the Opposition have been constructive and not for party propaganda purpose. When the day comes that agriculture is discussed from the interests of the industry outside party politics there will be some hope for the future of agriculture in this country. One of the features of this debate has been the sympathetic attitude of farmer members towards the consumers of this country. We farmers realise that the consumers of this country are entitled to get their food at the cheapest possible rate provided that the farmer can make a living and that the prices are not fixed below the cost of production. What the townsmen do not realise is that the prices they pay are not the prices the farmers get, but those prices are increased by transport costs and the costs of distribution and marketing. Most townsmen think that what they pay is what the farmers get, and not the high prices due to distribution, transport and marketing costs. They have still to learn that the prices are increased enormously by expensive transport costs and also by the costs of distribution in this country, and that they can only get cheap food in this country when those costs are reduced to a minimum. There have been many criticisms with regard to the Marketing Act and the Control Boards. I do not wish to say that the Control Boards, as far as the distribution of our products is concerned, have been perfect, but with regard to prices —that is what I wish to talk about—our townsmen must remember that our Control Boards do not fix the prices. They only investigate the costs of production and make recommendations to the Minister. The Minister then refers it to the Marketing Council, the members of whom act in an advisory capacity. Even then the Minister does not fix the prices. We have a Food Cabinet Committee which is there to carry out the policy of the Government, and the Minister can only fix the prices after he has got the consent of the Food Cabinet Committee. On the Food Cabinet we have the Minister of Finance who is a townsman; we have the Minister of Commerce and Industries who is also a townsman and we have the Minister of Agriculture, who, although he represents the agricultural interests, will not forget the townsman’s point of view being a townsman as well. The fact is that with that Cabinet Committee, if any prices are approved of by them, we can say without any doubt that the consumers of this country can not be penalised in any way. But I believe that while the policy of the Government is a cheap food policy, they have the interests of the farmers at heart too, and they are not prepared to fix prices to the detriment of the farming community. Much of this criticism of the Control Boards is therefore altogether on wrong premises. In fact, hon. members on some sides of the House may not know that the recommendations of the Control Boards are not always accepted by the Minster or by the Cabinet Food Committee, in fact they are often not accepted, but turned down. I know for a fact that very often their recommendations are not accepted, which causes criticism from producers who feel that the prices fixed are too low. Now, in future I hope that in criticising control boards consumers will remember these facts. I wish to say that farmers have criticised our control boards, probably as much as the consumers themselves. There is great dissatisfaction among farmers with the prices fixed. The farmers think the prices are too low, and the consumers think they are too high, so I think we can accept it that the prices which are fixed are balanced fairly well in the interest of both sections of the community—consumers and producers. Now I would like to ask the House this question: What would have been the position of the country during this war if there had been no control boards? I think without any doubt mealies, which we have heard so much about, would today have been £2 or £3 per bag, and other agricultural products correspondingly high; and if they only know it, the control boards are the best friends the consumers have, they have kept down prices to the consumers of the country.

What a joke.

The position today is that the control boards have made it possible for the poorer section of our people to get food at reasonable prices, and they have also rationed it where foodstuffs have been insufficient for everyone. Had it not been for the control boards it would have been only the rich who would have been able to afford to buy our products, and the poor would have had to go without. So if they criticise the boards I hope they will realise that these boards have been the best friends of the consumer.

A real case of “save us from our friends.”

The farmers say: “Save us from Arthur Barlow.”

Only the rich can afford to eat grapes today.

Well, at all events, what I have said is correct. Now, in regard to the constitution of our boards we feel today that it would be wise to have more consumers’ representatives on the boards, so that they know the true facts of the case, and some of these boards have actually made representations to the Minister in that direction. I know that that applies to the Citrus Board. [Time limit.]

I want to say something about soil erosion, and it is surprising to me that there has been so little reference in this House during the session to a question of such importance to the country. It may possibly seem a little strange that an urban representative, an industrialist, should feel that it is necessary to speak on this subject in the House, but I frankly admit that I cannot understand the position with regard to soil erosion. As far as I can understand from the Estimates there is the insignificant amount of £9,500 under the heading of “Combating Soil Erosion and the Reclamation of Pasture”. Well, when one realises that the Agricultural Department has sponsored the taking of films and has allowed those films to travel through the Union, with a member of the Agricultural Department, a gentleman by the name of Van Rensburg — incidentally, a remarkably capable man — who has lectured on these films and on soil erosion and has shown what is taking place in the Union —one wonders what is really going on. I don’t know what the effect has been in other parts of the Union among people after seeing these films, but I do know the effect these films have had on a lot of very responsible people in my own city, Port Elizabeth, and I have had numerous enquiries and a number of letters from people who ask what steps the Government are taking to combat the evils of soil erosion. And very strangely, I have spoken to some of the farmers’ representatives in this House and asked them for their opinions of these films and they tell me that they have not seen them. Now I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he should get these films along here and give the members who have not seen them a chance of seeing them. Mr. N. C. Havenga, speaking at Cradock last week—and incidentally Mr. Havenga is a member of the National Veld Trust — said that one of the duties and one of the objects of the Veld Trust and of all sections of the community was to awaken public opinion, and especially to make youth conscious that they were trustees of the soil. Well, it seems to me that the Veld Trust is wasting a lot of their energy in trying to make people conscious of the dangerous position which exists in the Union today. It seems to me that what they want to do is to concentrate on the members of this House and the Cabinet itself and make them feel conscious of the dangers of the position, because the public, when they see the magazine articles and statements from responsible people like Mr. N. C. Havenga as to the dangerous position, wonder why the Government is sitting still. Why is it that no one outside the Agricultural Department seems to know just what is being done, just what is going to be done, or whether anything at all is going to be done …

You should come to Cradock; we can show you.

We have all heard what has happened in the Mid-West of America where large areas of good land have been turned into complete desert where the sands drift and blow as strongly as they do in some parts of the Sahara. Now, we are getting large areas where the same thing is already taking place, and I should like some hon. members of this House who come into close contact with these areas, and who know considerably more about it than I do, to speak on this subject, instead of speaking on some of the topics which seem to occupy their minds such as farmers vs. consumers and things of that sort. I think we are taking this soil erosion menace too lightly altogether.

Hear, hear.

And I feel that when a member of the National Veld Trust, like Mr. N. C. Havenga, makes a statement that after the war the Union probably will be called upon to vote even bigger sums for the war on soil erosion, the position must be very serious indeed, and it also seems to me that it is a pity that Mr. Havenga did not get this information about the dangers of soil erosion when he occupied a position on the Treasury Benches in this House, because if he had had that information then he might perhaps have provided some funds for that purpose. I know that large sums of money have been spent, but I very much doubt if they have been spent advantageously, and it seems to me that a very comprehensive plan has to be got out by the Agricultural Department and that they have to ask for the necessary money to combat this evil, and to do it on a National basis. I know it is very difficult to talk about such large sums of money for this purpose when the war is on. I know that all the money available at present is devoted to the war effort, but there is no reason why the plans should not be made ready, so that when the expenses of the Defence Department fall away, that money can be devoted for the defence of the soil of this Union, and I also want to suggest to the Minister that he should seek the co-operation of the Defence Department. I shall tell you why. There are thousands of men kicking around in the Union who, to judge from what one sees, do not seem to be doing very much. There must be hundreds who are country bred and who would be perfectly willing to be trained as overseers for combating soil erosion. The Agricultural Department want hundreds of men if they are going to tackle this menace in the way it should be tackled. And it seems that would be a very reasonable attitude for them to take up, to have these men trained in the meantime so that it is not a question of waiting until the money is available. Then, when Mr. Van Rensburg was lecturing in connection with the exhibition of these films he made no bones about saying that there were a number of farmers who were contributing to this soil erosion, who by their bad methods of farming were contributing to the impoverishment of the soil. Now, I feel that the Agricultural Department has to deal with farmers of that description. If they will not farm correctly after being taught or shown how they should do it, then measures should be taken to stop them from destroying the land which, while nominally their property, actually belongs to the nation. Then there are large areas of land which today already are useless. That land should be taken over by the State. It should be confiscated without compensation to anyone—not even to the man who has a title deed to it, because that land today is useless to the owner. [Time limit.]

In the course of the Budget debate I drew attention to the fact that there had been no official pronouncement from the Department of Agriculture as to those recommendations of the Meat Commission which were to be adopted, and I went on to allude to the undesirability of allowing meat control to be influenced in any material way by those who are responsible for the meat monopoly in this country, which is so detrimental to the public interest.

The hon. member must not refer to speeches made during the Budget debate.

I merely wish to indicate the nature of what I said, the nature of the comments which I made there within very narrow limits.

I might point out to the hon. member that any reference to the Budget debate is irregular in this Committee.

Then may I just say this, that on the Budget debate I did refer to certain matters and in reply the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) made an attack upon me on the ground that I had exaggerated the importance of the opinions of a few disgruntled individuals and declared that the Baynesfield Estate of which I am a Trustee, was a thorn in the side of the farmers in Natal. I have been long enough in this House to be entitled to make my observations in the public interest upon an important question such as that of meat control, without being accused of being subject to the petty influences of disgruntled individuals. I have notified the hon. member in writing of my intention to refer to the matter in this House, and I said, “I shall be obliged to challenge you to produce evidence in support of your statements and it is only fair that I should let you know beforehand of my intention.” Now, in connection with that matter I refer hon. members to what I said on that occasion. My comments were suitable and appropriate to the occasion and they were made in the public interest. I have on various occasions pointed to the undesirability, both inside and outside this House of permitting the meat monopoly to have any material influence in connection with the Government’s policy of meat marketing in this country, and I adhere to that. The hon. member’s attitude was to attack me on a matter which is totally unconnected with meat control and to make certain assertions, which I am aware he has also made outside this House, in regard to the policy of the Baynesfield Estate. He has suggested definitely that my remarks were the result of the opinions of a few disgruntled individuals. A perusal of my remarks would show that my main criticisms were directed against the meat monopoly, a matter which concerns a very large proportion of the farmers and consumers of this country. The only interest which I can be said to have attacked was that of the meat monopoly and yet the hon. member for East Griqualand in his speech made an attack upon me and upon the institution, the Baynesfield Estate, of which I am a Trustee, in a manner which was totally uncalled for. The hon. member in his attack suggested that the Baynesfield Estate is a thorn in the side of the farmers and that I am by inference a party to that, because I am a Trustee of the Baynesfield Estate. It is suggested that I am an opponent of co-operation—and it has been suggested, and widely publicised that I am an opponent of co-operation. The hon. member is not in his place. He sent me a verbal message that he had gone to a meeting of the Meat Control Board. I would say to him, if he were here, that I challenge him to produce here and now any vestige of evidence which would justify him in making such a charge against the Baynesfield Estate and inferentially against myself. I have been a member of a Dairy Co-operative Society in Natal, unconnected with the Baynesfield Estate, for over twenty years, and still am a member, and if the hon. member himself has any credentials in the world of farmers’ co-operation, let him tell us about them now and this House will be able to judge of their value. The record of Baynesfield in regard to the dairy industry is a unique one. The founder of the Estate, the late Mr. Joseph Baynes, was actually the founder of the dairy industry in Natal and the Transvaal. He was the first to place in the hands of the farmers the monthly milk cheque and the monthly cream cheque which today constitute a considerable source of their income, and at his death he enjoined upon the Board of Administration of the Estate a policy of continuing to develop industries for the benefit of the farmer and for the good of South Africa. Today the estate takes an active part in the development of the Dairy and Bacon Industries, and it pays out not less than £250,000 per annum for these products. It has not on one single occasion been responsible for any attempt to discourage or interfere with co-operation among the farmers. Both in the milk and bacon industries its competitors in Natal are co-operative societies — its policy towards these societies has been consistently one of fairplay and live and let live, and in the competition for contracts it has followed a policy that is above reproach. In regard to prices paid to farmers, the Baynesfield Estate was the first in the dairy industry to pay a bonus of 1d. per lb, for the production of first grade cream, and this policy was initiated long before the payment of any bonus on cream by the Dairy Industry Control Board, and it is still continued. The hon. member for East Griqualand, unlike the hundreds of farmers who have for over fifty years regarded the late Joseph Baynes or the Baynesfield Estate as a benefactor and a friend of the farmer, comes to this House and states that the Baynesfield Estate of which I am one of the Executors, is a thorn in the flesh of the farmers in Natal. Although he has spoken already on this debate he is entitled to speak again, and he can have no excuse for not facing up to the accusation which he has so recklessly made.

The spirit of this debate gives one courage to look forward to greater co-operation, not only between the farmers in this House but also between the farmers and the townsmen. We heard the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) hold forth on soil erosion. That is one of the subjects which is having the Government’s attention — perhaps not to a sufficient extent, but it is one of the burning questions of the day, and when we find an hon. member like that wanting to assist us, we are encouraged. The whole debate on this vote should have proved to the Minister that we are not criticising just for the sake of criticising; we want to be helpful. The farmers on this side of the House and on the other side of the House have proved to the Minister that they want to be helpful. But I want to say this, that we as farmers feel where the shortcomings are, where things are wrong, and when we criticise, we don’t just criticise for the sake of criticising or because we belong to the Opposition. We feel where things are wrong and where they have to be put right, and we want the Minister to look at matters in that light, and we want him to assist where he feels that our criticism is fair and reasonable and where we produce adequate reasons for our criticisms. We don’t want to go as far as an hon. member did a short while ago when he said that the Agricultural Department was a colossal failure. We don’t say that, but we don’t say that no mistakes have been made.

A lot of mistakes have been made.

As the hon. member has just said, a lot of mistakes have perhaps been made, but when we draw the Minister’s attention to those mistakes we do so in the right spirit and that is the spirit in which we shall proceed. That being so, we also want him to meet us on a sound basis. At the outbreak of the war the Government appealed to the farmers to produce, and the farmers reacted magnificently to’ that appeal.

To fill thenpockets.

Is that what the Labour Party says?

I would have liked to have seen what would have happened had the farmers not produced when the convoys passed here and when all the foreigners arrived to take refuge here — I would have liked to have seen what would have happened then if there had not been enough food for these people. I would have liked to have heard what the Labour Party would have said then. No, the farmers reacted magnificently, but unfortunately in some cases they got prices which the members of the Labour Party benefited from. We know that the farmers reacted in such a way that in some cases there was over-production, with the result that those products could not be sold. Our marketing system was such that often there was an accumulation of products for which there was no market. We hope that this aspect of the matter will have the Minister’s immediate attention. South Africa has stood the test. Since the outbreak of war, since the convoys have been calling here, and since tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of troops have passed through our ports, large quantities of food have been required, and the farmers have reacted in such a manner and have stood the test so well that they have been able to meet the needs of those people. I say that they stood the test because we had a statement from the Minister the other day in which he told us that our cattle in this country actually showed an increase, and that is one of the reasons why I think the Minister can abolish the meatless day; our cattle have increased by 2,000,000. Our sheep have dropped somewhat in numbers, but on the other hand I think the goats and pigs have made up for that. The Minister selected an appropriate year, namely 1939, when the war broke out, and then again the year 1943. That practically covers the war period, and over that period our stock has increased and not gone down in numbers. We have often heard the complaint made that the farmers, because of high prices, send their breeding stock to the markets. I think the figures mentioned by the Minister give the lie to that assertion, and that our farmers have gone ahead instead of backwards. There is one other point I should like to say something about, and that is the meat scheme which is at present being considered.

I just want to tell the Minister that if it is the intention to put a scheme into operation, the Department should announce it immediately. The uncertainty which prevails today upsets the whole market and the farmer does not know where he is. The present state of affairs is already having bad effects in the rural areas. If the Government really intends putting a scheme into operation the farmers should be informed of it as soon as possible so that they may know where they stand. There is one thing which worries us a bit and that is the question whether the scheme is going to be a long-term scheme or whether it is going to finish immediately the war is over. In view of the fact that the Government can introduce a long-term scheme, I am somewhat uneasy on the question whether they will have cold storage accommodation and machinery when the war is over to keep the scheme going. Today we don’t need it but we are anxious to have a long-term scheme so that the marketing of cattle may be maintained on a sound basis. We want to ask the Minister and his Department to take the public into their confidence and say what they intend doing. The Minister will find that the farmers are willing to assist him in carrying out any sound scheme. The Government under the War Measures today can take all the cold storage accommodation, but I ask myself what the position is going’ to be when the war is over and when the State has not got any cold storage accommodation. We have always felt that we should have abattoirs and cold storage accommodation at central points so that the animals slaughtered and graded there can be properly distributed. We suggest that early provision should be made for cold storage accommodation. Just one other point. In the days when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was Minister of Agriculture, a lot of money was spent in connection with the scheme for the improvement of our stock, and excellent work was done, so that one finds some of the best animals in the country today in the stock improvement areas. But what do we find today? We find that the regulations are no longer carried out and that bulls which have not been approved of are allowed into the improvement areas. One reason is given for that, and that reason is that we must allow our herds to increase. That is a very feeble argument. Why must we go backwards? Those bulls should not be allowed into the improvement areas. I am surprised that they are now allowed in, after the excellent work which has been done in those areas.

There has been a lot of talk about the relationship between town and platteland. I want to bring a matter to the Minister’s notice which may easily have a detrimental effect on the relationship between the vegetable farmer and the wheat farmer, and the question I am referring to is that of the recent distribution of Government guano. I am sorry having to draw attention to the fact that the distribution of Government guano, so far as the vegetable farmers are concerned, is taking place this year in a very unfair manner. The fact remains that at least 90 per cent. of the available guano has been allocated to the wheat farmers and only a very little remained for the vegetable farmers. I am not mentioning this with a view to creating bad feelings between these two sections of the farming community. The product of the one is just as necessary to the country as that of the other. The wheat farmers, however, have the advantage of producing under a fixed price, but the vegetable farmers do not begrudge them this. The vegetable farmers, however, have to contend with fluctuations in prices, and that form of nitrogen is still the cheapest nitrogen obtainable today, and the vegetable farmers cannot possibly produce without such nitrogen. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the same thing happened last year with the allocation of fertiliser. This year concessions have been made to the vegetable farmers but unfortunately the allocation takes place on a basis of cultivation of the land. The guano is indispensable to the vegetable farmers and as a result of the system of allocation they get very little. If you take a wheat farmer who farms on an area of between 500 and 700 morgen, he is allocated about 40 bags of guano. The vegetable farmer who has a piece of land of from 10 to 15 morgen under vegetables in monetory value produces quite as much as the wheat farmer with his 500 or 700 morgen, yet the vegetable farmer only gets from 2 to 5 bags. I hope the Minister will go into this question. I want to assure the Minister that his attempts to maintain the relationship between town and platteland on the right basis will have the support of the farming community. The farming community realises the necessity of the relations between town and country being good. We realise how detrimental it must be for agriculture as a whole if these relations are bad. I therefore want to assure the Minister that he will have the support of the farming community, but there are certain conditions which have to be complied with. There are two requirements which have to form the basis for such co-operation. In the first place the farmer must have a payable and reasonable price for his products. All the difficulties which have arisen in the past, all the misunderstandings there have been, which have worked so detrimentally, have been mainly due to the fact that agriculture has never had a stabilised level of prices for its products, and the result has been over-cultivation. The principal cause of over-cultivation is that we never got a proper price for our products. That sort of thing should be done away with. Agriculture insists on orderly marketing with a reasonable and payable level of prices for our products, especially our staple products, in connection with which a system can easily be devised. The speculative element which has always been the cause of the prices of products being so low, and which consequently has also been the main cause of the over-cultivation we have had in this country, can no longer be tolerated. That is the one basis, and the second basis is that the agriculturist wants the consumer to get the products at a reasonable price, so that the consumption will increase. Agriculture realises fully that only if the products they grow are offered to the consumer at a reasonable price, will consumption increase, and that is what we want. Agriculture can be stabilised on those two things. All we need are payable prices for our products, and prices to the consumer which enable him to buy our products. The hon. Minister takes up his post as Minister of Agriculture at a time when a very important report, the report on Reconstruction issued by the Department of Agriculture, has just been published. I hope the Minister will use that report as a basis for the reorganisation of his policy, and as a basis for the reconstruction we need. The report is not exactly what the Planning Council had in mind, but it undoubtedly is a piece of work which can be of great advantage and use to the Department of Agriculture and to the country as a whole. I hope the Minister will base his reconstruction plans in connection with agriculture on the data contained in that report, and that he will expand on that basis. There is another question which I want to touch on very briefly, and that is in regard to the exclamation of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) last week: “The Department of Agriculture is a colossal failure. It has never yet functioned effectively.” I cannot speak about control boards today and I don’t intend doing so, but the hon. member used those ill considered words and referred to the Citrus Control Board and said that citrus was being buried in large quantities. A lot of criticism has been levelled against control. I want to ask the hon. member and others who have levelled criticism here to go and give evidence before the Distribution Costs Commission which is investigating the activities of control boards. Let them give their evidence there and try and confirm what they have said here. It is no use coming here with remarks like that, it is no use coming here with wild statements which to my mind have no foundation of fact.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister express the opinion that he would like to see greater co-operation between the platteland and the towns. If that could be achieved it would help to dispel the idea that is gaining ground among the consumers, among the general public, and even among members of this House, that the farmers through the control boards, are principally concerned with getting as good a price as possible for their produce without any consideration for the townsman. I should like to say I am all in favour of control boards. I am a member of a control board, one that has managed to give satisfaction to all concerned, because it is composed of members who know their business. I should like to say that a control board to be of any use to the community must represent more than one side. In this connection I should like to mention how two or three of these boards are constituted. In the case of the Citrus Board there are twelve members, eleven being citrus growers and one from the Department of Agriculture. In the case of the Deciduous Fruit Board there are twelve members, ten of whom are fruit growers, one from the Department of Agriculture and one from the consumer. Neither of these boards have given satisfaction to the farmer or the consumer. Now we come to the Dried Fruit Board; there are ten members, seven representing the fruit side, one from the Department of Agriculture, one merchant broker, and one consumer. I should like to see a change in the Citrus Board and some folk who know something about the distribution side put on, and then perhaps we would have some satisfaction. This will suffice to show that there is a complete absence of members with a knowledge of the distributive trade on these boards. I make bold to say that had we had representation of the distributive trade on these boards there would not have been this dissatisfaction that exists. I have heard the view expressed from the other side of the House that it would be in the interests of all concerned to do away with the middleman altogether; if they mean by that the elimination of the distributor they are suggesting something that would result in fruit being more expensive and in it costing more to distribute, as was illustrated in Cape Town recently when the control board tried to market the fruit through other than the usual channels. I should like to see a type of board constituted of members who would see to it that the farmer got a minimum price for his produce, a price that would show him a fair profit; he is entitled to that. I should also like to see a maximum price fixed in respect of distribution so that the distributor would not receive anything above that figure; there should be a margin as between grower and distributor to permit of the operation of competition. The man who lives three or four miles from the source of supply cannot expect to get produce at the same price as a man who lives a quarter of a mile away. We should allow competition. Then the consumer would be assured that he was getting the best value. In order to prove that a control board can be operated successfully if it is comprised of men who know their business, I should like to mention a board I have had a great deal to do with, that is the Dairy Control Board. I have had to deal with that board for many years, and I may say that it has given complete satisfaction to all concerned. The farmers have been pleased with it and the consumer is pleased with it. We turn to the Dried Fruit Board. As I said, it is principally composed of growers. It must be remembered that dried fruit is an important article of diet. What do we find in regard to the prices? Increases have been recorded up to 100 per cent. There is not one case of a reduction in price. Take the case of a very common article of diet, dried prunes. The price has risen 75 per cent. and is still rising. Dried apricots have risen in price from 75 to 100 per cent.; today the price is 1s. 10d. I could mention several other fruits which have suffered similar increase in price. This proves that a board constituted simply of representatives of one side cannot function usefully to the community. I should like to impress upon the farmers and the townsmen that they must get together and constitute boards with representatives from each side. If this were done it would not give the townsmen grounds for crying out that they are being exploited by the farmer. Such boards would be able to inspire the townsman with confidence that his interests are also being watched. The townsman cannot live without the farmer and the farmer cannot live without the townsman; there must be co-operation between them. I would urge that our influence be exerted in this direction, not to have boards constituted entirely of farmers, but to have boards organised on the lines of the Dairy Control Board and similar boards that have given satisfaction.

May I at this stage reply to the debate which took place here on Friday evening and this morning. It may perhaps help towards a better understanding of the position and it may accelerate matters. The first point I want to deal with is that raised by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) in regard to dairy products. The position is that I have had a request to have an investigation made into all dairy products. I agreed to have an investigation made into the question of the producers’ prices of all dairy products. Then the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) raised a large number of questions here, among them the question of the use of horses by inspectors, instead of motor cars. The view of the Department is that wherever possible horses must be used, but unfortunately some areas are so extensive, that one cannot do without motor vehicles.

He meant those parts of the country which it is difficult to reach by motor car.

Yes, that is taken into account. The hon. member also spoke about the danger of foot and mouth disease — the danger of it being brought here from parts of Rhodesia or the Bechuanaland Protectorate. There have been outbreaks in those parts but according to the latest reports of my Department the position is fairly satisfactory and there is no danger of it spreading into the Union. In any case this particular outbreak took place far from the borders of the Union. I can therefore reassure the hon. member on that point. Then the hon. member asked that I should go into the question of subsidies being paid to tenants and bywoners. In that connection I may say that we have a lot of trouble, and I do not think we should do so because as soon as one complies with that request one places the tenants in a separate group, apart from the ordinary farming population.

He only asked whether something could not be done for them too.

I am only pointing to the difficulty. If you treat them differently you place them in a separate group. Many of the tenants go ahead and in the course of time become strong farmers. We do not want to deprive those people of that particular initiative to try and get on their feet by their own exertions. One can expect that in days to come there will be more tenants. As farming is constituted today, and in view of the developments that are taking place, we may perhaps have more tenants in future. The same thing applies to bywoners. I think there are better ways of helping these people, for instance by meeting them under the ordinary State schemes for farmers. They get the same assistance as other farmers under these schemes, and there is a reasonable chance for the right type of man to go ahead. The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) spoke about wool. He compared what was about the average price which our farmers have been getting with the prices paid for wool in America, and he said that the prices in America were very much higher than the prices which our farmers get. He mentioned the price of 5s. per lb. which is probably on the clean yield basis. It is not a fair comparison to take the prices on the basis paid in America and to compare those prices with what is paid here. The hon. member knows that the price for our best type of wool is higher than the average. America principally buys the best comb wool types, the price of which in the Union is as high as 30d. The hon. member’s comparison is very misleading. The British Government and the Wool Commission buy wool here on their own account and if the wool is sold and a profit made our farmers get half that profit. The hon. member should not forget that if that wool goes to America there are costs of transport, handling charges, customs duties, which are very high, I believe 20d. per lb. on the clean yield basis. His comparison therefore does not hold ground.

†The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) has urged that a State insurance scheme for farming should be introduced. Some progress has, of course, been made with regard to the insurance of crops against hail, but I think the hon. member will appreciate that if a scheme were to be introduced to insure the farmer against all the hardships that nature may inflict—drought, stock diseases, floods, insect pests, locusts and so on, the scheme would become quite impracticable both from the point of view of financing and administering it. It must also lead to the perpetuation of the application of wrong farming methods in the different parts of the Union. Such a system of insurance may act as an incentive to farmers to persevere along certain lines of farming though the areas concerned may be unsuited for those particular branches of farming. It may also mean that farmers situated in the good areas will have to pay for the farmers in the bad areas; this indeed will necessarily be the case if the farmers themselves have to finance such a scheme, which was what I think the hon. member indicated. I think we shall have to realise that farming is carried on subject to a great number of risks, that farming is indeed to some extent in the nature of a gamble, and one has to face up to that. I think the problem should rather be tackled in two ways; firstly we should continue to do everything in our power to minimise the adverse factors, such as drought, stock diseases, etc., by means of taking every possible step to promote research and enlightenment for the benefit of the farmer, and secondly, we should endeavour to secure the maximum amount of security for the farmer in accordance with the measures advocated in the Departmental Reconstruction Report and by assuring reasonable prices for the farmers.

†*Then I come to the question raised by the hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. P. W. A. Pieterse). He spoke about the price of kaffir com and said that it should be controlled and that the price should be fixed. This matter is already being considered and the Mealie Control Board realises that the price of kaffir corn should be fixed to a certain extent. This question will again be discussed by the Board on the 13th of this month, after which an announcement will be made. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) raised the question of the future of co-operative societies. In that connection I want to refer him to the report of the Departmental Committee on Agricultural Reconstruction in which the attitude of the Department is fully set out, namely, that we support the view that the co-operative movement must retain the important position it occupies in the agricultural industry. We are in favour of the co-operative movement having full scope in the agricultural industry. In the second place the hon. member referred to the application of the Factories Act and the determination of wages in regard to co-operative societies. My hon. friend will realise that this is a subject which affects my colleague, the Minister of Labour, and he should raise the question when the Minister of Labour’s Vote is before the House. But I don’t want to pass over the matter as lightly as all that and just leave it there. So far as I am concerned my sympathy is with the farmers. My conception of the position has always been that it was the intention of the law that agricultural production, or the work of co-operative societies, should not come under the Wage Determination or the Factories Act.

Exactly.

I am prepared to discuss the matter with my colleague from the point of view which I have explained, but I want to suggest that my hon. friend should mention this subject when the Labour Vote is before the Committee.

†Another matter which was raised by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) was the question of having a Maize Advisory Committee for the area of Zululand. He referred to the fact that in the Transkei there was such an Advisory Committee which worked exceedingly well. There is, of course, a difference. The Transkei is a separate unit and the same cannot be said of Zulu land. The position in Zululand is that the board is at present advised in the various Native areas by the Native Commissioners, and I do not know that we can do the same for Zululand as has been done in the case of the Transkei. I shall, however examine the point further and see whether anything can be done in the direction indicated by the hon. member. Then the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren) was in a somewhat gloomy mood on Friday afternoon, particularly in regard to the prevalence of East Coast Fever.

Well, it makes us gloomy.

I am not really dealing with the question whether my hon. friend had ample cause for his gloom. That is a different matter. He ended up by asking whether it was not possible to produce a scrum against this dreaded disease. The same question was raised by my hon. friend the member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers). The position is this: I have some information from the technical officers in my department. Actually very little hope can be held out in the direction of getting a serum as suggested by these hon. members. Ample experimentation is taking place but so far the results have been entirely unsuccessful. I don’t wish to go into details but this matter has been investigated by very eminent men in this particular field of science, among others by the late Sir Arnold Theiler who carried out experiments on a very extensive scale, and since his time further experiments have been carried out at Onderstepoort and in the field with a view to finding a method of immunisation against East Coast Fever. But unfortunately the results have been entirely unsatisfactory and I very much regret that I am not in a position to relieve in any degree the sense of gloom with which my hon. friend has been beset. Then a question was raised by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) about the inadequacy of the pay of certain of the stock inspectors of my department, among others the temporary stock inspectors. I should like to tell the hon. member that in recent months their position has been substantially improved and that not so long ago the Committee on the Second Additional Estimates voted money to give some increases in their pay. Temporary stock inspectors get allowances ranging from £108 per annum to £151 per annum. That is in addition to their ordinary pay. In addition to the above allowance 180 temporary stock inspectors received transport allowances varying from £14 to £57 per annum in respect of certain duties performed on behalf of the State Advances Recovery Offices. Then the following allowances are payable to temporary assistant stock inspectors—well, I won’t give all the details, but they vary from £12 to £60 plus their allowance ranging from £30 per annum to £72 per annum, which has already been granted. So that you see, Mr. Chairman, the plea made by the hon. member on behalf of the inspectors has already been conceded to a certain extent.

†*Now I come to the few points raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). The first point was in regard to speculators who travelled through the country to buy up wool. He says that those speculators can only buy that wool at a lower price than that which the Woo Commission pays for it under the agreement with the Government. Clearly that must be the case. But the point is that this agreement has been in existence for some considerable time and the farmers should be conversant with it, seeing that it has been in operation for a long time. Now my hon. friend wants us to protect the farmers against themselves, so that they will not sell to the speculator. I don’t know what we can do to make the farmers realise that they must not sell to the speculators. Perhaps the fact that the matter has been raised here and the reply I have given will make the small number of farmers who are still selling to speculators realise that it is not in their interest to sell to those people, and that they should sell their wool to the British Wool Commission. The other question which the hon. member raised is in regard to liver parasites. The trouble is to get adequate supplies of the remedy to cope with this disease. The trouble is to get sufficient carbon tetrachloride. It is very difficult to import it, but the Division which deals with this particular subject is doing everything in its power to obtain supplies from overseas and also to have it manufactured here. We are going into all these questions to see whether we cannot manufacture the stuff locally, and as soon as we can obtain the necessary quantities we shall help in every possible way. I understand that the Controller of Medical Supplies expects a consignment shortly which will be sufficient for our needs for about six months. Then the hon. member mentioned another point in regard to the rationing of slaughter stock for the butchers on the platteland. This rationing takes place on the same basis as in other parts, namely on the basis of the quantity slaughtered before, and on the turnover. That, as a matter of fact, is the only basis on which one can deal with the position. This whole question will, however, have to be reconsidered with the coming into force of the new meat scheme and we shall have to see whether any improvements can be effected. In regard to the price of milk for condensing purposes— which is another question raised by the honmember—the position is that the Dairy Control Board is working in that direction in the fixing of prices—that is to say the farmer must be paid more for higher butter fat contents of the milk. This question, however, is not as easily solved as all that, because there are farmers who are opposed to the proposed basis. Then, further, there is the question of the supervision of the testing of the milk. It seems to me that a change will have to be made in order to bring about an improvement in the quality of our milk. In that respect I can hold out some hope to the hon. member. Then I come to the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) who asked whether, in view of the improvement of the position regarding the number of our stock, the meatless day cannot be abolished. I read out certain figures here last Friday and it is because of those figures that the hon. member has put this question. I have already said on a previous occasion that there are two reasons why we cannot yet take such a step. I shall repeat those reasons. The figures which I mentioned the other day do not indicate the available number of breeding cattle. Those figures will be supplied ere long and we shall then be able to give further information. The other reason why we cannot yet abolish the meatless day is that the quantity of cattle coming on to the market is not yet sufficient, and until such time as sufficient cattle is sent to the market I am afraid we shall not be able to take that step. The hon. member also mentioned the question in regard to the cattle improvement areas and the subsidies paid for bulls used in such areas. The position is that the Government has decided not to institute any prosecutions during the war under that Act where bulls which have not been approved of are used in those areas. That class of bull has become very expensive and in native areas particularly it is very difficult to get good bulls to replace the scrub bulls. That is the reason why with few exceptions approved bulls are not used everywhere. The Government meanwhile is carrying on in the ordinary way.

Are we not undoing all the good work that has been done so far?

Circumstances today are not what they usually are, and if the bull position improves we shall be able to investigate the position further. I understand, however, that the use of non-approved bulls is not indulged in to any great extent.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I had just finished dealing with the points raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and I shall now proceed to deal with points raised by other members.

†May I now come to the remarks of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson). It is most gratifying to see that a representative of an urban area, such as he is, is taking the measure of interest which he has displayed in the remarks he has addressed to the Committee on the question of soil erosion. I can reassure him that he need have no fears about the Cabinet as a whole and the Minister of Agriculture in particular not being fully alive to this very serious menace of the country’s best soil being carried away to the ocean. Actually, a good deal has been done. The hon. member has castigated Mr. Havenga for not having done anything when in office, but, of course, the question is much more to the forefront, and is being tackled, and will be tackled, in a systematic and effective way. I should like to tell the Committee that up to the present over £2,000,000 has been spent in the form of bonuses, subsidies and labour costs in connection with the various schemes that are in force. At the beginning of the war some of these schemes had, however, to be suspended, but the Government very soon felt that it was not possible to have a cessation of all these schemes, and that this work was of such overriding national importance that it had to be carried on even in the midst of the difficulties which the country is facing in this abnormal war period, and the hon. member does not state the position correctly when he says that only £9,000 will be voted this year towards this important question of combating soil erosion. The position is that although £9,000 only figures on this vote, actually during this Session a total of £120,000 will be voted towards combating soil erosion. The total amount will be made up of the amount now appearing on this vote, on the supplementary estimates, and also on the loan estimates. So that that is a very much bigger amount than my hon. friend thought was being spent on soil erosion. It is, of course, not practicable to spend a larger amount all at once. I can understand the hon. member’s anxiety, but there are other factors which have to be taken into account. Actually it might be wasting public money if this enormous amount had to be spent all at once, because you have to have the necessary technical staff, and the necessary implements which are not now available. As and when these are available more money will be spent from year to year. I also want to point out that in the Reconstruction Report of the Committee of my Department very great importance is attached to this question of soil conservation, and the report deals exhaustively with this subject. As further evidence of the extent to which the Government is fully alive to this question of national importance, I can mention the fact that steps have been taken to get out to this country Dr. Bennett from America, who I think is recognised as the world’s authority on the question of soil conservation. He will be in this country within a few weeks and will then be in a position to go about the country and see the ravages of soil erosion, and he will be able to advise us as to the best methods and steps that can be taken to combat soil erosion. So that my hon. friend will see that he has really been preaching to the converted.

†*Now there is one point left, that is a point raised by the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus). The hon. member was concerned about the distribution of Government Guano between the wheat farmers on the one hand and the vegetable farmers on the other hand. The principle followed in allocating the guano was to take into consideration the importance of every product from a national point of view. If the allocation which took place was not entirely fair—and my hon. friend apparently feels it was not—we shall go into the whole question again, and the importance of vegetables will not be lost sight of. I hope that there will be a further allocation of State Guano this year and we shall then see what can be done for the vegetable farmer. I realise that there is a good deal in what the hon. member has said, and while the wheat farmers have the benefit of a controlled price the vegetable farmers have no such advantage, and are faced with all the fluctuations of the market. I believe I have now replied to all the points which have been raised. Perhaps there is just one question which was asked by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). I have dealt with this matter before, viz. : whether the meat scheme is going to be permanent after the war. I have already told the Committee that I have asked the Meat Board to draft a scheme under the Marketing Act. We are going to see how the scheme which we have now put into operation answers, and in the light of our experience with this scheme we shall be able to work out another scheme. Everything will naturally depend on the success of the scheme, which will be put into operation shortly—our permanent scheme will depend on that.

†Then the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Gray) spoke about the question of various control boards, and he was one of the urban members who had something good to say about some of the boards. I mentioned to the Committee the other day that I was not in a position to lay down any far-reaching policy, to make any statement as to policy because I had only been a few weeks in charge of this Portfolio, and I thought it might even be taken as some evidence of superficiality if I were at this early stage to commit myself to a far-reaching statement of policy, but I do want to say this, that as far as these control boards are concerned, while I told the House that I was committed to the Marketing Act and the policy in it, I shall go very carefully into the matter, and study the constitution of the boards very carefully, and I am going to see if it is possible to bring about any improvement in the system of these boards. I do not want to be taken as committing myself but I want to see if it is not possible to give greater representation to the consumer. I think it is vital to the interests of the farmers that the consumers should not only get a fair deal but that they should be made to feel they are getting a fair deal. There will then be less criticism of the farmers and less suspicion, if we can set at rest the many fears that are present today in the minds of the consuming public.

Reduce the number of middlemen.

Well, the hon. member knows my views on that. At the same time, I also want to see whether it may be possible to bring on these boards here and there a representative of the women. The women are the people most primarily concerned amongst the consuming public, and I think it might be a good thing to bring some women on to these control boards as members. I hope the Committee will bear these points in mind and that they will allow me some time to go into these matters, so that we can see what can be done that will be to the benefit of the farmers and the consumers alike.

The hon. the Minister said that we should do everything we could to combat soil erosion. I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Department’s policy has changed and is not what it used to be. In the past one could get assistance under two schemes in dealing with soil erosion. Under the first scheme one could get white labour for soil erosion work and even after one had spent the money one could borrow it from the Government. The other scheme was a scheme under which one got a certain percentage from the Government to do the work. The first scheme was withdrawn and now the only scheme that is left is that under which the farmer is allowed 33½ per cent. I have no fault to find with that. We are quite satisfied with 33½ per cent., but now one gets instances where the erosion on farms has become so serious that the restriction which has been placed on the farm is too low.

Do you mean the valuation?

The Department does not allow more than a maximum of £500. If a man has a big farm and the ercsion is extensive why should it be restricted to £500 so far as his land is concerned? I have no fault to find with the one third subsidy. The farmers are satisfied with that, but if you say that soil erosion has to be stopped, has to be dealt with, why has all work to be stopped once £500 has been spent?

The maximum is £400 now.

Then it is even worse than I thought. I want the Minister to consider whether it is not possible to continue giving assistance practically all the time the man is doing the work which, after all, he himself—that is the Minister, recognises as very valuable. The Minister savs that the Department is getting Dr. Bennett out from America to come and advise us. That shows that he recognises the seriousness of the position. Why then restrict the amount to £400? It is no use putting one part in order and allowing another portion to be washed away to the sea. Then there are a few other points which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. The one is the eradication of “litjies cactus,” and prickly pear. I notice that the expenditure in regard to the eradication of prickly pear is included in the amount of £9,000 which we are asked to vote here. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are certain districts, of which my district unfortunately is one, which are overrun with prickly pear. There are certain areas where no grazing can take place because of the prickly pear. We appreciate what is being done. The cactoblastis has been imported, but the question arises, does that insect actually destroy the prickly pear? I believe the report which has been put in says that the cactoblastis in Australia has stopped the spread of prickly pear. Prickly pear is not spreading any further, but this does not destroy it—it merely confines it to the area where it already is. And we find the same thing here. The prickly pear is not spreading, but the cactoblastis does not destroy it. If we have to depend on the cactoblastis for the eradication of prickly pear my generation, and the generation after me, will not see the end of it. The Department will have to decide to tackle this matter in some different way. I want to ask whether in this connection the Department cannot take more or less similar steps to what it has taken in regard to soil erosion. Thousands of morgen are useless today on account of the prickly pear. If one takes into account the amount of money which is being spent on soil erosion, the question arises, why cannot money be spent in the same way on the eradication of prickly pear because the prickly pear is also rendering the soil use less? It may perhaps be said that the farmer is responsible for prickly pear having been allowed to grow in the way it has grown. That may be, but then we should also take up the same attitude in regard to soil erosion. If the farmer had filled in the first hole or the first sluit which was caused by erosion we would not have had the serious position we have today. It’s no use talking like that. There are numbers of farms where prickly pear has spread to such an extent that without the assistance of the Government the farmers will never be able to eradicate the evil. In some cases it will cost more than the farm is worth to eradicate the prickly pear, but once it has been eradicated with the assistance of the Government the farm can become quite useful again. I hope the Minister will enquire into the question and see whether something more cannot be done in regard to the combating of prickly pear. On behalf of my constituents I also want to ask whether it is not possible for the department to assist in supplying the farmers with wire, especially wire for jackal proof fencing. Unfortunately there are still some farms in certain districts which have not been fenced off. One cannot get the labour, and there are some farms actually which cannot be let and on which there is no grazing simply because the farmers cannot get the labour they need. If the land is fenced cattle can graze there, but if the farmer has to pay £2 10s. or £3 for a roll of wire, and, if he needs a few thousand rolls, the Minister will realise that the position is impossible, apart from the fact that he can get no wire. Surely the war is a long way from South Africa now. Cannot something be done to provide people with wire?

And don’t forget the poles.

Yes, naturally, everything that is required to erect the fencing. The war has been going on for four years and if we have to wait another four years it will mean that farm after farm will become impossible for grazing. Now let me say a few words about control boards. I want hon. members to understand that we on this side of the House are not opposed to the control of products; we want control. We are anxious to get a decent price for our products, and when I walk through the streets of Cape Town I notice that grapes cost 6d. per lb. All I can say is that it is an absolute disgrace. There must be something wrong, and if the control boards cannot put things right the Minister should step in and see to it that the position is changed. Only the rich man can buy fruit today at those prices. Apples cost 4d. each. It is a disgrace. There is something wrong. Which poor man, and which man with average earnings, can afford to pay those prices for fruit?

I think we are all agreed that the system whereunder the prices of foodstuffs are covered by the law of supply and demand has proved an absolute failure; and today the producer is interested in his product until it reaches the table of the consumer. We are pleased that the Minister has stated in that regard that the Marketing Act has given us facilities for the revision of the system. Control boards have made mistakes, but they have an enormous amount of good service to their credit, and during this time of war they are rendering a definite national service of inestimable value. Some hon. members on the opposite side of the House have tried to indicate that there is a difference on this side of the House between the representatives of the towns and the representatives of the country. Mr. Chairman, that does not exist at all in our party. We may have little differences of opinion, such as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Gray) has stressed in regard to dried fruit, and I should like to remind him that it is stated in the annual report of the Secretary for Agriculture that the prices during the past season for raisins and sultanas were calculated to ensure the producer an average price of 3d. a lb. as compared with 2.56 pence a lb. last year. I think it is due to the hon. member for Kensington to explain to the House the difference between the price to the producer and the price to the consuming public. The townsman does not in any way wish to abolish control or control boards. What he demands is efficiency. He knows that national stability depends on the stability of agriculture, and he realises that profiteering in food, and waste, should be made criminal offences. What we need in this country is increased production which will bring about decreased costs of production, and we need better distribution, and that is where the townsman is going to play his part. I should like to indicate to the Minister of Agriculture that we appreciate this booklet issued by the Agricultural Department on the reconstruction of agriculture. In this book stress is laid on the inadequacy of the salaries paid to extension officers—assistant professional officers is, I think, what they are termed. I am not so much interested in the salaries of the stock inspectors. But these assistant professional officers are absolutely essential in administering, for instance, our Cattle Improvements Act, and they are paid a commencing salary at the rate of £250 per annum; moreover, They must have a university educationThey are leaving the service today and the Cattle Improvements Act has virtually come to a standstill. The measures against soil erosion have also in many areas come to a standstill, because there are no professional officers available to sanction schemes before they come into operation. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will not wait until the commission issues a report on civil servants’ salaries, but that he will immediately give some inducement for men to take up these appointments of assistant professional officers. I do not want to be gloomy, but I should like the Minister to indicate what the Department intends to do about the control of cactus. That is noxious weed No. 1 in the country; it is a thief in the dark; prickly pear is a fool compared to it. This report on agricultural reconstruction states that a systematic effort to eradicate cactus in the Cape was initiated by the Department years ago, first by mechanical eradication and later by biological control; that first with cochineal, the results seem promising, but now it is appearing all over the area concerned, and that the weed may still become a greater menace than ever unless further measures are taken to cope with it. Immediate action is needed. In many areas the weed is à far greater menace and has extended much more widely than it was when the Department of Agriculture took over its eradication. Cochineal has absolutely failed to control this weed; farmers have distributed and bred this insect, but this biological control has proved a failure. I think the Minister should also indicate the Government’s policy as regards the eradication of prickly pear. Farmers stopped eradicating prickly pear in areas where it was left to biological control, and they consider they have suffered severe losses the ugh Government action; and I think the Minister should at least indicate what the Government policy is in regard to the eradication of prickly pear. Cactus you can never eradicate, but you can eradicate prickly pear. I think the country would also appreciate it if the Minister would indicate to the House his reactions as regards the request of the National Woolgrowers Association to bring the disposal and sale of wool under the Marketing Act. These representations were brought to the Minister by what is supposed to be the authority for woolgrowers in this country; and I will not say through misrepresentation, but definitely there was misunderstanding to such an extent that the Secretary for Agriculture had to assure farmers that his Department would not allow an extension of the scheme under the Marketing Act. Many people in this country take the view that the Secretary for Agriculture cannot commit his Department any more than the Minister of Agriculture can commit any future Minister of Agriculture. There is no doubt that a control scheme would be inadvisable at this stage, because it should not be brought in while’ there are thousands of farmers on active service who should have a voice in the control of wool and who should have actual representation on the control board. If this board is brought into operation at this stage, we may have members like the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) on this board, and we know his opinion as regards the control scheme. We have wool today being sold to the British Government and there is no immediate need to bring wool under any control schemes under the Marketing Act. The marketing agents are also averse at this stage to the disposal and sale of wool being brought under the Marketing Act. I think it is also inadvisable on account of the criticism directed against control. I think the Minister has quite enough hay on his fork at present without bringing another product under the control of this particular Act. There are a few other matters I should like the Minister to express an opinion on. To my mind it should be an offence to speculate in food, and also to waste foodstuffs. I think there should be other offences too. It should be an offence, for instance, for a farmer to plough against the contour; any policeman can detect that. It should be an offence to burn straw, as is done in the Western Province, in the wheat lands. It definitely should be an offence for stock to be allowed to die in times of drought. The Department of Agriculture has not brought sufficient elevators to provide adequate cold storage in this country. Serious consideration should be directed to the fact that great numbers of cattle and sheep die of actual starvation every year in our country. I would like the Minister also to indicate to the House if we are assured of adequate supplies of nicotine to combat the arsenicresistant tick. It is quite unnecessary for me to stress the necessity for this, because the department is fully alive to the terrible menace the arsenic-resistant tick is to the cattle of our country. [Time limit.]

I wish very sincerely to associate myself with the expressions of goodwill which have been extended to the new Minister from all sides of the House, and at the same time to express the hope that he will at all times be equally ready to listen to the representations of those of us who represent the rural areas in the House, even if, at times, he may not see his way clear to accede to all those representations. I feel sure that he will find that he will benefit from the advice given to him by those who come into constant personal contact with the vast and varied problems which beset the farming community in this country. I was also pleased to note the tone of this debate right from its commencement, and I wish to say, as I said before, that I appreciated that on the opposite side of the House there are members representing rural constituencies who have at heart the interests of the farming community just as much as members on this side of the House. It is therefore refreshing to find that this debate has taken place in such an atmosphere, and I sincerely trust this is a favourable sign for the future, just as its absence has been an unfavourable feature in the past. I do not know whether I am correctly informed, but I understand that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) suggested that those of us representing producers’ interests should stand together as against those representing the consumers’ interests. If this is what is operating in the hon. member’s mind, I may at once say. That he has not only put his foot into it but I venture to say all his four feet. No, Mr. Chairman, I submit that that is a totally wrong attitude to adopt, to place one set of interests against the other, and I think the Minister has very rightly deprecated any spirit of antagonism as between those two interests, namely, the interests of the consumer and of the producer. It will be in the interests of both producer and consumer for those interests to work together in harmony as far as possible, as only thereby will benefits accrue to both and which will be in their mutual interest. Then a suggestion has been made that the middleman should be eliminated. I say emphatically that this will not be beneficial either. What we have to eliminate is the series of middlemen handling any particular commodity, because it is through that series of middlemen that we have that big disparity between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays. There must necessarily be organised and proper distribution, and the business brain is required for this purpose. The producer does not shout out for inflated and high prices as he knows this will have its inevitable reaction. What the producer wants and wants badly is stabilised prices, so that he knows from day to day as near as possible where he stands. He does not want—take for instance the price of sheep—to be one day 45s. each and then drop thereafter to 5s. each, as has quite frequently happened during the past when a depression sets in, and this applies equally strongly to every other branch of agriculture. If, therefore, the Minister will direct his policy in that direction he will render the greatest possible service to agriculture. He has told us that he must be given time to think out questions of his future policy, and I say let him “go slow” but, in arriving at his conclusions let him stand firm against any bureaucratic control by his department. I would here like to say that I was pleased to know that the Minister will be opening the E.A.U. Congress at East London during June next, which will be one of his first important duties as Minister of Agriculture. I know that I am expressing the united feelings of all the interests constituting that congress when I say how pleased we are that he has agreed to open this congress and to assure him of a warm and sincere welcome, combined with a feeling of goodwill towards him personally. Now, Mr. Chairman, with the short time still at my disposal, I would very briefly like to refer to the proposed meat scheme. This scheme has caused consider able discussion, coupled with feelings of unrest throughout the country. In the Eastern Province, Border and Midlands areas where a very large percentage of the slaughter stock marketed is produced, the farmers there are generally not opposed to control or a stabilised market for meat. I wish to make that point Quite clear. But what they are disturbed about is that the present scheme, initiated under the Emergency Regulations, is apparently only of a temporary nature during the war period. What is required is a permanant scheme, as a temporary scheme will only land farmers in a worse position than they are today. At a very large, important and representative meeting of farmers from a large number of districts held at Adelaide on the 16th February last, the following resolutions were carried—

1. (1) That as the legislation will be under the Emergency Regulations such cannot be of a permanent nature, and unless the scheme is on a permanent basis it is foredoomed to failure.
2. (2) That such a scheme while of a temporary nature, would disrupt all present channels of trade which have taken many years to build up, and on the expiration of its term would leave the producers without the necessary means of disposing of their stock.
3. (3) That the country is not prepared for any such scheme: (a) in that the country is devoid of the requisite number of qualified graders on whose efficiency any such scheme depends for success; (b) the Railways, after four years of war, are not equipped to transport the stock, should any sudden emergency arise, such as a general drought, requiring the immediate transport of many thousands of stock; (c) that cold storage facilities and packing houses are not available for a scheme on a permanent basis.

These resolutions substantially express the fears of farmers about the present scheme, and although I am quite prepared to admit that in the Deputy Food Controller, Mr. Wentzel, you will have a businesslike, able and conscientious man, there are these and other factors which no human being can control, and which, it is feared, will create confusion confounded. These remarks are not made in any antagonistic or destructive spirit, but as a warning that hasty and premature schemes affecting the meat industry, which is bound to become one of the premier industries in this country after the war, should be avoided and more especially as this scheme has not emanated from the producers themselves. Another point that is seriously disturbing the farmers is those areas I have mentioned, notwithstanding the undertaking of the Acting Minister of Agriculture recently that the existing channels for the supply of slaughter stock will not be interfered with, I say that in these areas the present channels of trade have taken more than 50 years to build up, and are in danger of being disrupted, which will leave the average producer in the biggest mess he has ever been. I therefore wish to earnestly ask the Minister as Food Controller, to see that the undertaking of the Acting Minister of Agriculture is carried out in spirit and letter, viz. That the existing channels referred to by me, i.e. the auction competitive system for the sale of slaughter stock, will be allowed to function in the future as it has done successfully in the past. In making this representation, I am supported by that important body, viz. the Transvaal Agricultural Union which on or about the 18th February last, unanimously passed the resolutions already in the hands of the Minister and embodying this request, and I sincerely trust that he will take special note thereof. [Time limit.]

This side of the House has been reassured by the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture to this extent, that in principle he has expressed himself in favour of the maintenance of control boards. I want to tell the Minister that he must not leave it at words, but that he must carry out the principle. If he is in favour of the maintenance of the control boards he must put those boards into the position of being able to carry out their functions for the good of the farming community, which is the object with which they were established. The Minister may ask why I am raising this question again. I want to tell him that I am doing so because we find that the control boards are not allowed to carry out their functions in the way they did in the past. The Minister’s predecessor for instance allowed the control boards to undertake the purchasing and the distribution of grain bags for the organised farming community. The Minister perhaps does not know about that—it may have been done by his department—but I want to bring this to his notice, that the control boards were recently informed that henceforth they would not have to do the buying and distributing of grain bags for the mealie and wheat farmers. What does that mean? It amounts to this, that experience in the past has shown that the trade could not buy and distribute the grain bags more cheaply than the control boards. The control boards proved that they could do it more cheaply than the trader, and I therefore want to ask the Minister again to go into this question, and if he is not responsible for this decision I want him to explain to us why this step is taken and why the powers of the control boards are curtailed in bits and pieces. As the Minister has told us that he is in favour of the retention of the control boards, I hope he will not allow such a line of action to be persisted in. Now I want to deal with another question which I look upon as very important. I am referring to the position of the tenants of land throughout the country generally. The Minister will agree that we are living in a period of fixation of prices. He also knows that many of our farmers are finding it very hard to make a living on the plattleland ás tenants, and so far as they are concerned no protective measures have as yet been taken to fix the rates for the hire of land. Those farmers have been hiring land for years, they have paid their rents regularly, and in the abnormal times the owners of the land have increased the rents to an undheard-of height simply because there was no one to protect those tenants.

Yes, in some cases they have increased the rent by 300 per cent.

Yes, that can quite easily be the case.

It is so.

In any cáse the rents have been raised abnormally. I want to refer to a letter which I have received from a tenant of land in my own constituency. This man is acting on his own behalf and also on behalf of other tenants, and he writes to me on their behalf. To give an instance he has explained his own position to me He has been renting this land for the last nine years and he has not been in arrears for one single day. He has been renting the land at £120 per year. It is not really land fit for the production of crops. The owner of the land wanted to increase the rent and the tenant expressed his willingness to pay £160. A Jew came along, however, ánd hired the land over his head for £200 per year. This Jew has a shop. The man writes to me as follows [Translation]—

I am speaking here on behalf of these people. They are farmers who are tilling the soil and now they find that people who are not practical farmers, who are not carrying on the business of farming, hire the land over their heads. The Minister will remember that the Minister of Finance is very much concerned about that class of person who buys land and in devious ways evades paying income tax. The Minister of Finance is devising means to catch those people who make heaps of money during war time, who buy farms to evade paying income tax, and he is devising schemes to put a stop to the machinations of these individuáis. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to go out of his way to give assistance to these tenants of land, even if it would mean fixing the rents on a certain basis. He could allow a certain percentage increase, but if some steps are not taken we shall find that the land is going to be let over the people’s heads and practising farmers will land in a very difficult position. This man in his letter tells me that the result will be that they will be driven into the towns and the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me that we don’t want to encourage that sort of thing; we want to discourage it. I therefore hope that that class of farmer who finds it very difficult to make a living will have some consideration extended to him and that the Minister will make a reassuring statement. Cannot something be done for these people by fixing rents? I also want to touch very briefly on the meat position because I represent a constituency, a large portion of which depends on stock farming. A large portion of my district farms with slaughter stock and wool sheep. The farmers in my constituency are adopting a waiting attitude in regard to this new meat scheme which is going to be introduced. They argue that they want to see how the scheme is going to work, to what extent it is going to give them a payable price, and to what extent it may be to their benefit or not to their benefit. They have asked me to bring this fact to the Minister’s notice, that while all sections of the community in this country are making profits during this period of war something, should be done to guarantee their positions in future—because they have been struggling for years to keep their heads above water. Previous Ministers of Agriculture have been faced with all sorts of problems to assist them; They point out that now that they can make good money out of their products, a system of control is being imposed, and that at a time when they might have reduced their debts and might have been able to live decently. I trust that the Meat Board will devise a scheme, and that when it presents its report effect will be given to it so that prices may be fixed for the future. I also want to associate myself with the view that has been expressed in regard to the price of mealies. A large portion of my district produces mealies. The farmers in that area have a crop this year which might almost be called a crop failure. Abnormal rains have destroyed three-quarters of the crop. A large part of the North Eastern Free State finds itself in that position today on account of the heavy rains they have had there. And the fact of the matter is that in comparison with last year our crop is going to be a small one. Last year it was said that we produced 24,000,000 bags of mealies, and this year we are told that we are only going to have 18,000,000, If that is so the mealie farmers’ income is going to be very much smaller than it was last year. As against that production costs have gone up. I don’t want to go into all the factors but one of the points I can mention is that the cost of mealies bags has gone up out of all proportion. Perhaps mealies bags will cost even more now because, as I have said, the trade will now have to supply us with bags and possibly prices will go up still higher, although we know that they have already increased by a very high percentage. We know what the position is in regard to machinery, spares and such things. We also know what the labour position is. The farmers have to be satisfied with the labour they can get. Large quantities of grain are destroyed simply because we cannot get the necessary labour, and even if we do get labour it is so poor in quality that it is no use. The production costs of mealies have gone up out of all proportion. The Minister cannot possibly fix this year’s price at 16s. as he did last year. He must take everything we have mentioned here, all the problems with which we have to contend, and with which the mealie farmers in particular have to contend into account. The Minister must fix the price so that he will do justice to the consumers in this country, but at the same time he must keep a watchful eye on agriculture. He is here to look after agriculture and he must fix the price so that the producers will be assured of an existence. I have been instructed to ask the Minister to fix the price at at least £1 per bag. [Time limit.]

I think a striking feature of this debate has been the participation of many representatives of urban areas. I want just to take a small part—first to express myself in favour of the control system. The question of the Boards has been before the country and has given rise to considerable perturbation of mind, but on the whole it may be said that the control system has been greatly beneficial to the producer as well as in a smaller measure to the consumer. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he would give consideration to the question of greater representation for the consumers on the Boards. In that connection he has plenty of encouragement, not only from the floor of this House but from the excellent report by the Agricultural Department in connection with the Recon struction of Agriculture. I refer to paragraph 172 where the report says this—

This country has recognised that maximum production of focd it not only a matter for South Africa but for the whole world. It is a necessity to which all people look— they regard it as a matter of the highest importance. The farmer rightly asks for a fair return for his services. The country simply wishes to be assured that the guaranteed return is fair. But the consumer asks for food within his ability to pay. If the price fixed by the Government for an essential primary commodity is outside that ability, then it is obviously the duty of the Government to subsidise that food to the consumer. Take maize for example, which, in addition to being a basic product in many industries, constitutes the food of the poorest of our population. The price is too high today for the natives in the country to pay, and I do hope that the Government will this year approve of the principle and put into operation a subsidy in aid of this poorly circumstanced section of the population. Such a scheme is possible. There are difficulties but I think they can be met. At any rate it has been recommended by the Social and Economic Planning Council whose report is of increasing value to the whole community.

The Agricultural Department have turned it down.

There is another matter and I hope the Minister who has been very patient with us will not mind my referring to it—it is the question of the waste of fruit as reported in the Press.

That has been mentioned.

Yes, but there are points which this House should bear in mind. An attack is made on the Citrus Control Board and it is not sufficiently appreciated that during the time when export is much less, considerably less than it was in pre-war times, these various boards are faced with considerable difficulty in disposing of the crop. If the House will permit me I wish to refer to some figures which I have obtained from the Department of Agriculture in regard to the crop and the export of citrus. In 1939 the production of citrus was equal to approximately 12,000,000 pockets. Of that 12,000,000 —9,000,000 were exported, leaving a balance of 3,000,000 for local consumption. In the year 1943 the production had increased to 15,000,000. The export amounted to 3,000,000 leaving a balance of 12,000,000 for local consumption. These figures have been given to me by the department. They are in round terms. They indicate that after you have allowed for a reported wastage equivalent to 4,000,000 bags, the increase in local consumption is in the neighbourhood of 5,000,000 bags during the war period. So on these figures which have been confirmed it is obvious that the efforts which have been made by the Government through its Departments to increase the consumption of citrus in the Union of South Africa have been successful. We all know the principle under which the Government works. First of all, you fix an economic price for an economic market. Then you have distribution of fruit to the sub-economic market, such as State-aided and other institutions, and thirdly, you have what may be regarded as free distribution to those in need. The efforts of the Social Welfare Department in conjunction with the boards have been at any rate partially successful in coping with the great surplus of citrus in this country. I want to say as a townsman that I appreciate the difficulty but I do wish to emphasise the necessity of the Government issuing a statement making it perfectly clear what the position is in regard to what is accepted by the public as a wastage of food at a time when people are crying out for it. I think such a statement will be useful, not only from the Government’s point of view but from the point of view of the Agricultural Department, because after all if the department concerned is not prepared to issue a statement then it rests with this Parliament to make up its mind in regard to the allegations made from time to time in the Press that food is being wasted.

But they admit that there is this wastage.

Then the only way is to deal with the matter through a Select Committee of this House, and deal with it once and for all. I hope the Minister will issue a statement. I wish to give him the promise of my assistance in the very onerous task he has undertaken.

I do not propose dealing with specialised farming or marketing problems. Hon. members will readily agree with me that I am not competent to do anything of the kind, but I am competent to read with sympathy of the difficulties of farmers in all parts of the world—of which I have read a great deal— and to discuss some of the experiments which are being carried out to lessen those difficulties, and I should like to make three or four mild suggestions. From the particular point of view which we on these Labour Party benches represent we maintain that insufficient food is at present produced on our farms. In view of the fact, that our population is 10,000,000, and that it is true that the majority of them do not have any too much to eat, we suggest that the first thing the whole nation must be agreed on, whatever may be the cause of the shortage, is that the farmers must be enabled to produce more crops. If we lived in a savage community, we might say: “It does not matter, let them go hungry”; but we live in a civilised state and the food must be found. I was horrified to hear from the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) about crops which had been ploughed in. I still find it almost impossible to credit, but even if it is true, I for one would not solely blame the farmer. The real cause is a much wider one than what has been alluded to as the “inefficiency of the farmers.” It is easy for a townsman to talk of the inefficiency of a farmer. We wonder how much of the speedy effectiveness of the townsman is due to the amenities he has at his elbow—telephones, telegraph offices, postal air service, good roads, fast transport and so on. I am reminded of a pertinent question asked by A. W. Ashby, an expert in Great Britain, who wants to know in his work, “Planning Welsh Agriculture,” how many townspeople would be prepared to leave behind them such comforts as electricity, unlimited piped water supply, and take their families out into the districts where the children would have to walk or ride on rickety buses three miles to a school, where the post office was three miles away, where the doctor lived eight miles away, and where there were no telephones whatever, either for the home or for the office. That is a condition under which many of the farmers live in Wales—and they will have to live like that for many years to come. Here in South Africa it may well be even worse. A post office may be 12 miles away, and I have heard instances of the chemist and doctor being 40 miles distant from the farm. If we consider these community services, from the point of view of the towns, our feelings and our tongues are rather apt to soften, and we don’t talk so much about the inefficiency of the farmer. I think we should make an attempt to give the same facilities to the country as we have in the towns. This would have the effect of greatly increasing agricultural production, to the mutual advantage of town and country alike. From my private researches, which at least are sincere, I have come to blame a policy rather than the individual—to regret the criminal neglect of agriculture in peacetime, and not dwell so much on the inefficiency of the farmer. I assert emphatically that when war comes we turn to the farmers, and we ask them to perform miracles. We want increased supplies from them—practically unlimited amounts, and we want our supplies at the same old prices. Well, it is impossible. To give increased supplies worse land must obviously be brought under cultivation, and the crop must cost more to produce. Moreover there is necessarily a shortage of labour—some men have gone into the army, some have drifted into the towns. Everything the farmers use costs more, implements, seed, fertiliser, and feed for stock. We ask the farmers to perform impossibilities. And I suppose when the war is over, and we have unemployed in the towns, we shall look to the land to absorb and employ thousands more. I am in favour of putting suitable people on the land. But let me say this—the land is not a blank piece of paper on which anyone can go and write just what he thinks fit. The profession of agriculture must be learnt, like any other. Now, the difficulties of the farmer are absolutely world wide. Not all the farmers everywhere can be inefficient, and I think they are up against something which is wrong, not in their system of farming but in the general system of management of the State. They are caught up in the fluctuations of the world market. They are to a large extent in the toils of very clever and big wizard financiers. Even in Great Britain, in peace time, that is the position. I am reminded of the egg position in England, just before the war. Millions of eggs were landed monthly in pre-war Britain, and the average cost was a farthing each. Well, no self-respecting British hen would attempt the job at a farthing per egg. Only in Russia does it appear that the farmer has been freed from the possibility of other people making all the profit at his expense. Now, what we primarly want to do is to increase our food production, and in this connection I want to put forward two or three considerations which must be borne in mind. If you want food to come out of the country, you must have people in the country to produce it. You must have made proper provision for these people—you must give them social aids. We must have more and more rural social services; we must have schools, equal to the best provided for cities, in the country. We must go in for a modern scheme of building residential farm schools, and secure some of the very best teachers for these schools actually on the lands, and be prepared to pay them more for being bereft of town facilities—for being “put aside” in the country. We cannot expect people to go and teach in the platteland, as things are today, and not get properly compensated for it. Today one difficulty is that people cannot find suitable education for their children, except in the big towns. We must take up this whole question thoroughly, because if you educate your children adequately in the country, and give them a proper appreciation of things there, they will remain and do the work which is so essential to us all. May I remind the House of countries like Denmark, Holland, and the United States, where the people in rural districts are given all cultural and social privileges. They have established adult schools in Denmark. They have taught the farmer a new way of life. He is not given lectures on how to plant and tend his fields. The worlds of literature, general science, and history are opened up before him. The professors give him culture and a new sense of real values. They restore what the land has taken out of him. They give him new hope, and he goes away from the course determined, as it were, to farm well. And so Denmark has got away with it by spending money, not by attempting to save money. And money will similarly have to be spent in South Africa, in increasing quantities. I wish to put just two further points to you. A lot of money will have to be expended, but I am satisfied it will be worth while, first of all with regard to rural electrification. The steam engine emptied the country and filled the town; but electric power, without emptying the town, can repopulate the country. An experiment has been tried in Dumfriesshire, one of the border counties of Scotland. Hon. members will remember that Robert Burns attended St. Michael’s church in the little town of Dumfries, and was buried in its grounds. Dumfriesshire is a little like South Africa, a land of hills and valleys and marshes; the highest point is 2,700 ft., and ridges run down to sea level. The County Council made a successful attempt there to rationalise farming throughout the whole of the county of Dumfriesshire. [Time limit.]

I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to two words which have been used frequently during this debate. I refer to the words, “existing channels.” We now have the report of the Meat Commission and there is no reference in that report to existing channels; there is nowhere a definition of “existing channels.” In this debate a serious effort has been made to avoid a clash between the townsman and the plattelander, between the producer and the consumer. I feel that we must avoid that clash at all costs and that there must rather be closer co-operation between the producer and the consumer. We as consumers will admit that the farmers have to contend with many difficulties. They have to contend with climatic and geographic difficulties which restrict the productive capacity of the land to a great extent, and then there are the great distances between the production centres and the distribution centres. It frequently happens in this country that there is a demand for a certain product in some town or other and by the time that product reaches the market there is a surplus of the product in question. On the other hand the farmers also have to contend with various plagues. But at the same time the consumer is entitled to a good product. From the point of view of the State there are important acknowledgments to be made both towards the producer and towards the consumer, and one of the most important of those acknowledgments is that the conditions in this country which are aggravated by natural and geographic and climatic conditions, are such that it is essential for the State to take steps to protect both the producer and the consumer, that it is imperative for the State to provide the necessary labour for the farmer and at the same time to give him a price for his products which will enable him to keep the necessary labour on the platteland. Our farming friends complain a great deal about the shortage of labour. Nor do we blâme them. We know that there is a shortage of labour, but they cannot expect the labourers to remain on the platteland if they cannot afford to pay those labourers decent wages. Another aspect of this matter is the lack of recreational facilities on the platteland. I want to make a serious appeal to the farmers and to the Government to do everything in their power to fill that gap as far as social amenities on the platteland are concerned, to make available recreational facilities on the platteland; and we will then find that the labourers will remain on the platteland instead of flocking to the cities. An attack was made here on the Minister’s Department. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) said that the troubles we experience today are the cause of the Department being a hopeless failure. I do not say that I agree with him. But it is my considered opinion that that Department is constituted altogether wrongly. I think the Department is wrongly constituted for the following reasons—and the more I listened to the speeches in this House the more I became convinced of that. The Department is too all-embracing for one Department and one Minister to deal with. That is the first reason. In the second place, the interests with which that Minister and that Department have to deal are so many-sided and so conflicting that it is almost impossible for one Minister ánd one Department to cope with all those matters, and I feel that the sooner that portfolio is divided into two separate portfolios the better it will be. I feel that on the one hand there ought to be a Department of Agriculture and Irrigation; on the other hand there must be a department dealing with the costs of production, distribution and marketing. I think that then the Minister who is responsible for the Department of Agriculture would be in a better position to cope with that work. With regard to the activities of the first department, one can say a great deal in that connection, but the time át my disposal unfortunately does not allow me to do so. There is, for example, the survey of the country’s irrigable and non-irrigable land; in the second place there is the scientific division of the land, full economic use of our water supplies, which are in a sad state today and various other things. Then there is the other aspect on which we must concentrate, and that is the question of Control Boards. The Control boards, if we continue to use them, must be of a more representative character. The control boards today are inclined to be constituted sectionally. They must be constituted on a national basis. The defects which exist today in connection with natural and geographic considerations must be rectified, especially as far as the great distances are concerned, and that can only be done by the construction of more cold storages and the construction of dehydration factories, and in the third place the construction of canning factories at important production centres. The consumption of our foodstuffs must also be increased by means of advertising, for example, and subsidisation of the consumer where he cannot afford it. Our great difficulty today is the question of distribution. The hon. Minister referred this morning to the booklet which was issued by his Department. I must say that is a very instructive document, but the most important aspect of this matter was left out by that Department, and that is the question of distribution and marketing. The municipal control of marketing has been criticised here. I agree that the markets must be taken over by the Union but managed by the municipalities. What hon. members forget, however, is that the farmer very often sends his products to private agents, and those private agents sell the products at a commission of 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. On the contrary, if the farmer sends his products to the municipal markets, he pays a commission of only 2½ per cent. Then I feel that the present connection which exists between the markets and the broadcasting station must come to an end and that the connection should be between the markets and the Railways. It frequently happens that farmers send their products to one big marketing centre. Before the goods arrive there, there is already an excessive supply, and when the farmers’ products arrive there in addition, one gets this rotting of which the hon. member for Krugersdorp spoke. We ought to have a system under which the Railways will have the power to re-address to another centre where there is a demand for that product, trucks with consignments railed to some big centre or other, instead of letting that product go to a centre where there is already an excessive supply. That may perhaps sound autocratic, but is it not better even to act autocratically than to let the farmer’s products rot and to deprive the consumer of an opportunity of using it? The fault does not lie with the farmer but with the system of distribution, and if we can remove that difficulty which is caused under the present method of dis tribution, we shall get a position where the farmer will obtain a reasonable price for his products and will at the same time be able to provide the consumer with his requirements at a reasonable price.

I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words in connection with this important vote which is now under discussion. I am very sorry that unlike other hon. members I cannot thank the Minister at this stage for what he has done or congratulate him. I have always adopted the attitude—I was practically disappointed when the Minister was appointed—I thought that an active farmer should occupy this portfolio, but I do want to express the hope that he will handle this important department in such a way that after he has been head of the department for a year, we as farmers and also the consumers will be able to thank him and congratulate him on what he has done. I am very sorry to notice this phenomenon that so much is said about the consumer on the one hand and about the producer on the other hand. We cannot get away from the fact that the producer and the consumer should be brought as closely together as possible. We understand that if we have not got the farmer to produce, the consumer cannot exist, and if the consumer does not buy the farmer’s products, then the farmer cannot exist. The interests of both sections must therefore be considered, and I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy both sections. It is very wrong to incite the one section against the other and I hope that that will not be done in the future. I should like to say a few words in connection with the price of mealies. The hon. Minister said the other day that he could not at this stage say what the price of mealies would be, but we as farmers’ representatives feel very concerned about this matter. I want to support the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) most heartily in the attitude which he explained here. I think that the farmer is entitled this year to at least £1 per bag for mealies delivered into the grain elevators, and a little more in the case of mealies which are delivered in bags. This year the farmer has to contend with difficulties which he did not have in the past. In the first instance the farmers started to plough in October. The rains came; the little manure which they had was used; they ploughed and then planted. Unfortunately the caterpillars came along and devoured the mealies. They again cultivated the lands and planted for the second time, again with the same results. They had to cultivate the land and plant a third time; that meant the use of implements and coloured labourers. Unfortunately we then had a great deal of rain which blighted a large portion of the late mealies. There are so many other problems with which the farmer had to contend this year that, in my opinion, he is entitled to a higher price. The cost of production has increased and the crop will be smaller. Then there is another point which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and that is in connection with grain elevators. In my constituency there is a fairly big shortage of grain elevators. This year a considerable portion of the farmers’ mealies rotted, because there is such a great shortage of grain elevators. I would like to ask the Minister whether he cannot see his way clear to build a few extra grain elevators in the Western Transvaal and especially in Lichtenburg. It would be of great assistance if we could get another few grain elevators in Lichtenburg. Then I would like to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to make available more tarpaulins for the wheat farmers. The wheat farmers suffered very great losses this year in consequence of the big rains which we had. Their wheat rotted; it started to sprout and had to be sold at a lower price. I shall be very glad therefore if the Minister will use his influence to make available more tarpaulins to the farmers. Another big question on the farms is the shortage of coloured labour. The opinion has already been expressed that we should make use of the Italian prisoners-of-war. I want to say that I do not feel that we should use prisonersof-war to do hard labour, but there are some farmers who are already making use of these prisoners-of-war, and in my constituency the opinion has been expressed that we must make representations to the Minister of Defence and ask him whether it is not possible to establish a camp in the Western Transvaal, a camp in which these prisoners-of-war can be kept. The camps are altogether too far from the farmers, and they cannot therefore make use of the services of the prisoners-of-war. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to establish a camp in the Western Transvaal so that the farmers there will be able to make use of the prisoners-of-war, especially in connection with the coming crop. I do not want to detain the House any longer. I just want to repeat that I heartily support the representations of the hon. member for Klerksdorp. I hope that when the Minister makes a statement in connection with the price of mealies, he will tell us that he will fix the price at at least £1 per bag.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an item under “Inland Market Improvement”, and that item is the pay of labourers under the Marketing Board, which is put down at the rate of 7s. and 8s. 6d. per day. I feel sorry for the Marketing Board if that is all they can afford to pay their white labourers working for them. I was approached by a deputation of some of these men recently and I gave them my assurance that. I would draw the Minister’s attention to this serious state of affairs. When it is borne in mind that those men have to live in the towns and that in many cases they have to keep their wives and families, it will be agreed that an improvement is called for, and I just want to say this in connection with this matter that I went to the Old Age Pensions Office to see if I could get an old age pension for the wife of one of these people, and I discovered that if the husband and wife in this case had both got an old age pension instead of the husband working at 8s. 6d. per day, they would only be worse off to the extent of £10 per annum. I think hon. members will agree that an improvement is called for. Recently I drew the attention of the then Minister of Agriculture to this matter and he gave them a slight increase. I now want to ask the present Minister of Agriculture whether he cannot follow the good example of his predecessor and increase their wages to at least 10s. per day. While these people are working in Johannesburg under the Marketing Board at these rates, the Johannesburg Municipality pays its market employees no less than 10s. per day. I feel that our present Minister will go into this matter and see that these poor unfortunate people receive an increase in their rates of pay. When we see the amount which is before us on the estimates, we realise that the extra 2s. 6d. per day would only mean about another £1,000, but it would mean a lot to these people, and I think it is up to the Minister to see that this state of affairs is improved.

When an unpleasant debate is conducted in this House, eproaches are usually levelled by the hon. members on the one side against hon. members on the other side. I feel, therefore, that it is my duty to express my appreciation at this stage in connection with the spirit in which this debate has been conducted up to the present. I want to give the hon. Minister the assurance that in the future he can rely on the assistance of all sides of the House amongst the farming community. That must be very encouraging. The only matter which apparently makes hon. members feel a little upset is the question of the relationship between the consumer and the producer. So much has already been said in that connection that I do not want to add anything except to say that the public outside is satisfied that the Minister of Agriculture will be the desired link between the two sections, these two sections which should not be antagonistic towards each other. The one is dependent on the other, and I am satisfied that the Minister will use his influence and that he will be the necessary link between these two sections. I do not want to cover the same ground, but I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) and of the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen), where they drew the Minister’s attention to the question of veterinary surgeons in the Union. There is a shortage of veterinary surgeons in the Union today. The war may have something to do with that, but long before the war that difficulty already existed. I know something about it; I have a brother who is a veterinary surgeon, and I am convinced that the real difficulty is the meagre salaries for which these people have to work. I was very pleased to hear the opinion which was expressed here by the hon. member for Middelburg, speaking as a medical man, when he made this remark in connection with the salary of the veterinary surgeon. I should like the hon. Minister to give his attention to this matter. It is a fact that many of our veterinary surgeons left the Union and went to neighbouring states long before the war. Then I want to associate myself with the opinions which have been expressed here in connection with the Dairy Control Board difficulties, to which the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) referred, and I want to thank the Minister for his reply on that point. It would be a great pity if the most valuable herds of Jersey cows have to be abandoned because of the fact that the farmers do not receive their legitimate payment for the first-class milk which they deliver, because they are paid according to quantity and not according to the quality of the milk. I am grateful for the Minister’s reply that he will go into this matter. Then there is another question in regard to which I also want to say a few words. Reference has been made here to cattle and sheep, but the question of horse breeding in the Union has not yet been touched upon. That is a very neglected branch of the farming industry, and the difficulty is that the farmers are not all in a position to purchase the right stallions, and I would like to bring this matter to the Minister’s notice and ask him, if possible, to give the farmers who have the right fodder but not the necessary capital, an opportunity of improving their horses. I think up to the present an amount of £500,000 or £600,000 has been spent on the improvement of cattle. I say that subject to correction. I would like to see the same assistance afforded to the farmers in the case of horse-breeding. I should like the quality of our horses to be improved, because this is a branch of farming which up to the present has been neglected. Then I come to the Deciduous Fruit Board, and I tremble at the thought of speaking on this subject. I am directly concerned in this matter, and I had to listen to so much criticism in connection with the Deciduous Fruit Board that I almost prefer to say nothing about it. I had almost decided not to eat fruit in the future. I just want to say this to the Minister. If he wants to go into this matter— after this season, of course—with the object of bringing about an improvement in this scheme, he must do so in consultation with the farmers who are directly concerned. During the week-end I was in touch with one of the inspectors, and I was surprised to hear what good advice the inspectors can give in this respect, and I am certain that if the Minister goes into this matter together with the farmers concerned and the officials of the Department, he will be able to frame a scheme which will be satisfactory. The main question is the method of distribution. I do not say that the farmers are necessarily the best people to control the distribution. For that purpose we require people who have a knowledge of that aspect of the scheme, and I want to give the Minister the assurance that if he consults the farmers in this respect, he will get satisfaction. The hon. Minister will soon discover that when the farmer thinks he has been hoodwinked, he is one of the most difficult people to get on with, but if he has confidence in the people who work with him, one can do a great deal with him.

I want to bring a few points to the Minister’s notice, the first of which is the position in the Northern Transvaal as a result of the Commando Worm. Hon. members will have seen that according to the newspaper reports a really serious position has been created. I have been in touch with the people in the district and I have been told that there are large areas where people will have no grazing at all this year as a result of the Commando Worn. I want to know from the Minister what his Department is doing to combat this plague? He knows that hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent on combating the locust menace, and we agree that it is one of the best things that can be done. But now we are faced with this plague. I should like to know from the Minister what the position is in regard to the Commando Worm? Has proper research work been done? What is the life of the Worm. I want to know from the Minister originates; we know it is the moth which brings it there. I want to know whether the Department knew that they were going to have the Commando Worm this year? They should have known it because the farmers knew it. I want to know from the Minister what precautions can be taken either by the farmers or by the Department? We know how much is being spent on the combating of locusts. We do not expect the farmers to undertake the destruction of locusts on their own, but the Government helps them to do so. Here we have just as bad a plague, which may develop and spread all over the country, immediate steps must therefore be taken to fight the Commando Worm to destroy it completely, because if we do not take steps it may become just as serious a plague, or perhaps even worse, than the locust plague. The Government will have to help the farmers. I hope the Minister will be able to give us complete information, particularly in regard to the steps which can be taken to try and save the crops and to save the grazing. Can anything be done to prevent everything from being destroyed? The grazing is in danger now. Some people have suffered tremendous damage and if steps are not taken they will be completely ruined. The second point about which I want some information from the Minister is about ground nut seed supplied to the farmers in the Northern Transvaal this year. The farmers have bought this seed through the department, or at least on the recommendation of the department. The position is that they were obliged to sell their ground nuts to the Government, when they could get seed again. The seed on the face of it was excellent but when it was planted it was found that most of it never germinated. I don’t know whether there was anything wrong with the treatment of the seed or what, but it did not germinate. Many of these people are stuck with the seed now because when they found it did not germinate they did not use it. This seed was very expensive—I believe it was £4 5s. per bag. Now, can they return the bad seed, or what can be done about it? We know this was not done deliberately, but steps should be taken to prevent this happening again in future. Some people have prepared all their land for ground nuts; they expected a big crop, but owing to this seed not germinating they will have practically no income now. We have heard a lot of talk here about the meat scheme, but for the sake of the public generally, and especially for the sake of those people who are not as well informed as the farmers who have their representatives on various bodies, I want to ask the Minister to make a full statement in the House, or through his department, to let it be known exactly how the scheme is going to operate so that the farmers in Pietersburg will be able to judge for themselves whether it will be more to their interest to send their animals direct to the Controller in Johannesburg, or whether it will pay them better to sell on the sales in Pietersburg. I hope the Minister will make a full statement so that these people may know what is best for them. Then there is another question which I believe has not been touched upon yet, and that is the outbreak of measles among cattle. We have for many years known about measles in pigs but this disease is now assuming serious proportions among cattle. At Pietersburg, at the abattoirs, the position has become so serious that the butchers say that they will have to close down. On account of animals being regularly turned down they say that they have had to fix the prices of their meat very high because if they do not do so it means they will suffer heavy losses. If an animal is turned down it is quite useless and they do not get a penny for it.

We are grateful that Johannesburg has now taken the measly animals which have been turned down in Pietersburg. I understand that the meat of such animals, if it is subjected to a cooling process for a long time, becomes quite fit for human consumption. But the difficulty is to send it there, and then one has the expenses of cooling and so on, and the butchers in that way get very little for their animals. Now I want to ask the Minister what can be done to find out whether an animal has measles before it is slaughtered, because if it has measles it can be used as a draught animal. We have been told that practically 10 per cent. of the cattle in our area have measles. If a local butcher has one out of every ten of his animals turned down he can only make up his loss by raising his prices, and that means that the public has to pay for it. Now I want to say a few words about soil erosion. Is it not possible for the Minister to make the public realise to a greater extent what the dangers of soil erosion are? People who do not read the newspapers and who have not the advantage of seeing films, have very little idea of the dangers of soil erosion. I feel that the film for instance which has been shown to members of Parliament should be shown throughout the country, and in the schools as well. It should be shown continually. Propaganda should be made so as to make people realise the danger and make them understand how soil erosion can be combated. There is another question in that connection which worries me and that is the supplying of grass and the planting of grass to stop soil erosion. You can buy small quantities from the department but the costs are fairly high, and a farmer cannot undertake all that expense, particularly if he does not know the kind he has to get and how he has to set about things. I want to ask the Minister to make it known through the magistrates or some other channel, that the various types of grass for the combating of soil erosion will be supplied free of charge on the understanding that the farmers undertake to plant this grass. The amount involved is very small in comparison with the thousands of pounds spent on soil erosion, and I hope the Minister will see his way clear to supply this grass free of charge. I notice an amount of £2,000 on the Estimates for Land Service. I believe Dr. Visser was the father of this idea and I hope that this money is being provided in connection with this plan for the purpose of using young fellows and young women for the planting of grass and so on to combat soil erosion. Some time ago Dr. Visser at Pietersburg explained that the Government was going to establish camps during holiday time for young fellows and young girls. They would go to a certain farm or to a certain area, the Government would provide accommodation for them there, and the idea was that they would then help the farmer to plant grass, to which the farmer would also make certain contributions. They would camp out and assist in the work. If we plant grass in that way good work will be done and the object of land service will be achieved. [Time limit.]

I have been listening very carefully to this debate. One moment one heard “Hosanna” for the Minister but immediately after in almost the same breath members asked that the price of mealies be fixed at £1 per bag. It seems to me that all these Hosannas will be turned into “Crucify him” ere long. The Minister knows that we are supporting him in regard to control. We realise that when anything new is started mistakes must be made. People who achieve anything make mistakes. The man who criticises all the time and hangs about the Minister wants to dictate to him in future. There are, however, a few points on which I want to say a few words. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen). In days gone by when we had to contend with the scab louse it was regarded as a great disaster to South Africa and the Government put down its foot and drafted regulations and appointed officials to eradicate the evil. It proved a great success. But now the hon. member for Middelburg draws our attention to the dangers of the bush tick. The scab louse only attacked sheep but the bush tick attacks cattle and sheep and horses, and even human beings, and that being so we must draw the Minister’s attention to it. His reply was not satisfactory. In my district there are people who practically speaking can no longer do any ploughing. The bush tick is responsible for all kinds of conditions. In my district we have gall sickness and red water and I am sure that by drastic action we can achieve good results. We had East Coast Fever in the past, we got rid of that in a few months. The Minister says that he has not got the necessary staff and there is no legislation under which he can take action. Let the Minister introduce legislation and we will support him. What also strikes me is the low salaries paid to the poor stock inspectors. They get from 10s. to 12s. per day. How can they come out on that? They have to look after extensive areas and it is a mystery to me how they can manage on the poor pay they get. Think of the wear and tear on motor cars today. They get an allowance but it is not enough. I want to ask the Minister to review their salaries, or to make the areas which these people have to attend to smaller. We are passing through a time of petrol and rubber shortage, but certain conditions are created today as a result of the petrol and rubber shortage. There are certain public services which should have precedence. In Pretoria for instance there is a small office, the office of the District Veterinary Surgeon, where the public could always be attended to. Today the District Veterinary Surgeon is by himself and he spends perhaps one hour per week in his office; for the rest of the time he is away in the district. The position is becoming untenable, and one finds the same thing in other places. Some competent men have returned from war service and I want to ask the Minister to restore the necessary services. Now let me say a word about noxious weeds. Some time ago an inspector showed me pictures of all the noxious weeds in the country. Well, all these noxious weeds can be found in the Transvaal and in the Pretoria District. He told me that there are only two inspectors for the Transvaal. These people cannot possibly do all the work. We know that some two years ago cockle burr caused trouble along the Grootrivier. Steps were taken and the evil was eradicated. But all that money has been wasted because high tides have again caused the river to become dirty, and the cockle burr and other noxious weeds are nearly half as high again as they were when it was found necessary to eradicate them. I want to ask the Minister to tackle these questions and to deal with them drastically. In the neighbourhood of Pienaars River and Settlers and so on, practically nothing is done, and the inspectors cannot look after the large areas they have to attend to. I also associate myself with what hon. members have said about the shortage of bonemeal. Now we in our area are faced with another difficulty. We are having a lot of trouble in getting cattle salt. There is another point I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is that those parts of the Transvaal where the farmers produce wheat are suffering heavy losses from a plague of birds. Production costs are increased by at least 1s. per bag as a result of the bird plague. The Kaffir Finch is getting worse and worse. He breeds even more prolifically than the locust. In the Pretoria District it is almost impossible to produce wheat because of this bird, and the same thing applies to oats and barley. The farmers have actually started planting small bits of land for these birds but they are so cute that they don’t take what the farmer wants to give them—they destroy what the farmer does not want to give them. This increases the production costs by at least 1s. I also want to refer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick). I thought that hon. members on the Opposition benches were dead against the war, but here we have this hon. member getting up and pleading for a prisoner-of-war camp in his constituency because he wants cheap labour. But he is too cowardly to go and fetch those prisoners himself. All of you over there are too cowardly.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

Our sons caught those prisoners-of-war. I hope the public will take note of the fact that members opposite now want to benefit from the blood of our sons. They told us that the bones of our young men who went up North would lie like white monuments in the desert. And now they want to avail themselves of the efforts of our sons to get cheap labour. [Time limit.]

At the risk of being accused of repetition I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the discussions in this House over the conflict between the producers and the consumers. I am one of those who regret that this discord should have occurred between producers and distributors. I do not believe that the country is in a position today to be able to adopt the standpoint of the one or the other. If the products do not reach the consumer through the medium of proper distribution the whole ideal which forms the foundation of our economy, and for which the Department of Agriculture has been striving, becomes impractical. Consequently I want to make the commonplace remark that the country must realise that there should be a link between the producer and the consumer, and it is a right on the part of the producer, whether he is an agriculturist or an industrialist, himself to decide on his medium of distribution. That is what happens today in certain industries, and it can also happen in respect of agriculture by means of control boards, but I should like to submit the general proposition, although I myself was in the past involved in agriculture and represent an agricultural district which oractices practically every branch of farming, that the consumer must eventually decide who will establish the channels of distribution. And accordingly although our agriculturists have the fullest right to create their control boards and their distribution agencies, they must take into account the requirements of the country, and I want now to make two propositions. Whatever the channels of distribution may be, whether they are the control boards with their subsidised agencies, or whether they are provided by private initiative, there are two requirements in this connection. The first essential is that it should not be a monopoly, not monopolistic. The country will not stand for that. It is not in the interests of the country, nor in the interests of the Department, nor is it in the interests of the producer. I think that must be accepted as an axiomatic principle-There should be nothing monopolistic about the distribution. In the second place the distribution must be in the general interest, in the interests of the producers as well as of the consumers, and be as cheap as possible. If these two conditions are not complied with the consumers will eventually create their own channels of distribution. And accordingly, although I am the mouthpiece of an agricultural district, I think that agriculture must realise that it has not yet reached such a pitch of organisation that it can lay claim to its own exclusive distribution. The time has not yet arrived for the elimination of private enterprise and for agriculture to take distribution entirely into its own hands. Consequently the Department should devote its full attention to this matter. Where the right is demanded by farmers to handle the distribution themselves they must be met, with a view to instituting effective channels of distribution. I repeat that there are two requirements for sound distribution. Whether it is the farmer or an industrialist there must not be a monopoly. In the second place the distribution must be on a sound foundation. On that account I want to emphasise strongly that in the formation of control boards no board should be appointed without having on it a reliable economist. Otherwise the producer is going to suffer a setback as a result of the reaction on the part of the consumer, and in consequence of economic factors. There are one or two other aspects which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. I was privileged to accompany a deputation to his office to discuss price fixation for certain agricultural products. I do not know whether he has come to a decision; I have not learned that yet. But I want to bring to his notice, from my place here in the House, that it is a matter of vital importance to certain producers of dried fruits in my constituency. There is one person, whom I have known for years, from the time when we were students together, one whose integrity cannot for a moment be called into question, one whose word can be accepted, and he has given me the assurance that as a result of the havoc that has been wrought by the codling moth virtually no small farmer in his district will be able to make his living out of pears, which is one of their main products. As things now stand they must try to eke a livelihood from dried fruits, especially peaches, which are an auxiliary product; and I think that the Minister in making his final decision will be confronted with two alternatives, namely, either to make a difference in the present grading and in the prices for the various grades of pears, or to fix higher prices for dried fruits; or to intimate that he will assist the small farmers in one way or another. No one wants to plead for a subsidy except in the most extreme cases. We do not want charity extended to the farming community, but here we have to do with a pest which is causing ruin in a small community who have in the past made a living out of this industry. I hope that the Minister will bestow favourable attention on this matter. In the second place I should like to ask the Minister what progress has been made by the Wool Council in connection with the institution of a textile industry. Some three years ago some private parties interested in the matter were active with a view, through investigation and the exchange of ideas, to establish a textile factory in South Africa for our wool. This original movement got into touch with the Wool Council, and subsequently the Wool Council took up the matter very actively and it eventually got into touch with the Industrial Development Corporation. I shall revert to this aspect of the question at a later stage. But bearing in mind the heavy requirements in respect of wool textiles in South Africa and the interest that the Wool Council has shown in it I should like to know how far the Wool Council got in connection with the establishment of such an industry. Has the Wool Council withdrawn from that, and why? Then I should like to refer to the exceptional conditions of drought in my district. Probably the Minister will recall that in the report of the Commission on Rural Industries a number of districts were indicated in which an aboslute decline in the population had taken place between the years 1921 and 1936. That has brought about the necessity for giving attention to the causes of this decline in the population, and I want to bring two factors to the notice of the Minister. The first is the reduction in the value of the soil and the second is the smallness of the plots that are used for agricultural purposes. Much has been said about the combating of soil erosion and the intensification of agriculture. In order to save time I want to ask the Minister to delegate an official. I shall indicate the locality in Laingsburg and Ladismith where the official should investigate these affairs. In the first place he should investigate the drought position and the contributory causes of it, and in the second place he should make a study of these small plots. It is quite impossible for families to make a living on some of these small plots. [Time limit.]

I welcome the statement made this afternoon by the Minister that he intends to go into the question of control boards, and that possibly he may give representation to women in the matter. I do feel, Sir, and I have felt all through, that the consuming public is not sufficiently represented on these boards. And I am going to speak this afternoon more particularly with reference to the position of the natives and the Maize Control Board. If hon. members realise that the representatives on that board are men from the producing centres of the Free State and the Transvaal, and that the great consuming public of this country, the natives have no representation at all, I think they must agree that there is something wrong. When the Marketing Act came before this House many years ago and the question of the control boards came up, I was largely representing the natives, we had not got the native representatives here in those days, and I put my views before the Select Committee. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was then Minister of Agriculture. I pressed for the representation of the native community on this particular board, pointing out that they were the great consumers of mealies in this country, and therefore were more interested in the price and the control of mealies than any one else. All I got was “Naturelle” could not sit on a board of that nature. I replied that I did not want “Naturelle” on the board, I was quite prepared to see Europeans there to represent them. All I succeeded in getting was that the board was given the right to co-opt the Director of Native Agriculture, a gentleman who lived in Pretoria. I pressed hard for the appointment of the Director of Native Agriculture in the Transkei but I did not succeed. Well, we know what we got. I shall never forget when the levy of 4s. per bag was placed on mealies. That 4s. went to the Treasury of the Maize Control Board and the natives never got a quid pro quo; these people who directly contributed to that fund never got any return for their money. The Minister will remember that I raised this question on previous occasions. Last year I succeeded in getting the then Minister to undertake an experiment by appointing a Maize Advisory Board of the Transkei to deal with this question, and the Minister has today paid a tribute to that board which he has told the House had proved a very useful body. Well, I can support that. During the last year there has been very little trouble. This Board represents the Transkei as a whole, it has native representatives from Bunga, for the official side and also from the trading community and the farmers, and it co-operates with the Maize Control Board and with the Government and it has been a great success. So much so that when the Board was created the late member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) protested against the farmers of Kokstad coming into that particular form of management, but when the Board was constituted the first people who applied to be allowed to have representation on the Board were the farming community of Kokstad and Matatiele and today they have a member on that Board I feel that the time has arrived when there should be some liaison between that board and the Maize Control Board. The native interests should be represented and I want to ask the Minister to consider the advisibility of letting the Maize Advisory Board in the Transkei nominate one of its members, a European if necessary. In the Transkei there is not much difference between the interests of the natives and the Europeans and we don’t seem to have these quarrels between Europeans and natives there which they have elsewhere in the Union—there should be some liaison between that body and the Board in Pretoria, and I hope that when the Minister reconsiders this matter he will give the natives more direct representation on the Board. But I am going further. I am going to say this to the Minister. That Board has proved so satisfactory that the Minister should consider extending that system to other native areas in this country. The three big consuming areas of maize are Zululand, the Ciskei and the Transkei. Their interests are more or less the same if some similar scheme to that in the Transkei were worked out these areas could be placed in a very much more satisfactory position. I have always felt that the control of matters of this kind through Pretoria is unsatisfactory. Conditions are different in different parts of the country. Conditions prevailing in the Transkei, the Ciskei and so on, are different from those prevailing in the Transvaal. The natives in the Free State and the Transvaal are in the great maize producing areas, and they can buy maize whenever they want, but that position does not prevail in the Transkei. I have only dealt with the native aspect of this maize control. Now, I personally want to appeal to the Minister and I want to say this: that I think the time has come when the Transkei should be taken completely outside the operation of this particular control. I think if you gave us free trade, if you regarded the Transkei as a whole farm—with fixation of prices if you like, and if you gave us free trade in the Transkei, it would meet a great many of our difficulties. We don’t export grain, but if we do export maize from the Transkei we should be placed on the same basis as the other farms, but give us free trade in the Transkei and I can assure you that you will not experience the difficulties which you have had in the last few years. This last year there has been a tremendous wastage owing to the rain in the Transvaal. The traders could have taken large quantities of maize but the Maize Control Board dishes maize out in small quantities, 30 or 40 bags at a time. Well, the result has been that the traders tanks have been empty. A lot of that grain which has gone bad could have been saved. Now, your local board could advise your Central Board in such matters, and a more satisfactory state of affairs would be created. I think it is unfair to place these heavy levies on the natives in the Transkei. They are the people who suffer, they are the consumers, and I hope the Maize Control Board will never again place these heavy levies on these unfortunate people whose main subsistence is from maize.

I think this is an appropriate time for me to deal with some of the further points that have been raised. First of all I want to deal with the remarks of the honourable and friendly member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). In regard to the wool scheme I may say that a report has now been submitted by the Marketing Council and I shall consider that whole matter. The other point which he mentioned was the question of jointed cactus. With regard to that he has interviewed the Head of my Department and made his representations to him. A personal visit will be paid to the areas which are particularly infested and the whole matter will be gone into and investigated with a view to seeing what are the most effective measures to be taken. This will be done soon after the present session of Parliament. Then the hon. member raised the question as to whether any effective steps are to be taken to combat the blue tick. With regard to that I want to say that the Department has been very fortunate in purchasing a hundred short tons of nicotine in America. It is expected that this supply will be available shortly, and when distributed it should materially assist in the combating of this pest. The division in charge of this particular matter will undertake the distribution of the nicotine and the senior veterinary officer at East London will handle and distribute the nicotine. Part of the work will be done by Onderstepoort and steps will be taken for the procurement of the necessary tins. In regard to the price it is expected that that will be in the neighbourhood of £3 per 10 lb. tin, or £3 10s. per gallon, including railage. I may mention that if this material had to be made available through other channels—if it were not handled by my deparatment—the minimum cost to the farmer would have been £3 17s. excluding railage. And if the material had to be imported direct, not through the department, the price would have been in the neighbourhood of £5 per 10 lb. tin. So I think on the whole the farmers can be thankful for this step which has been taken by the Agricultural Department which has come in for a good deal of criticism in this debate. This is one thing for which they can be given some credit.

†*Now I come to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn). I notice he is not here but I shall deal with the few points he has raised. I am sorry he put one of his points in the way he did because he created a somewhat wrong impression. He said that we had to pay 6d. per lb. for grapes. That is not the full story. The position is that the retail price of grapes in the Cape Peninsula has been fixed at 5 lbs. for 1s. for standard grades.

At how many places can one get them at that price?

We get 2 lbs. for 1s.

That is the price which has been fixed, and if the hon. member is charged more for grapes of that quality then it is his duty to report it to the authorities. Then the next price is 3½ lbs. for 1s. for choice grapes. It is only the selected grade, packed in flat boxes, which are sold at 6d. per lb. It’s unfortunate that the hon. member created the impression that grapes costs 6d. per lb. when the fixed prices are those which I have mentioned. One of the other points raised by the hon. member was the question of the supply of barbed wire and poles to the farmers. We are continually engaged in getting barbed wire through the Controller of Steel. We are now trying to find out whether it cannot be locally manufactured, but my information is that we have not got the machinery to produce it locally. The hon. member also raised the question of soil erosion. His trouble is that the maximum of £400 per farm is not enough. Well, our intention in future is to tackle the work according to the conditions prevailing on every farm, and we intend dealing with every place on its merits, irrespective of the existing restrictions, but a new scheme is necessary for that. That is being considered and it will be announced in due course and be put into operation. The hon. member also raised some questions about prickly pear and “litjies” cactus. He knows that the overseas method of cactoblastis cactorum has not been a success here and it now appears that we shall have to revert to mechanical means such as digging out the cactus. We are doing that and we shall see what can be done in that connection, perhaps by using Italian prisoners of war, or with the aid of returned soldiers. The whole question is being seriously considered. We propose going further into that question and taking further steps. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) raised a number of points, one of which was the question of grain bags. I am aware of the difficulties in that connection. Since taking over this Portfolio I have gone into that question and I think my hon. friend will find when the announcement is made—well, I can tell the hon. member now—that the co-operative societies will again be able to buy the bags. I have gone into this whole question together with the Minister of Commerce and Industries, the Minister of Economic Development as he is now called, and I think we shall be able to get the bags bought by the co-operative societies. The producers will not have any unnecessary expenses imposed on them, and I hope the consumers will get the benefit of the reduction, or rather that they will be relieved of any extra costs having to be paid by the producers. The hon. member also raised the question of fixing the rents of land. He must understand that there is a relationship between rents and purchase prices of land. If the price of land goes up rents also go up and that, of course, is what is now happening. The price of land has gone up. That has brought about inflation and over-capitalisation of land and I think the hon. member realises as well as I do that this is a dangerous position which can have very detrimental effects. I do not believe, however, that the fixing of rents will be the remedy. I do not think that will help. Now I come to the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. P. J. de Wet) who has once again raised the question of the salaries of veterinary surgeons. On Friday last, when the matter was raised by the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen), I informed the Committee that the scale was from £400 to £800 while the agricultural experts of the Department who are also professional people are to start with on the scale of £250 to £500 and afterwards on the scale of £500 to £700. One has to take those relative figures into account. I am going into the whole question of the loss the Department is suffering through its experts not receiving sufficiently large salaries, and accepting positions outside the Department. The Committee knows, however, that the Prime Minister made an announcement the other day that this whole question was going to be investigated by a commission of enquiry. Whether it will be possible for me to anticipate the position and to improve the salaries of the expert staff of the Agricultural Department is a matter on which I cannot make a statement at this juncture.

When will the commission be appointed?

It will be appointed very shortly. My information is that the appointment of a commission will not be delayed. I don’t know when we shall get the report but my hon. friend may take it that the appointment of a commission will not be delayed. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) raised a few points, one of which was the Commando Worm. This is a very important matter and I notice it is having considerable attention in the Press. First of all I want to point out that the Chief Entomologist has personally gone into the matter and has given whatever advice he can. The principal points in regard to infection may be summarised as follows: (1) In view of the nature of the infection the Department primarily can only act in an advisory capacity. (2) Where the eggs are not laid within the cultivated land itself effective advice has been available for years. (3) The difficulty arises principally where eggs are laid directly in teff and lucerne lands or badly harrowed mealie lands, and where the farmer discovers the insect too late it is difficult to combat the evil Progress has been made in regard to investigation in this sphere but on account of the war adequate chemicals and powder machines are not easily obtainable. It is expected that locally manufactured powder will be available shortly, while the question of locally manuactured machines is also being considered. These means can also be used on pasture land but it is difficult to make them of practical value on account of the extensiveness of the veld. The department, by means of radio news and the Press, issues as many warnings as possible in regard to the outbreaks of this plague. The department can prophesy outbreaks with a fair amount of accuracy today. On account of the shortage of data in regard to weather conditions and on account of the smaller active field service and the difficult conditions in regard to motor transport however, the information service has not functioned as actively during the past two or three years as was necessary, but the department is looking forward confidently to a stronger service as soon as it is possible to improve these conditions. In regard to this question, in the same way as in regard to many other questions, we are handicapped to a certain extent by conditions caused by the war. My hon. friend further raised the question of ground nut seed which does not germinate. He discussed the subject with me a few days ago and I have asked my department to go into the matter. I have written him a letter which he has apparently not received yet, otherwise there would have been no need for him to raise the matter here. The trouble is that although the seed is of good quality it was not treated with “cerasan” before it was planted. Ceresan is a chemical with which the seed has to be treated to promote germination. There is still some seed which has not been planted and steps are being taken to have that particular seed which has not been planted treated with ceresan so that that difficulty may be removed. In regard to the question of a full statement about the meat scheme my hon. friend knows that a statement was made some time ago by the Food Controller, in which the main points of the meat scheme were indicated, namely, that it would be on the basis of dead weight and all the rest of it. When the scheme actually comes into operation I shall see to it that a further statement is made so as to explain the whole scheme to the public and everyone will know what the position is. The hon. member also wanted to know whether we could not station an extension officer in Pietersburg. There, too, we are faced with the difficulty of a shortage of officers, but we are enquiring into this question and we shall see if we cannot do something for Pietersburg. His other difficulty was in regard to measles in cattle. The trouble is that this disease cannot be established in a live animal. It is the in-between stage in the development of tape worm in a human being. Infected people have to be treated and that can only be done in co-operation with the Public Health Department. After the Session we shall go into the question again and see what can be done. The hon. member also raised the question of land service. He correctly explained the object of this service. It is a very sound undertaking. We are voting a certain amount of money here, and hope this work will develop still further. The hon. member for Worcester also raised the question of a subsidy for horses in Worcester. The position is that the department already has good stud services at the Agricultural College which are available to the public. In that way we have contributed considerably towards the improvement of our horse breeding. I feel that we should continue that method and that we should encourage the public to avail itself of that scheme as much as possible. There are few good stallions in this country and if we were to pay a subsidy now the result might perhaps be that the price of these animals would go up more and that would not help us very much. The present policy is perhaps best of all. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) raised the question of the eradication of weeds and the scarcity of Inspectors. In spite of that the work is still going on. The main setback unfortunately is due to the fact that many of the owners are away on active service. We are continuing the work along the rivers although it is being done on a small scale at the moment. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) raised the question of a wool factory. I have reports before me in connection with that subject and it is having our attention. We intend going into that further, and at a later stage it may be well to say more about it. In regard to the other question he raised, in connection with which he led a deputation, I want to tell him that we have already gone into the subject of fixing the prices of canned fruit, we have gone into this question very carefully. All the facts have been placed before us. The hon. member will recollect that what was particularly emphasised was that the amount of play allowed to the middleman and the packers was too much. After investigation it was possible to make concessions and an announcement has already been made. The hon. member will get the details. The hon. member also raised a question in regard to Ladismith and Laingsburg. I am prepared to send an official there to have the farming conditions investigated as suggested by him.

What about the grain elevators and buck sails?

Those questions will be gone into to see what can be done.

And the camo for prisoners-of-war?

The hon. member raised another point which I need not go into. He said he was disappointed at the fact that a practising farmer had not been appointed as Minister of Agriculture. First of all I want to say that I am not responsible for my appointment. He really should direct his remarks to the Prime Minister, but I must say that I wonder sometimes what the position of a practising farmer would be if he were a Minister. What kind of a practising farmer must he be? We have different kinds of farming. Must the practising farmer be a wine farmer, a mealie farmer, a cattle farmer, or a tobacco farmer? If he were a mealie farmer it seems to me that his interests would clash with the interests for instance of the pig farmers or the poultry farmers who want to get mealies as cheaply as possible, whereas the interests of the mealie farmers demand that mealies shall be sold at as high a price as possible. There is another point, which, as I have said, is this: That I am not responsible for the fact that I have been entrusted with this Portfolio. I shall fix the price of mealies shortly. If I were a large scale mealie farmer I would feel very uneasy if I had to fix a price for my own product. If the price is fairly high, the consumer may easily say that the new Minister has come along with a right royal price for mealies, and then it may be said that he himself is a big producer of mealies. I don’t think the hon. member should carry that argument too far.

I have listened with attention to the reply given by the Minister and there are quite a few points on which I am not in entire agreement with him. One refers to the position of the lessees and the bywoners. The Minister asked whether it was possible to grant a subsidy to these people or to treat them diffentíy to other farmers. I want to ask the Minister to make representations to the Minister of Lands in order to have land made available for these people under Section 10 or 11. Then the difficulties in connection with these lessees would disappear. In the second place I want to direct the Minister’s attention to the question of wages on the farms and in connection with farm factories. The Minister has said that this falls under the Minister of Labour. I hope, however, that he will step into the breach in the interests of the farmers. He says that he feels sympathy for the farmers. Let him take action then and see to it that the Minister of Labour keeps his nose out of farming activities. In that the Minister will have the full support of this side of the House. I should like to talk about the policy of the Department, but I have only ten minutes and cannot do that, consequently I shall confine myself to one or two special matters. In the first place I want to refer to the report of the Secretary for Agriculture, and I wish to congratulate the Minister on that report. The report is very clear, and if hon. members who talk so much about the high prices that they must pay for fodder read that report, they will see that the farmers have never yet received a proper or proportionate reward for their work, in comparison with what is obtained for the products of industry. For instance the Secretary for Agriculture states that even the increased price that is obtained during the war only puts the farmers in a position to catch up a little on their arrears. But then we hear on the other side of the House that the prices that the farmers receive are extremely high. I agree with the Secretary for Agriculture. The prices that are paid today are still not in conformity with the prices in industry. If the consumer cannot afford it the Minister must follow the course adopted in other countries, such as America and England, and ensure that the salaries of the consumers will be such as to enable them to buy the food, or alternatively he must subsidise the consumers so that they will be able to obtain the requisite food. It is not to be expected that a section of the population should be carried on the farmer’s back and that the farmer should produce merely at a cheap rate for them. The Secretary for Agriculture makes it clear that very few farmers fall in the category of rich farmers. Usually they remain poor and they are the hardest working class of the population. Then as regards the meat policy, the Minister says that he cannot make an announcement now. My difficulty is that if the matter goes on in this way it looks as if it will remain like that for the duration of the war. We on this side of the House are not against control, but we are against control that is of such a character that it will only apply for the duration of the war. If it is a long term policy we are prepared, after consideration to give it a chance.

I have already said that I have asked the Meat Board to draw up a scheme.

Yes. But if I look at the terms of reference of the commission I find that it is just for the duration of the war. And now I am afraid that the scheme will Collapse. In the first place I see in the report of the Secretary for Agriculture that the difficulty is that they have not got the proper people, or the trained people, who can grade the meat. On that account the price fixation originally applied at the big centres, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Pretoria, was a failure. That was occasioned by the shortage of properly trained meat graders. So if the farmers have to send meat without there being proper graders, what faith can the farmers have in such an organisation. I am afraid, consequently, that the plan will collapse. We want to support the meat scheme provided the Minister sees that the requisite cold storage and that the graders that are necessary are available, and provided it is a long term policy and not only for the duration of the war. What we do not want to happen is that the control will be raised as soon as the war is over. Accordingly, I say that the Minister must not be too hasty but give us a reasonable chance to inquire into the scheme before it comes into operation. Then I want the Minister to make an announcement in connection with the mealies that were bought last year and that went bad. According to the report of the Secretary for Agriculture, the Maize Board was the only purchaser, but subsequently permits were also given to traders to buy mealies, with the emphatic proviso that the mealies for the traders should be used first. There the co-operatives and the grain elevators are saddled with the mealies and have to look after them, and the proviso was that the moisture content from the mealies that they accept might exceed 12 per cent. What was the result? That the co-operative associations suffered damage running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Now I should like to have a statement from the Minister whether the Maize Board, with the assistance of the Government, will give compensation in respect of the loss sustained by the grain elevators and the co-operatives as a result of their having given preference to the speculators’ mealies. I hope that the Minister will shoulder this expense. The difficulty is that the co-operatives have also to purchase mealies from natives and from people who do not belong to co-operatives. The mealies have become, bad. The next point that I want to emphasise strongly is that the Minister of Agriculture should make an announcement as soon as possible as to what the prices of mealies and of wheat will be. We are on the eve of our harvest for this year and we have not yet had any intimation of what the price will be. The Minister has stated that the boards will assemble during next week, and on their recommendations the price will be fixed. The production costs of mealies have gone up by at least 2s. I notice that in previous years a 5 per cent. increase was placed on the price. Seeing that we are going to have a shortage of 6,000,000 bags of mealies I hope that the Government will allocate 5 per cent. to the shortage of mealies and that the price will be 21s. or 22s. On the last occasion that I spoke on the motion that I introduced, I voiced the hope that the price of mealies would be £1, but representations have been pouring in from all sides in connection with the shortage of mealies—certain districts have actually no mealies at all—and it will definitely be an encouragement if a reasonable price is fixed.

Now it is being stated that the consumers cannot pay a higher price. Give a subsidy then to the consumers just as the bakers and the millers are given a subsidy. [Time limit.]

One of our friends on the other side of the House has criticised the appointment of my friend the Minister because he is not a farmer. I do not remember in all these years that I have been in this House that we have ever had a farmer as Minister of Agriculture with the exception of Mr. Van Heerdeen. He is the only farmer I have ever known who has filled the position.

Gen. Kemp?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was a soldier, and he took the wrong turning and became a farmer. I will say this to his credit, that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad killed scab in this country; whatever may be said about him it will always be put to his credit that through his energy and his enthusiasm he eradicated scab from wool sheep in South Africa. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Cradock, Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) ….

What?

Yes, I want to congratulate him. He walked up and down this country from Dan to Bersheba and asked everyone to vote against selling our wool to Great Britain. That was at the time Great Britain was not winning the war; and now he is going down on his knees asking us to sell our wool to Great Britain.

Asking Great Britain, not you.

I want also to congratulate my other friend over there who would not take any part in the war and who is now asking the Government to supply him with some of the Italians that our sons fought in North Africa. This question of maize has been raised again. If you can bet your bottom dollar about one thing it is this, that whatever the maize group ask for in this House they will get. They are the strongest political group in South Africa, and they haye been the strongest political group for many years. The whole of their income to South Africa amounts to £15,000,000, and they have far more power than Commerce or the Chamber of Mines. Talk about the Mines and Hoggenheimer ruling this House, but the stalk borer has it absolutely beat all the time. One does not like to tread on the farmers’ corns; they are about as touchy as a film star. We all know that we have diseases and pests, and that the noxious weeds of South Africa are some of the worst in the world. We are quite aware that it is a dry and thirsty land. We know that the farmers always have had low prices, and that the farming industry in South Africa, like the farming industry in every other country in the world, is a depressed industry, and it is for that reason that this House, year after year, votes millions and millions of pounds to help the farmer, but we consumers ask for something, and I hope our friends Will not be annoyed when I say this—it is not anything personal against any farmer— we are getting very worried over this point, and we ask that there should be less abuse of the land in South Africa, less overstocking of cattle on farms, that there should be better management of the ground in this country than there has been. We also ask that there should be less over-capitalisation. Land is going up, and up, and up, and up, and with the prices ruling today it is almost impossible fór any farmer to make a living.

Whose duty is it to see about that?

I am not saying whose duty it is. A farmer sells his land for a little more to somebody else, who buys it and sells it a little later for an increased price; it goes on until it is sold at too high an economic price. There is far too much land speculation in South Africa. I should like the Agricultural Department to work out some scheme whereby land speculation can be stopped in this country once and folall. Freeze the land! It should have been frozen before the war. It has been frozen in other countries, and it should have been frozen by our Minister over there and the price not allowed to go any higher; because the higher it goes the poorer do our people become. The House may not know it but I farmed for some time and made quite a lot of money out of it. I did not make the money myself, but the Agricultural Department made it for me. I lived alongside the Glen Agricultural College and I asked them to assist me, and they assisted me, and were willing to assist me any time of the day or night. They taught me to farm. I travel around a great deal, and one of the things I have against the farmer is that they do not use the Agricultural Department. I am not referring to members of Parliament. I am referring to the ordinary farmers on the platteland. When I say this Γ know the country as well as any other man in this House knows it, just as well, perhaps better than the majority know it, and I say that there is a failure on the part of the ordinary farmer to avail himself of the services of the Agricultural Department, If he would do that he would find he would be much beter of of for it. Here is a point over which farmers won’t agree with me. Perhaps one of the things ruining the farmer more than anything is cheap labour You cannot carry on any business in the world if you have cheap labour, and if our farmers had better paid labour and better trained labour, they would have been better off and we would not have them throwing up their hands and saying this is not a farming country. In Australia the farm labourers are paid £3 and £4 a week, and they can produce butter, wheat and maize, and land it at our door in Cape Town at so low a price that we have to keep them out by special duties. Your wages are too low and your management is inefficient. Having brought forward that small measure of criticism, I should like to say, like my hon. friend the member for Fauresmith (Mr. Fouché) that I am very much afraid and depressed over the soil erosion in this country, and I hope one of the first things the Minister will do is to have an agronomic survey, and that he should pay far more money than is being done today. The Government is marking time and allowing people to play at it. Then I hope our Minister of Finance will bring in a Bill before long to tax large holdings in this country on unimproved land values. Far too much land is being held by big people and not being used. I want to go further, and I suppose I will be called a communist for this. I hope the Government will expropriate land, will expropriate a large number of farms that are not being used today in a proper way. I am laying down the principle that certain land in this country is not fit to be farmed on, and some of the people on it not fit to farm it, and the time has come to expropriate that land. I have been pleading in this House for many years that the Government should take over all the bonds on all the farms in this country. The only man I could get to agree with me was the late Mr. Tielman Roos. I do not know what the amount is today, but the Government should take over all the bonds and let the farmers have the money at 3 per cent., and they should also make this rule: Never again to allow those farms to be bonded unless the man taking them over is a first-class farmer. I want a bigger and a better Agricultural Department. I have fought the Agricultural Department on the question of control, but I am not talking about control today. The Minister has told us something which has heartened us. I want a bigger and better Agricultural Department. I am not criticising the present Agricultural Department, but I say it is a scandal, that this Government is the worst employer of labour in South Africa. There is no employer that I know of in the country that pays such rotten and poor wages as this Government. If any of us paid these wages, if any private industry paid wages as low as these, we would be hauled up before the magistrate. Here we have skilled men, officers of the department, being paid salaries of £200 or £300 a year. That is an absolute scandal. I hope the Minister will move at once and not wait for a commission. If he waits for a commission he will have a long white beard before anything is done. I want more scientific farmers in South Africa, Anybody who fails, no matter at what, becomes a farmer today. We have some of them in this House who have become farmers. If they fail as advocates they become farmers, if they are bad doctors they become farmers. Farming is the most scientific thing we have today, and I say we should go so far that the Agricultural Department would have the right to say to a man: You shall not farm. [Time limit.]

I want to refer to the citrus position. In February I asked the then Minister of Agriculture three questions, and I want to read these question, together with the answers that were furnished. My first question was—

1. (1) Whether the increase made in the price of out-of-season citrus fruits recently announced and put into operation by the Citrus Control Board was authorised by the Price Controller.

The Minister’s reply was that the prices were fixed by him. I presume “by him” refers to the Minister, though it may have been that he meant the Price Controller. My second question was—

1. (2) What evidence, if any, was laid before the Price Controller to satisfy him that it costs the producer more to produce and market the out-ofseason crop than it does to produce and market the ordinary crop.

The answer to that was—

My third question was—

1. (3) Whether out-of-season citrus fruits were in short supply at the time of the Controller’s decision; if so, whether it was taken into consideration when authorising the increase.

The answer to that question was—

It will be remembered that the Citrus Control Board, before the ordinary citrus season started last year, fixed the price of oranges—I am dealing with oranges particularly—at a retail price of 3s. 3d. per pocket, and we were then told that that price gave the producer a reasonable profit, and the consumers were at that time reasonably satisfied that they were getting the article at a reasonable price too. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the ordinary in-season citrus season starts about the middle of April, and ends somewhere about November, and those prices obtain over that period; and I may say we were given to understand that the prices were all-the-year-round prices. There was no stipulation there would be any variation in price at all. The time came when the in-season citrus fruits were finished, and then we had to put on to the market what was know as cold storage citrus fruit, and suddenly the price went up about 50 per cent. for the cold storage fruit, and for this cold storage fruit the increased price was operative from about November to January. After that, Mr. Chairman, the price was further increased as I have just stated, that season’s price—from November to January— was increased by about 50 per cent. for the cold storage fruit. After that prices went up another 50 per cent. in other words, the prices were increased by about 100 per cent. per pocket. In-season fruit which was set down at a price of 3s. 3d. was sold to the public at 5s. 9d. per pocket. The explanation of that, according to the Minister’s reply here is that it costs more to produce an out-of-season crop, the picking costs are more and the deterioration is greater. I am not in a position to say anything about the conditions under which citrus is grown in the other provinces, but I should like to say this, that in the Transvaal Province the production of what is known as out-of-season citrus is very considerable, and I have yet to learn, Mr. Chairman, that its costs anything more to produce an out-of-season crop because as I understand the position, out-of-season critus is merely a continuation crop. The blossoms set and the fruit ripens after the original crop has been produced, and I fail to see how there can be any justification for this authorisation of an increased price for citrus fruit. I am not suprised to hear the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) say that he had to pay as much as 6d. for an orange. That is true but there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for that increase. I have said that the production of this out-of-season citrus is very considerable in the Transvaal, but it is a noticeable thing that the production is made largely by what I might style big business, and I notice that big business has a good deal to say on the Citrus Control Board, and I am suggesting that perhaps that has something to do with this increased price. All I want to say in conclusion is that I am not a bit surprised to hear that our control system is very much criticised if this is a sample of their methods; I am not the least bit surprised to hear that our control system is very much in disfavour and in bad odour, and I hope the Minister will assure us that something will be done in this matter. This is the work of big business; this is not the work of small business at all. The public has been made to pay a large price for the out-of-season citrus and the excuse of big business is that it costs more to pick and to market this fruit. That excuse cannot be entertained for a moment. I hope the Minister will give us the assurance that something will be done to see that the Citrus Control Board does not put that excuse across the public this coming season.

When this vote was under discussion last Friday I was engaged in trying to convince hon. members that the mealie farmer is entitled to at least £1 a bag of mealies. Some hon. members now say that is not enough. I leave that to the Minister; I hope that the thinks the same way. I would just like to add this, that the Minister should take into very serious consideration whether it is not possible to increase that slightly for the small mealie farmer. I leave that to the wise discretion of the Minister. When we ask for that price we do not want to lose sight of the consumer, and I would like to remind hon. members. That if the farmer does not get a reasonable price the result will be that he will produce less. Many farmers will simply get out of the mealie industry with the result that the production of mealies will be still smaller, and where then will the consumer obtain the mealies to make good the shortage. They will have only one course open, and that is to import mealies from overseas. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) has told us today that the import price will be anything from £2 to £3, and we know that the day will also return when the import price will be much lower, and accordingly as mealie farmers we are prepared to say that we shall be satisfied with a price of £1 a bag, and I think that the producer and the consumer must get together and look the facts in the face. I want again to give the assurance to the House that generally speaking the mealie farmer is a poor farmer Most mealie farmers are relatively poor farmers, and to come here now and charge the mealie farmers with making unheard-of profits is to say the least very unjust. That is absolutely not the case. The mealie farmers are not rich people. I also am supposed to be a rich man. I produce a considerable amount of mealies, but I can give you my assurance that I am not a wealthy man; and I should also like to repeat that on the whole the mealie farmer is a comparatively poor man. I may say that for such possessions as I have got I have to thank not the mealie industry but other activities, such as speculation for instance. Those are the people who make money in this country. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have speculated here and there, and that is where I have made money but not out of mealie farming.

It seems to me they forget that there are many natives today who work together with the farmers on the platteland; and they produce a quantity of mealies that they also send to the market to sell. So it appears to me that the native representatives are hot giving a thought to the native producers, and why they have only the consumer in mind I cannot imagine. Then I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to another product, and that is the potato. I can give the Minister the assurance that the prospect of a good patato crop this year is extremely weak. Notwithstanding the fact that we paid high prices for seed potatoes and incurred heavy expense the crop for one reason and another has largely been lost. In any case the crop has been practically ruined, and, the price this year is going to rise abnormally, and I should not like to see the Minister intervene prematurely and fix the price. He should first institute a proper enquiry in order to ascertain what the cost of production is going to be this year, and I can assure him it is very high. Then I want to say a few words in connection with the price of wheat. In that connection I want to endorse the plea made by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) for an increased price for wheat. The production costs have again increased in the course of the last twelve months. I also want to appeal for a higher price for wheat, and I am convinced that the Minister must agree with us that this is entirely justified. I should like now to say a few words about the meat position. The Minister recently told us that the cattle population had increased by 2,000,000. He said that the position in regard to sheep was more or less unchanged, and that there were 200,000 more pigs. Before the war we had the experience of being burdened with a surplus of cattle in the country, and the Government had to subsidise the export of beef; and I am afraid that if the Government imposes restrictions on the consumption of meat we are going to be landed in the same position that we were in before the outbreak of the war. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) said just now that we were overstocking our farms. I fear that is indeed going to be the position if these restrictions are continued. The farmer will not be able to dispose of his cattle, and the result will be that his farm will be overstocked. These are all facts which the Minister should give full consideration to. Take for instance the position of farmers who breed pigs. This is a matter to which the Minister should devote his serious attention. A few years ago the farmers were in a position to use mealies for feeding. Today they have to pay two and three times as much for mealies, but they only get the same price for their product. Under the prices that have prevailed in the past year there is no encouragement for the farmer to take up pig breeding, so I should also like to ask the Minister to take the position of the pig-breeders seriously into consideration.

After the townsmen have so nicely told the farmers how they should farm I also want to say a few words on the matter. We have heard here of an ideal type of farming, but we have not been told what we should do to support the 600,000 people who today make a living out of farming. It appears to me that the only plan will be that advocated by Bernard Shaw when he said: “Shoot the whole lot.” I think that at least 75 per cent. of those people who make a living out of farming are farming on a small scale. We must see what we can do for them. I think the wonderful ideas that we have heard of may perhaps be applicable in another fifty or a hundred years, but today we just have to struggle to keep these people going. In my constituency we are engaged in stock farming. The farms there are very small, and the people cannot go in only for stock farming or dairying. They cannot make a living out of milk. In Veryburg we have one of the biggest creameries in South Africa, but when I tell you that the creamery cheque received by 75 per cent. of the farmers is for less than £100 for the year you will realise that it is almost impossible for these people to maintain themselves unless they have over and above that some additional sort of farming. The people are thus obliged to breed tollies and perhaps a few pigs in order to earn a livelihood. The question is what sort of cattle should they breed in order to make a living, and we find that the dual purpose animal is the best to keep. Our experience is that the imported animals are not suited for our purpose. The foreign breeds deteriorate under our semi-arid conditions. We must have the Afrikaner as a foundation, but on the other hand the Afrikaner is not a dairy animal and he develops very slowly for slaughter purposes. We should like the Department to go into the matter with a view to ascertaining whether a type of bull cannot be selected for that district, based on the Afrikaner’s constitution but breeding a moderate dairy animal. We know that in America they experienced the same difficulty, and the Americans selected a type that answered their purpose, bred from the Indian sebo and the Whiteface or Hereford Why cannot we standardise a type in this country from a cross between an Afrikaner and another breed? I know that some years ago the Government had a bull-breeding establishment at Louis Trichardt in the Northern Transvaal. I do not know whether it is still in existence. I note that an amount of £1,000 has been provided for the breeding of bulls. If that is intended for that purpose I maintain that it is totally inadequate. I want the Government to make available for the drier parts of the country a more suit able animal. I should like to see the Government begin on tests to determine what bulltypes are the most suitable for the various parts of the country. I should like to recommend Vryburg as a suitable centre, because it would then serve a large part of the cattle country. There are many people who have to derive a living from small pieces of land, and who cannot depend on milk only, but who also want a tolly or an ox to be able to make ends meet. I hope that the Minister will direct his attention to this matter, and that we shall have something done in the course of the following year. In the meanwhile I should like to see the subsidy restored in respect of the purchase of bulls. The farmers cannot afford to pay the high prices asked by breeders, and the result is that they fall back on an inferior grade bought from a private breeder or from a neighbour, and in consequence the good work done in the past goes by the board. Accordingly I appeal to the Minister to restore the subsidy for at least a couple of years. Some years ago the Government bred bulls and sold them to the farmers, but these were full-blooded imported bulls. But in that case too the prices were beyond the means of the small farmers. Then there is another matter on which I should like to say a few words. We agree with what the hon. member for Hospital has said here, namely, that the farmer who should.be best equipped with scientific knowledge iş today not so fitted and I want to appeal to the Minister to afford an opportunity for our boer lads to gain a little agricultural knowledge in the ordinary schools. There are four or five agricultural schools in the Union, but the schools are mainly beyond the reach of the ordinary farm lad. They cannot afford to attend those schools. But I consider that a certain amount of agricultural knowledge should be imparted to the students at the ordinary schools. In that way we shall perhaps in the future have more competent farmers. A small sum of £350 has been made available for research work in connection with noxious weeds. In our district we have the “vermeerbossie,” and I know that some years ago a station was established at a place called Droeputs in Griqualand, but it appears to me that the research work has come to an end and in the meantime the farmer is annually losing thousands of pounds as a result of that shrub. I would ask that the sum be increased so that we can go ahead with research work in connection with the “vermeerbossie,” and also in connection with other noxious weeds. I hope that the Department will be in a position to make a little more money available for those objects.

When I took part in the debate at an earlier stage I tried to indicate the factors owing to which the wheat production for this year will be reduced if the utmost encouragement is not given by the Department of Agriculture to the sowing of wheat. I want to touch on just a few further aspects of the matter and to say something about them in the short time at my disposal. It is not only that the grant of fertilisers to wheat producers in the Western Province, the granary of the country, will be considerably reduced this year compared with last year—at least so far as relates to my district—but the hon. Minister must bear in mind that a considerable number of people bought quantities of fertilisers at the beginning of the war. They stored that fertiliser and from those reserves they supplemented the shortage from time to time. Those stocks have now been exhausted, and the farmers are not in a position to supplement the issue any further now. We know that the grant of less fertiliser means lower production. While I want to thank the Minister and his department for the institution of the lucerne subsidy scheme, I want at the same time in passing to ask the Minister, though the price of lucerne is fixed at £10 a bag that that subsidy must not be placed to the account of the wheat farmer. I want the Minister please to bear this in mind. On a previous occasion we have had to do with the subsidisation of the consumer, and this was placed to the account of the wheat producer. This subsidy may very probably be set to the account of the wheat producer. Today there is a shortage of agricultural implements and of agricultural requisites in general. Undoubtedly this is going to contribute towards affecting the production of wheat and to retard the production of wheat. Today there is a shortage of tractors, there is a shortage of fuel, there is a shortage of lorries, there is a scarcity of draught animals, and let the Minister also bear in mind, as has been stated already by previous speakers, the price of bags has increased by 5d per bag. The costs of labour have increased by 100 per cent. in the past year. The price of agricultural requisites has been fixed, but we know that there has been a general increase in the price of all requisites that are necessary today in the production of wheat. I put a question to the previous Minister of Agriculture whether it was his policy to fix the price of wheat again this year, bearing in mind the increased cost of production; and his answer to me was: Yes, with due consideration to all the factors. I merely mention this so that the hon. the Minister may know what expectations were held in this respect by the previous Minister. So far as regards the Western Province, and the parts that I represent, we are satisfied with the present price, provided the increased costs of production for the previous year are added. It will not amount to much and we shall be satisfied with that. I am glad that the Minister of Finance is present. I will now touch on a matter that I should very much like the Minister of Agriculture to bear in mind, and in this connection it may perhaps be necessary for him to make representations to the Minister of Finance. The fruit farmers have in the past year received much less fertiliser for the cultivation of their orchards. Some fruit farmers in the Western Province paid as much as £5,000 per year for fertiliser before the war. I shall take one case as an illustration. Take a farmer who receives 30 bags of fertiliser instead of 7,000 bags per year as he received before the war. That man is today going to be guilty of robbing the soil because he cannot get any fertiliser. We do not blame either the department or the Government for that. We know that fertilisers are unobtainable, but while that man is obliged today to rob the soil he will find it necessary at a later date to provide the soil with that fertiliser; though as a result his expenses today are that much less and on account of war taxation he must pay on higher profits. I think that is extremely unjust and accordingly I want to ask the Minister whether he will not make the necessary representations to the Minister of Finance in order to see that the extra money is placed in a suspended trust account— instead of the farmer having to pay war taxation on it—from which in future amounts can be taken when the producer is compelled to supplement his fertiliser in order to restore the fertility of the soil. I cannot emphasise this point enough. It is no small matter when you are called on to pay war taxes on money that is taken out of your land, in the form of robbery, and that you will be compelled to return to the land as soon as you can get the necessary fertiliser. I would seriously urge on the Minister that he should also make the necessary representations to the Minister of Finance to ensure that the money that is expended on labourers’ dwellings on the farms shall be exempt from income tax as in the past. Measures are being adopted today which very probably will throw the whole matter into confusion. The farmer is in a state of uncertainty, and we should like to have the assurance that bona fide farmers will be exempt from income tax in respect of money that they spend on the construction of houses for their labourers. In passing I would just like to say this. I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that a direct personal attack has been made on the Secretary for Agriculture. I think it is to be deplored that any member should so use the privileges that he enjoys in this House as to make an attack on an official who cannot defend himself. The Secretary for Agriculture, whoever he may be, is not responsible for our agricultural policy; the policy is laid down by the responsible Minister, and such an attack does the member no credit when that official is not in a position to defend himself. If that official reacts to the criticism through the medium of the press hon. members will not approve, and accordingly I consider that if attacks are made they should be made on the Minister of Agriculture. He is in a position to defend himself on the floor of the House but his officials are not in a position to do that here. You will pardon me if I say in my honest opinion the farming section of the community have never been justly treated in this country. I do not blame anyone for that, nor do I speak for other parts of the country. I am talking on behalf of those districts that I have knowledge of, and I emphatically maintain that the farming community have never been justly treated because the necessary machinery has never been installed in the past that would have enabled them to be accorded just treatment, and it is disappointing to think that this important section of the community, the agricultural section of the population, must always await abnormal times before they receive just treatment. As soon as a war breaks out then we know that agriculture is a key industry; then an appeal is made to the farmers to produce in order to make the country economically independent, in order to try to provide everything in the nature of food; but as soon as the war is over things fall back into a state of neglect, and the necessary respect is not accorded the farmer; he has to fend for himself to make ends meet. At no time is there security and stability for the farmer. I do not think that it can be said of the farming community as a whole that they demand unreasonable profits. All that they claim is a just right to exist; that is all that they want, and I want to approach it from this standpoint, that as a result of the creation of control boards owing to war conditions, the necessity for the development of agriculture has been indicated, and trust that machinery will be employed in the best interests of agriculture as well as that of the consumers in order to place agriculture on a stable foundation, to provide more security and to give agriculture the place it is entitled to in our social fabric; this is what agriculture deserves. It is peculiar that when agriculture has a good year in any part of the world it reacts on the whole position. When you get a good year in South Africa prices fall to an uneconomic level. When there is scarcity again the price rises, but then on the other hand there are not sufficient products to meet the shortage that exist. I want our policy to be so fashioned that the farmer will have security, and that he will be in a position to know for what he is engaged in producing these products. [Time limit.]

I wonder if this House and the country generally realise that the objections to the control boards and to the price controllers arise out of the fact that the Department looks upon the time factor from the Department’s point of view only. As a case in point may I say that when it comes to promulgating a Government Notice freezing such and such an article, those holding such commodities are required to furnish to the Department within a short space of time detailed statements of how much of such a commodity they hold. And when it comes to dispensing that commodity to the consumer delays occur which should not occur, and I think it is the delay in acknowledging letters and requests for information which leads to the present state of irritation and friction. We have mealies as an instance. I saw a notice in the paper the other day of information supplied by Kahn and Kahn, the great grain brokers in the country, in which they said that the Mealie Control Board was six months behind with its deliveries. Now, if that is not a cause for investigation, then I wonder what is. The Minister will forgive me if I raise a case which I brought to his notice five weeks ago. So far as I know nothing has been done yet.

I have not been Minister yet for five weeks so you could not have brought it to my notice five weeks ago.

I brought it to the notice, five weeks ago, of the Minister of Lands who was acting Minister of Agriculture at the time, and up to today I have not been informed that the difficulty has been dealt with in a way which would relieve the position. But why has that position arisen? Simply because no cognisance is taken of how a Government regulation would affect the position. The same thing occurred last year in regard to meat. We had controlled and uncontrolled areas. Immediately an area was controlled there was a scarcity of meat there and there was plenty in other areas. With regard to eggs the position is different. There you have fixed retail and wholesale prices. In the controlled areas there were fixed retail and wholesale prices. The mistake made was that no consideration was given to the effect of putting a higher price in the controlled area than was in force in the uncontrolled area. The result was that the product from the uncontrolled areas was immediately sent in quantities to the controlled area. What I am trying to impress upon the Minister and the House is that the growing discontent with the control boards is due to the fact that these bodies do not take into consideration the effect of their notices. If they had done so, in the case of eggs for instance, it would have been realised that with the high price in the controlled area and the low price in the uncontrolled area, there was bound to be an immediate shortage in the uncontrolled area. I want to appeal to the Minister and ask him to see to it that the authorities shall take into consideration the effect of their promulgations. That is all I want to ask. I am not anxious to criticise the Minister or to make the position any more difficult than it is. I only want to say that there is room for improvement. I don’t know whether I shall be in order in dealing with the wheat position. I want to remind the Minister that if a demand is made for a higher price for wheat, it should, before being granted, receive the most careful consideration. Last year the cost of production was fixed at 33s. 11d. per bag. In that cost was included a reasonable profit to the farmer, cost of living, 5 per cent. on capital invested, fair remuneration for the farmer’s services and a number of other items, and then the wheat farmer was given a 2s. 1d. encouragement grant. Now, the fixed price of 36s. per bag included the subsidy and, in the words of the late Col. Collins, was paid to the Wheat Control Board which afterwards paid it to the producer. He denied that it went to the miller and to the consumer. Well, I hope the Minister will take notice of the fact that the public is watching the position very carefully, and I hope he will not allow himself to be stampeded into granting any higher prices for a commodity such as wheat without full consideration.

I wish to say a few words to the Minister on the question of the dairy industry. I know that a number of representations, mine amongst other, have been made to the department and the Miniser with regard to the prices of dairy products, and that the matter has been considered, and I am pleased to hear from the Minister that a suitable committee is now going to be appointed to investigate the costs of production and the question of prices of dairy products for the future. Now I wish to say to the Minister that the dairy industry is in a peculiar position. You have the Dairy Control Board which controls the prices and distribution of certain sections of the dairy industry, while another section is uncontrolled by the Dairy Board. I am speaking of the fresh milk industry. Now, in the days of our late Minister, Col. Collins, the position with regard to the fresh milk industry was on a different footing from what it is today, and in reply to representations made to him he said that he did not see the necessity of a control board to control the fresh milk industry because there was a shortage of milk and prices were fixed under the War Regulations to encourage the production of more milk for the use of the towns, and for the needs of our urban population. For that reason the price for fresh milk was fixed at a much higher figure than milk for any other purposes.

I have said I would agree to an investigation into the prices of all dairy products.

Fresh milk too?

Yes.

I just want to say to the Minister that my constituency is largely interested in all dairy products. I have had representations made to me and so have members in other parts of the country by people who consider that the time has now arrived when fresh milk should come under control, either under the present Dairy Control Board, or if that is not possible, that a control board to control the fresh milk industry should be created. I hope the Minister will take steps to have this properly investigated to see whether it is possible to concede the request of these people who are interested in the fresh milk industry. The position today is that owing to the higher price of fresh milk as compared with milk for other purposes, milk is drawn from other producers who have been supplying condensarles, cheese factories and also from co-operative concerns which have been manufacturing cheese and butter. These institutions are controlled by the Dairy Industry Control Board, but they are now operating in the fresh milk trade outside that control. The result is that fresh milk distributors are buying fresh milk today at lower prices from other institutions than they are paying for the same milk at fixed prices agreed on, the price which has been fixed by agreement for those who are purely fresh milk sellers. The position is becoming impossible, and I hope the Minister will fully investigate it because you have a large number of people who have built up businesses on the fresh milk trade alone. In fact, many of them look upon those businesses as vested interests and they are now resenting fresh milk coming into those areas at a lower price from other parts where it was produced for cheese factories and condensed milk factories. The position today is that instead of there being a shortage of fresh milk in the larger towns, in many instances you are having a surplus of milk and that fresh milk producers who were supplying those areas are now having to be put on quotas. They have to divert some of their milk for other purposes at lower prices. They are put on quotas and not all of the output is allowed to be used for the fresh milk trade because milk is coming in from other centres, and is creating that surplus. All we ask is that the Minister will investigate the whole position and see if it is not necessary for the whole fresh milk business to be put under control. If he does not do so the towns in future may suffer from a shortage again as there would be chaos, and those making their living out of the fresh milk business may have to go out of business. I just want to bring this to the notice of the Minister so that he will go fully into the whole matter, and get the advice of his department and also ask the Marketing Council to consider the question of a fresh milk scheme from a control board point of view. If that is done the Minister will be doing a great service to the towns and to the future of social security and he will also be rendering a great service to the Dairy Industry. These people who have built up the dairy industry for the towns require consideration. They have built up their businesses and they have done so by investing large sums of money to supply the wants of these towns. If they are to be undermined from outside it will create a great deal of hardship and ruin to many. I quite agree that milk should be sold in these towns at as low a price as possible taking into consideration production costs, but if the price fixed in the past was justified, it must have been based on some calculation of the cost of milk in those areas. And if those costs are justified then without doubt the prices paid to dairy farmers who are supplying their products under control of the Dairy Board have not been high enough. What I mean is that prices should have some relation to each other. I understand that the Dairy Control Board is trying to do that with the products they control—that is cheese-milk, condensed milk and butter fat, but I understand that this question of fresh milk should also have some relation to the other dairy products. And the time has now arrived when the Minister should go carefully into the whole matter and see if it is not possible to have all sections of the industry under proper control. So that other interests will not be able to undermine the fresh milk industry and do irreparable harm to it. As the Minister has said that the investigation which he has promised will include the fresh milk industry, I won’t say any more about it.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister something that concerns a principle and a very important principle. It is something that in the past has appeared in the Governor-General’s vote. It is also a principle that is very much in evidence at the moment. The principle that I am touching on is the question of Government farming. I have gone into this question and in this House I have put a question to the Minister over Government farming. The information that I obtained indicates that from May to July not less than 22,000 bags of potatoes are produced at Vaal-Hartz. It has been stated that these are seed potatoes, but in that connection I may say that there are many farmers who can grow seed potatoes and that it is not necessary for the Government to do this. Those seed potatoes comprise the first crop from imported seed potatoes, but if the imported seed potatoes had been given to the farmers they would have been able to produce these seed potatoes. Take an article such as vegetables. The information has been given that at Vaal-Hartz the Government has produced 580,000 lbs. of vegetables.

This is Government farming on a big scale. The answer states further that those vegetables were produced for the interment camp. That is also a war matter, but we have to remember in that connection that that market becomes closed immediately to the farmers. It is true that the Government does not compete in the open markets at Johannesburg and Cape Town, but this special market has been closed in favour of the producers at Vaal-Hartz. The Government is acting in this matter in an autocratic way. I should further like to point out that the labour that is employed in connection with the production of these vegetables is supplied by prisoners, Italian prisoners-of-war and Government officials—all people who are paid from Government funds. In other words, the farmer’s taxes are utilised for doing work with which he has to compete. The Government obtains those things practically free of charge and it is thus enabled to produce on a cheaper basis because it sets about it with national funds. It is an important principle which we cannot just allow to slide. It is not only at Vaal-Hartz that this is happening; it is also happening at other places, and in this connection I would like to refer to the resolution which was taken by the Transvaal Agricultural Union—

That is not from the farmers at Vaal-Hartz but from the whole Transvaal Agricultural Union. The answer to that resolution was—

It is the old parrot war cry—

The prices of wheat and mealies have been fixed, and accordingly there is no competition in those lines. But what about vegetables? And it is just there that the Government is farming on a big scale. The farmers at Vaal-Hartz were immediately eliminated from that market. The people are disturbed at the position that prevails there, and accordingly I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister. I do not think that I need to point out that this is a strong socialistic principle. We find that to a strong degree in Russia, where the state farms on a large scale, and where there is a socialist or communist government. I cannot believe that we wish to countenance anything of that sort in this country. I should now like to bring another point to the notice of the Minister, and it is in connection with my own constituency. The Vaal River flows past and there are many farmers who are anxious to make use of its waters. No scheme is in operation and I want to make a plea here for an irrigation scheme. But the Minister must think over the matter of providing the farmers with engines. He could give them to the farmers at cost price and against payment on long term credit. This would put the farmers in a position to pump out the water which is at present running fast, and they would then be able to produce on a large scale and be able to pay off the cost of the engine in a comparatively short time. They would certainly be able to pay it off in ten years’ time as a result of the increased production. That is something over which the people feel strongly, and where the Government can be helpful. In conclusion, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) stated here in connection with the mealies that are lying rotting on the stations. I have myself gone and looked at them. At one station 300,000 bags are lying in the open in the rain. They are rotting and the rats and weavils are destroying the mealies, and it is estimated that in this way 30,000 bags have been lost. I looked at the position for myself and I saw the mealies lying there rotting. According to the Government food is very scarce, and I do not think that in these times we can afford to have 30,000 out of 300,000 bags of mealies left to rot. When we try to pick up the bags they fall to pieces. There is also another matter. If we use the mealies that remain they have a musty smell. The mustiness from the rotted mealies has spread through the other mealies, and the millers will not buy them because they say they are unfit for human consumption. Who is going to bear the loss? I think that it is the action of the Government that is responsible for that. They compel the farmers to sell the mealies to the co-operatives. The co-operatives did not have the room for storing the mealies and consequently they were left in the open air in the rain. I want the Minister therefore to take this closely to heart, that these losses should not be borne by the farmers. I want to go further. The new harvest is on us and no provision has been made for storage. No wood or galvanised iron is available. The same position will prevail again this year if fresh provision is not made, and I expect that in this district more mealies will be produced than last year. They have not had exceptional rains and they expect a record harvest.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister’s statement in connection with the allowances paid to stock inspectors. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the services they rendered to this country, especially those that are responsible for the eradietion of scab in this country. The salaries they have received in the past have been quite inadequate, and I trust that this allowance that has been announced will be of a permanent nature. I shall also be pleased if the Minister will make a statement in regard to agricultural implements in this country. We know that the Controller is in America to try to improve supplies, but a statement will be very welcome. One’of the most pleasing speeches I have heard today was that by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson). It was very pleasing to hear a representative of one of the large urban areas taking a serious view of soil erosion in this country, and I trust that with the help of the urban community we shall be able to tackle this problem on a much larger national scale so that the future of the land can be secure. One other matter I want to raise is in connection with “dikkop”, a disease peculiar to the North-West. I know that on two or three occasions the department has investigated it, but as far as I know, with no result. This disease causes a considerable loss in those parts, and I trust that the Minister’s department will take a serious view of this matter. I know an experimental farm station has been established at Koopmansfontein to investigate vermeersiekte and if necessary a similar one should be established in the North-West with a view to discovering some means of combating dikkop, it causes the loss of hundreds of thousands of sheep every year.

I was unfortunately out of the House for a minute to make a telephone call but I understand that the Minister said that the prices of deciduous fruits had been fixed. A little while ago I tried to buy grapes at a well known establishment here in Cape Town.

The very best grapes cost 6d.

Why is it that I must pay 6d. a pound for grapes? What does the farmer get? Not even 3d. a pound. Grapes were offered to me out of a paraffin case. I admit that they were nice grapes, and they told me that they were first-grade. But they were not export grapes, because hanepoot grapes are not exported. It does not help to say that it is export grapes that are so expensive. How can the people eat grapes at that price?

You can get 5 lbs. of good grapes for 1s.

But they asked me 6d. a pound. Of course I would not have rotten grapes.

It is the Price Controller who has fixed the price.

Is it again a case of the Price Controller? It appears to me that the whole business is in such a tangle that we cannot find out what we have to pay and where you can get the stuff. Why should we have to pay 6d. for a pound of grapes? They are not export grapes.

Those grapes in the flat cases are the very best.

Those that were offered to me were not in flat cases. They lay there in a heap, and the price was posted up—6d. a lb. I want to make it clear that we here are not opposed to control. We consider that there must be control, but if there is such a muddle that you don’t know where you are it is time to intervene. I will not now go into the matter of dried fruit. Dried fruit is sent by us to Worcester and then they are sent back from Worcester. But I am now dealing with fresh fruit. In think it is a disgrace that we are asked to pay 4d. for an apple, 3d. for a peach, and 6d. for a lb. of grapes.

If they ask the wrong prices the hon. member can go to the Police.

But what should they ask? That is just what I am trying to find out. The man says these are his best grapes, and apparently he is allowed to charge 6d. But I say that it is a disgrace that we have to pay 6d. I know of a farmer in Nieuwoudtville who in the past always bought grapes in paraffin cases for 3s. 9d., and he went into Namaqualand with his lorry and sold them amongst the farmers. What is the position today? That farmer is not allowed to sell the grapes under 7s. 6d. He would be statisfied with selling them at 3s. 9d. but he has to sell them at 7s. 6d. The result is that the people in Namaqualand do not get any grapes. But my point is that the position in regard to grapes is that you do not know where you stand. Take the wheat position. There you also have control. The best grade wheat has, I believe, been fixed at 36s. But what is the fixed price for the lowest grade? I believe it is 24s., in any case it is much less then 36s. Now I should like to know where the lowest grade wheat is to be found. If you buy a bag of flour of the poorest grade you have to pay 43s. a bag. That is fixed. The previous Minister of Agriculture was never able to explain that to me. I should like to know in what flour that low grade wheat is to be found — that which is milled at 24s.? Is that the flour for which I have to pay 43s.? Then there is a mistake somewhere. The previous member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) stated that the milling shares, the shares in the milling industry, had soared tremendously and that the mills were making enormous profits. In many cases the shares have increased 100 per cent. on the original value.

That is so.

There is a man who knows. There must be a mistake somewhere. Why should my income be limited and I have to ask less while the milling companies are making these enormous profits?

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 4th April.